Publisher's Corner

The Americans Who Risked Everything

2009-07-02T22:24:00.000-07:00

by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.

My father, Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr., delivered this oft-requested address locally a number of times, but it had never before appeared in print until it appeared in The Limbaugh Letter. My dad was renowned for his oratory skills and for his original mind; this speech is, I think, a superb demonstration of both. I will always be grateful to him for instilling in me a passion for the ideas and lives of America's Founders, as well as a deep appreciation for the inspirational power of words which you will see evidenced here.

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

"Most Glorious Service"

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.
William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.
Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.
Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.
John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.
Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.
Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.
Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.
George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.
Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.
John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."
William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.
Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.
Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of Independence somewhere around the house - in an old history book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one of those artificially aged "parchments" we all got in school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human history.

There is no more profound sentence than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."

These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for liberty in the human spirit.

"Sacred honor" isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears.

- Rush Limbaugh III

Republished with the permission and courtesy of The Rush Limbaugh Show and Premiere Radio Networks, June 22, 2009 (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/american_who_risked_everything_1.guest.html)

AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN HISTORY: It’s Distinctives and Importance

2009-07-02T16:14:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from an Address ByVerna M. Hall, December 1980

There is indeed a stirring in the land—the Lord’s stirring of His people for the preservation and rebuilding of America—the world’s first Christian Republic.It is like unto Haggai 1:14, “And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedeck, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people, and they came and did work in the house of the Lord of hosts, their God.” Matthew Henry, the colonial clergy’s commentator says of this passage, “When God has work to do, he will either find or make men fit to do it, and stir them up to it.”

Learning and teaching America’s Christian history and education is GOD’S WORK, as we will show you — it is not just an academic course, an interesting study, a personal theory or idea. IT IS THE LORD’S WORK, which is why it is so important for God’s people to KNOW it, and why it is so dangerous for them to continue to ignore it, which they have done now for at least a hundred years. God’s people have indeed been tempting God, and it is an exceedingly dangerous business.

There are God’s people who are concerned about the economic situation of our nation—and well they should be. There are those who are concerned about the moral situation of our nation—and well they should be. There are those who are concerned with the consequences of public education—and well they should be. There are God’s people who are concerned about our governmental situation—and well they should be. There are those who are concerned about the rapidly growing socialist influence around the world, etc., and well they should be. But dangerous as these issue areas are to the well-being of our nation, they are still only the secondary areas of concern—they are but the effect of not dealing with the primary area—which might be summed up as American Christians deliberately forgetting God’s Hand in the establishment and formation of the nation—America.

There is another very large group of God’s people in this nation who are not dealing with this primary area, and it is composed of those who are not at all concerned about the condition of America, or who have very little sense of responsibility for it, who are only interested in one phase of Christianity—that of evangelism. All important as the Great Commission is, it is not to preclude the practical living of the Biblical principles of life and government. It is not to preclude God’s people from remembering God's hand in this nation's history.

WHY THIS IS THE LORD’S WORK

A moment ago I told you that teaching and learning America’s Christian history was important because it is the Lord’s work. All Christian ministries are the Lord’s work—what is distinct, or more important about this activity?

Let me answer by saying the omission of this subject is a sin of omission on the part of God’s people, and has accounted for the failure of our ever-increasing and widening Christian activities to make an impact upon our nation’s life and standards. Likewise did the understanding and constant remembrance of this fact by the founding father generations make a positive impact upon all aspects of life—including government.

To illustrate: Using the business graph technique, consider the amount of money which has been expended on Christian activities during the last fifty years. The amount is exceedingly great—in the billions, and the number of crusades, radio and TV stations, book stores, publication houses, magazines, churches, schools, (audio tapes, video tapes, tracts, bulletins, mailings, etc.) all have an enviable percentage increase for this period. But consider the status of our nation during that same period. All areas have declined which should have shown the effect of this expenditure of funds for Christian activities—home life, morals, business standards and ethics, economics, and government. Not one of these areas is of the quality of fifty years ago. Why has not God honored all of this expenditure for His ministries?

Participating in giving back to American Christians a knowledge of the providence of God in America’s history is the most important evangelical, educational, economic and political activity in which you can be engaged. With this knowledge restored, the wonderful Christian ministries now in operation, can have their desired effect — but without it the gap between Christian activities and their effect upon our social, civil, economic life as a nation will grow wider and wider.

By contrast, consider the same type of business graph for the period in our nation’s history from 1750 to 1800. The expenditure for the outreach of Christian activities was minimal when compared to the last fifty years, but note the effect of Christian principles on all phases of life! It was in this period that God brought forth the world’s first Christian Republic; established the greatest degree of freedom for the individual, home, church and school from the state for the first time in mankind’s history! The Christians must have been doing something right during that period which we are not doing today, and I submit that it is in this one area primarily, that of remembering God’s Hand in our history.

Our nation is not in trouble because of the aggressive activity of socialists, liberals, communists, one worlders, Trilateralists, world bankers, etc. — it is this way because of the failure of American Christians to remember, and value, the Christian History of their nation and the biblical principles of their government... their failure to value what it cost to produce the freedom they take so much for granted.

When one knows something of what is going on governmentally— the abuses of our system, local, state and national— it is very easy to become convinced that the negative forces are the aggressor and the cause of our problems; but the contrary is true—they are but filling the places which should have been occupied by those understanding Biblical principles of government and economics. Those we call the offenders are merely filling the places of leadership in all fields of endeavor, which have been given them by the default of the Christians. This has been going on for over a hundred years; is it any wonder that Biblical principles of our history and government, of economics and education are not in control in our country?

This is a very important point to understand as we enter into the matter of learning what God’s purpose is for America. Otherwise, we will seem to be “not on target”, whereas, if one will admit that our nation’s problems have been caused by American Christians ignoring what we will be studying—then you can see what I said before—this educational activity becomes the most important evangelical, political activity in which you can be engaged. I have dwelt on the point of motive for teaching and learning America’s Christian history, because over the years we have found there are two basic reasons why American Christians do not know this subject, and resist learning it and supporting such activity financially:

They are not interested in the subject of history or government, and feel to be studying it is to take away from Bible study (more important Bible doctrines such as salvation, separation, sanctification, etc.) or church activities (Sunday School, Neighborhood Witness, anti-abortion demonstrations, etc.); they feel this subject is secular and therefore should separate from it.
They are interested in government but feel they should spend their time waking people up to the issues because the situation is so serious. They do not see that studying history, even America’s Christian history, is going to do anything about the situation now. It will take too long.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS REGARDING HISTORY

“The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law; and forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them” (Psalms 78:9-11).

Matthew Henry says of this passage: “Our forgetfulness of God’s works is at the bottom of our disobedience to his laws.” Noah Webster describes “bottom”: “The foundation or ground work of any thing, as of an edifice, or of any system or moral subject; the base, or that which supports any superstructure.”

The American Christians’ forgetting God’s works, God’s actions (God’s Providence) in the forming of America, is at the bottom, or base of our national problems. As we forgot we began to disobey His laws in the field of government—individually and collectively; we allowed and furthered socialism with all the sinful aspects of it we see in our nation today.

If we will accept the responsibility for our nation’s situation, and see that our forgetting God’s works, God’s actions, God’s Providence is the primal cause, then the repenting of this sin of omission, coupled with the willingness to learn what God has done—the events of our history—will begin, with the Lord’s blessing, the restoring and rebuilding of our nation. But the individual American Christian’s activity must be TWOFOLD—it is not enough to repent, be sorry. The proof of the genuineness of the repentance lies in the second step—the willingness to take the time to learn. This is always the Christian’s stumbling block—willingness to change his way of life. Here is where the character struggle lies. Here is where the battle for the survival of America and all she stands for in relation to the Gospel—here, in the character of American Christians, is the battleground for the survival of America.

Now let us look at Hosea. “For Israel hath forgotten his maker, and building palaces” (Hosea 8:14). The phrase “forgotten his Maker” is of importance to us, for it applies to America Christians — they have forgotten their Maker as Americans.

G. Campbell Morgan, commenting on this phrase tells us there is a different meaning to the word “forget”. He says men cannot forget God. “They can deny Him, but in so doing they are still remembering Him. Men do not forget God intellectually…The Hebrew word means quite simply, to MISLAY. Israel hath mislaid his Maker. You know what it is to mislay something. You have not forgotten it, but you have mislaid it.” Rev. Morgan goes on to say: “After Moses had led Israel through all the difficulties — what is the one grave peril he warns them against: Forgetting God—to mislay God—to be oblivious of.” Moses saw Israel down the coming years, and he knew its supreme peril would be that God should be mislaid, regarding the events by which God had brought them out of bondage.

To emphasize this point a bit more. If a piece of paper were to be handed to all the clergy in the country with the instructions to list the providential events in the Old Testament times, by and large they all could do it well. But if they were handed another piece of paper with instructions to list some providential events leading to the establishment of America and her Constitution — only a very few would be able to do so.

If the clergy cannot do it, can we expect (nominal) Christians to do it? But two hundred years ago the clergy could do this, and did it for the edification of the people. They published such (Thanksgiving, Election, and Artillery) sermons so the people could study them… [The end of Miss Hall’s address has been lost. Nonetheless, its theme is well taken. Therefore, we have taken the liberty, with permission of the Foundation for American Christian Education, to provide an appropriate conclusion to this section on the place of the Bible in history from The Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America.—ed.]

SERMONS AS POLITICAL PAMPHLETS¹

Modern scholarship has established the fact that the many sermons of our pastors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were dissertations on government—individual self-government. They were not political, in our modern sense of the word, but governmental. For a people Biblically educated it was thought right and proper to seek first God’s direction, learn His truths to determine how men should govern themselves individually and collectively. “The annual ‘Election Sermon’—a perpetual memorial, continued down through the generations from century to century—still bears witness that our fathers ever began their civil year and its responsibilities with an appeal to Heaven, and recognized Christian morality as the only basis of good laws.”² Election day in the colonies was celebrated by long governmental sermons delivered by pastors and printed for circulation throughout the colonies. Many were sent to England.

American Federalism, the practice of self-government at every level of society and government, could not have been learned apart from the study of the Bible. Therefore the history of the Bible and the history of American liberty are inseparable.

There were, in addition to the Sunday and Fast Day sermons, different types, all contributing to the education of the public. Today there is “a famine in the land … of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11)—a famine of instruction in Biblical principles of government. Oh that we might raise up pastors like our Colonial clergy willing to restore the foundations of American Federalism—Christian Self-Government with Union.

ELECTION SERMONS

These were given at the seat of government in answer to the request of either the House of Representatives or the Council upon the election of the Governor’s Council. These sermons were many pages in length and dealt with the subject of character and civil government, showing that both areas must conform to God’s Word.

Consider an excerpt from the Election Sermon of May 26, 1742 by Nathaniel Appleton, Pastor of the First Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, preached before His Excellency William Shirley, Esq. Governour, His Honor the Lieutenant Governor, The Honourable His Majesty’s Council, and House of Representatives. Rev. Appleton’s text was from Psalms 72:1–3, “Give the King thy judgments, O God, and thy Righteousness unto the King’s Son. He shall Judge thy People with Righteousness, and thy Poor with Judgment. The Mountains shall bring Peace to the People, and the little Hills by Righteousness.”

“But then if we consider the moral Law as delivered in Thunders and Lightnings from Mount Sinai, and then written upon Tables of Stone, to denote the Perpetuity of it; and if we consider the particular Precepts under these general Laws, recorded up and down in the sacred Scriptures, we shall find such Precepts of Wisdom, such Rules of Justice, Truth and Goodness laid down, as are a sufficient Directory for us in every Station of Life, whether private or Publick, whether in natural, civil, or sacred Authority. And most certainly, there are no such Maxims of Wisdom, Justice and Goodness to be found anywhere, as in the holy Scriptures.“And now these are the Judgments of God that are given to us as well as unto the Nation of Israel; for they are founded upon the Nature and Relation of Things, and are of universal and perpetual Obligation. They are Precepts & Rules that God in his infinite Wisdom has judged most proper and suitable for such Beings as we, who perfectly knows our Frame, and what Sort of Laws are proper for us to be govern’d by. These are Judgments and Laws that Length of Time, or Changes of Circumstances dont alter the Nature of, nor weaken our Obligation to them. These Laws are founded upon Truth, and Justice and Goodness, and so are Immovable as the Mountains, and Immutable as God himself.

“So that for God to give his Judgments to Kings and Rulers, is to give them a clear Understanding of those Rules of moral Government, that he has laid down in his Word, and that they may learn from the Word of God, what is right and just, true and good, and that they may frame their Notions of these Things, not meerly from their own Reason, nor from the Morals of the Heathen, but from the Oracles of god, which give us the clearest, the fullest and the most refined Notions of moral Vertues, and fix our Obligations to them upon their Proper Basis, viz. The Authority of God. (p. 11–12) …

“I have but one Law-Book that I shall pretend to recommend to your careful perusal, and that is the Holy Bible, which contains the Laws, Statutes, and Judgments, the Reports and Records of the King of Heaven: There you will find that God has given us, as we are told, right Judgments, and true laws, good Statutes & Commandments. (Neh. 9:13) O then, Let all your private Counsel, and all your publick Pleas, be such as agree with these Divine statutes.” (p. 54) …

“Before I shut up, I must entreat you to spare me a Word to the body of the people very briefly. And here let me say, That as the Judgments, and the Righteousness of God are necessary to make good Rulers and good Ministers, so are they to make a good People. The same Rules that will teach, and the same Righteousness and Grace that will dispose and enable Rulers to govern aright, are as necessary to direct and dispose you to submit to the Government over you. And the same Laws that impower some to rule, demand Subjection and Obedience from you.…

“And here I would observe, that we have always set up for a religious People, and have gloried in it. I pray God that we may by all our Carriages make it more and more evident that this Character does belong unto us. And that the great Awakenings that have been of late, and are still among People, may issue in such a sober, humble, obedient, regular Carriage, as may give us more and more Occasions for Thanksgivings to God upon this Account. And let me tell you, that Subjection to Authority is such a very considerable Article in Christianity, that there is no pretending to be Christians, much less reformed Christians without it.” (p. 58)

Prologue by the editors:
This stirring sermon excerpt exemplifies how Americans routinely applied the Scriptures to ordinary life, as a means to make the Great Commission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ successful upon every possible societal foundation, so that whether they ate or drank, or whatever they did, early American Christians did all they did for the glory of God. No areas of life were neutral, not even table manners. Contemporary Americans are horribly ignorant of this great heritage.

Since the early 1980s, when both Jerry Nordskog and Ron Kirk became acquainted with Verna Hall, Rosalie Slater, and this great Christian legacy, this ignorance seems to have grown exponentially. The need for the revival of the knowledge of God’s Providence in Christian history ought to be clear to those with even a small inkling of what the Gospel requires in stewardship over foundation institutions such as the home, church, education, and civil liberty and justice. At this very moment—as these words are being written—the House of Representatives has passed the onerous, unconstitutional, and historically watershed bill known as Cap and Trade. If Christians do not now respond to the call to get Biblical wisdom as to the foundations of civilization may very well be destroyed, and the passage often cited by the Foundation for American Christian Education may become our common lament: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3).

Let us not further squander nearly four hundred years of American heritage, with the prospect of perhaps another century to pass before we might recover our once common liberty. Rather, at this time when we ordinarily celebrate America’s Christian liberty in the form of our Declaration of Independence and of the successful defense of the ancient rights of Englishmen through the following long War of Independence, may we solemnly reflect on this great heritage, and seek each one our rightful contribution to its recovery, for the sake of the Gospel and the glory of our God.

Permission to republish by Foundation for American Christian Education (http://face.net/).

Hall, Verna M., Slater, Rosalie J.: The Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America. San Francisco : Foundation for American Christian Education, 1983, pp. 22-24
Hall, Verna M., The Christian History of the American Revolution. San Francisco : Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976, p. 191.

Government Schools, Parents & Kids: How Will We Answer the Lord, and What Will He Say?

2009-06-25T10:29:00.000-07:00

By Eugene Clingman

How will we answer the Lord, and what will he say?
About 85% of children from Christian homes attend government schools. In so-called public schools Christian children (all children) are continually taught (implicitly or explicitly) that there is no Creator God, or that if there is a Creator out there somewhere, it is not worth the time or energy to learn anything about Him. The records show that more than 80% of Christian children who attend the government school system come out of that system thinking like humanists, essentially paganized, and by adulthood are no longer professing Christians.

I will ask a very basic question. What worldview are Christian parents required by God to raise their children in? This is not a moralistic question springing from my own prejudice. The question is asked in light of Deuteronomy 6:1-9 (read and carefully consider this passage). This passage is crystal clear that God requires the children of believers to be immersed in the thought patterns of the faith, day and night. On the contrary, 85% of Christian parents daily place their children under an ungodly system to be propagandized (30 hours a week) with the fairytale of the humanistic evolutionary worldview. That worldview says the universe and everything in it formed by accident through random processes during whatever billion number of years they currently claim it took (this number changes periodically)! This fairytale, humanistic, naturalistic worldview is taught not only in the science classroom, it is implicit in nearly all the curricula. Consider the following possible conversation between God and a Christian parent.

Click here for another article by Eugene Clingman on this subject Concerning the Education of Christian Children: Government Schools are Succeeding! But are We?

God: “Did you bring your children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord?”

With a feeling of accomplishment that parent might answer,

Parent: “Yes Lord, they went to Sunday school and attended church Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, a total of 6 hours a week!” I imagine the conversation might continue something like this –

God: “How much time were they taught by the pagan (those who “refused to receive Christianity”; Webster 1828), unbelieving government school system?”

Parent: “Well Lord, Monday through Friday it was 6 or 7 hours each day. And sometimes on Saturday they attended special government school events, games, or activities. Let’s see, that is a total of not less than 30 hours a week.”

God: “But I asked you to train your children “diligently” in Christian living and worldview from the time you get up in the morning until the time you go to bed, when you sit in your house, and when you travel (Deuteronomy 6; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Proverbs 13:20; 1 Corinthians 15:33). By the way, when your children traveled on the school bus, were they shown a godly example and were they learning the Christian worldview or were they learning the ways of the pagans? You do remember that I told you not to learn the ways of the unbelievers don’t you? (Deut. 18:9; Jer. 10:2) From morning to sunset, your children are to be taught to love God with all their hearts. They should be instructed in Christian truth and true knowledge of the universe I created (science, history, the arts, socialization, even mathematics; 2 Tim. 3:15). They can only learn true knowledge if I and my Son Jesus Christ are at the center of that knowledge (Col. 2:3; Heb. 1:3). You do realize that science is not real science unless I, the Creator of all things, am placed at the center and as the foundation, don’t you? You do realize that history is not real history unless it is studied with this principle in mind – I, God, am sovereign over history; nations rise and fall based on how they respond to me, and my Son Jesus Christ (Psalm 2). Unless history is taught within the context of the fact that I have an overall plan for history, and that not even a bird falls to the ground apart from me, it is not true history, but only many facts disjointed from reality (Matthew 10:29). Were your children taught history with me, the Lord over history in the very forefront of the instruction they received? And socialization, I hear there is a lot of concern about socialization these days – were they taught how to conduct themselves as Christians during those 30 hours a week? Were they being taught and also given living examples of how to live in purity? (1 Tim. 4:12) Or were they taught the pluralistic view that purity is ok but is only one of many possible options? Did your children become well informed about the ways of the unbelievers or were they “babes” when it comes to evil? (1 Cor. 14:20) Yes, socialization is important to my Kingdom. Were the boys and young men taught and admonished to look with purity upon the girls and young ladies, to treat them respectively as sisters? (I Tim. 5:2) Were the girls encouraged to dress in a modest manner so as not to encourage lust in the young men? You know young men naturally struggle with such challenges and don’t need any help from scantily dressed girls. Yes, socialization is important. Were they socialized in godliness, or did they learn to pattern themselves after the pagans (those who “refused to receive Christianity”)?

Parent: “Yes, Lord, our kids do look and act a bit like the average public school kid. We knew there might be some risks, but we remembered your Great Commission, and wanted our kids to witness to their friends!”

God: “Did I give the Great Commission to children? Don’t you realize there is a great battle going on in the world?”

Parent: “Yes Lord, we sent our little soldiers out to the battle every weekday. After all, you don’t want us to keep them sheltered do you?”

God: “I wanted your children to go to war, but I wanted them to be trained and matured for warfare first. Let’s think together a moment. Would you place guns in the hands of your grade school sons and daughters and send them to the front lines in a war against grown men? I know you would not. But isn’t that what you have done with my children whom you sent into the pagan (those who “refused to receive Christianity”) government school? Isn’t it apparent that the government schools are a major weapon in the war against me and my kingdom? You sent them right into the enemy’s training camp, and statistically the larger percentage of Christian kids who go to the government school training camps end up denying their Christian faith. You would not send children to the front lines in a war, but you sent them into the middle of a more crucial war. In this war, the enemy has your child in the sights of his gun. Let’s think further, is a child able to stand against adult teachers with the experience of years, the training of college, accumulated knowledge, and a place of credibility and authority that often rivals or exceeds the parent’s in the eyes of the child? Does a child have the ability to discern when a false premise is made and false conclusions drawn? Does the child have the ability to counter philosophic arguments that rule me, God, out of my universe (history, science, etc.)? Teachers of my children whom you have on loan from me, should train my children to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ, my Son (2 Corinthians 10:5). I want your children to be trained so they eventually can counter false ideas. But if most of what is in their heads denies or ignores me, they are not being trained for me and my Kingdom, but for their enemy and mine!”

Parent: “But Lord, our school was different! We had nine Christian teachers, and our principle was Christian too!”

God: “And did those 9 Christian teachers and the Christian principle place Christ at the center of all they taught? Or did their teaching suggest that my Christ and his kingdom are one of many possibilities? Did they essentially follow the government imposed curriculum that either ignores my existence or actively denies me? I know that in America teachers are required by law, and by the contract they sign, not to teach about me, my Christ, and my kingdom. Did they obey those laws and fulfill the covenant contract they signed?”

Parent: “But Lord, I had to work and so I needed the Federal babysitter, or I mean government school! I had no options!”

For a free full color tract that includes this conversation between God and a Christian parent, click here

Education for the Kingdom of God “Cultivating Reverence in the Home”

2009-06-19T14:07:00.000-07:00

by Ronald Kirk

The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.—Proverbs 14:27

In this age of democratic equality-of-outcome and rights-as-entitlements, reverential regard for God and corresponding honor for men are rare. This should not be so. The Scriptures supply plenty of reason to cultivate an attitude of honor toward the deserving. Practicing reverence and living honorably will exert a godly influence on our neighbors for the Gospel. Most importantly, upon our covenantal duty before God, we should also cultivate in our children and ourselves a character worthy of regard. To inculcate an attitude of honor toward parents and elders in our children is to prepare them to venerate the Lord.

Reverence toward God

The Hebrew and Greek words for fear used in the Biblical term the “fear of the Lord” find their English counterpart in the words reverence and veneration. Noah Webster defines reverence as:

Fear mingled with respect and esteem; veneration…The fear acceptable to God, is a filial fear (emphasis added), an awful reverence of the divine nature, proceeding from a just esteem of his perfections, which produces in us an inclination to his service and an unwillingness to offend him. Reverence is nearly equivalent to veneration, but expresses something less of the same emotion. It differs from awe, which is an emotion compounded of fear, dread or terror, with admiration of something great, but not necessarily implying love or affection. We feel reverence for a parent, and for an upright magistrate, but we stand in awe of a tyrant.

The Creator of heaven and earth, the Savior of our souls, should command our veneration. His Living Word created the vastness of the universe and the splendor of heaven. His power over the earth and His execution of justice instill awe among those who do not revere Him. Perhaps our greatest reverence arises from the painful fact of Jesus’ humiliation, suffering, and death upon the cross for our sins. Eternal life upon His Resurrection and assent to His throne add reverential joy.

Unfortunately, men do not naturally or easily reverence the invisible but almighty God. Consequently, He requires honor and compels awe. A general attitude for due reverence will help men to overcome the sinful disposition for contempt of others and will encourage due reverence toward God.

Honor toward Men

As Dr. Rushdoony rightly notes, men have claimed more than their share of honor in competition with God¹. However, it should also be clear that paying due honor to men is a Biblical practice. God plants greatness in men, bringing glory to Him and regard to those whom He makes great. The greatness of godly men serves to inculcate in others a disposition for reverence of God. Stories and histories portraying true nobility exemplify dignity of office and magnanimity. For example, Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe clearly distinguishes character worthy of honor from affected nobility that inspires awe through mean bullying. Moses, King Alfred the Great of England, Oliver Cromwell, and George Washington present portraits of magnificent character. The proverbial American frontier home elicits admiration for its unassuming greatness. There, God used both the persistent faith of the pioneering child of God and the harshness of his life to engrave a character of deep furrow and substance, like the relief of some great bronze commemorative plaque. The courage and dynamic presence of such men of God as John Knox, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and John Calvin each arouse reverential regard. Good people cannot help admire the gravity and grandeur of such men as these. Their lives glorify God. Christian homes will do well to make the rich literary heritage of great men and women a regular part of family intellectual life.

Given that God made men and women in His image and destined them for glory with Christ, Christians should grant proper respect to their fellows. Observing honor toward men properly reflects reverence of God. Love God; love your neighbor. The Apostle Paul enjoins honor to whom honor is due. Honor here and in Hebrews 12:9, translated reverence in the AV and applied to one’s father, means to invert. To invert oneself is to view and treat another as superior. It is inversion because of the natural man’s disposition to make ourselves superior at another’s expense (e.g. Cain and Abel). In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word translated honor means heavy weight. Weight in the sense of honor means moral substance or moral gravity. The New Testament counterpart often translated honor is a set of related terms essentially meaning material value and similarly apply to moral worth.

The Scriptures supply many examples of due honor given to men. Abraham, in Genesis 23:12, prostrates himself before Ephron and the people of Heth as a suitable sign of respect. Paul urges Timothy to, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” (1 Timothy 5:17). Honorific titles in Genesis suggest a yet remaining reverence for human life, coming so soon after near extinction in the Great Flood. Rachel refers to her father as “lord” (Genesis 31:35), as does Ruth to Boaz (Ruth 2:13). In His earthly life, men uniformly addressed Jesus as Lord or Rabbi. The common terms mister, miss, and mistress (usually pronounced missus and spelled Mrs.) communicate honorific respect to the present day, at least in form. The point is that men, especially godly ones, have since Biblical times treated their fellows reverentially.

Parental Reverence

The Fifth Commandment requires children to honor parents. Arguably a part of the First Tablet, it parallels the requirements toward God of the first four Commandments. Whether the Fifth Commandment is a part of the First Tablet or Second, it is clearly pivotal to those commandments directly concerning God and those directly concerning men. John Calvin says of the Fifth Commandment that society itself depends upon children learning proper reverence². For children, who by nature know nothing of God, honoring parents prepares the heart and habits to an attitude of appropriate reverence. The covenant child must learn the weighty things of life, especially the weight of majesty and grace residing in the King of Kings. The child’s father is thus extremely important to him. God made men fathers and calls Himself our Father for a reason that should not be lost on us.

How do parents inculcate reverence? First, parents must possess or learn what they seek to cultivate in their children. Fathers and mothers provide the chief example to young children. Children, out of their sin nature, easily acquire any parental sloppiness, vulgarity, or baseness in habits, manners, or speech. Therefore, parents should practice elevated Biblical conduct as a way of life. Where it reflects sound Biblical doctrine, emulating the noble conduct of God’s men and women in history may serve as an apt parental discipline.

A good example is not enough. Biblical education includes instruction, and discipline or directed practice. Children must learn that selfishness contradicts agapé—Scriptural charity. Children’s natural selfishness serves sin; selfishness militates toward contempt of others. It is a joy to make another happy, but requires a great deal of practice. My daughter has observed that my three-month-old first grandson (as precious as he truly is—oh, you should see him) already exhibits some signs of sinful attention demanding. If parents will minutely observe and correct the smallest patterns of conduct at the earliest age, they will train their children toward righteousness and the ability to demonstrate proper honor and reverence.

For some, it may be a startling revelation that parents can and ought to expect obedience of their children. A law is worse than meaningless if it is not consistently enforced. I feel considerable pain when I observe parental permissiveness that does not correct selfishness and train positive righteousness in conduct. A parental disposition to neglect correction, when a little benign pain would serve the cause of Christ, is not love but sin unto idolatry.

It is important to recognize that we Christian parents can unwittingly encourage the modern social and political view of authorities as entitlement suppliers. As a father, if I make myself just one of the boys, then perhaps I can relieve myself of some of the weight of my paternal authority. Rather, I should both require and deserve reverence. Learning personal righteousness and righteous parenting can be painful as we seek to correct childish recalcitrance in our children and ourselves! Mothers, in their serving and nurturing nature may encourage contempt toward themselves and others when they refuse to require respect and obedience of their children. I have many times observed mothers ignoring or excusing their children’s abuse. Rather, mothers must remember the holy trust for their part in the eternal well-being of their young. Fathers must establish the child’s respect for mother. Such noble federal headship is a holy trust, a burden to carry, but one that will return great blessings in our grown children. Particular disciplines help establish reverence in the home. Parents can teach children to yield to adults in speech and place. The child who forces himself to the forefront or runs across the path of his elder demonstrates selfishness and not respect. The child who offers his seat or holds a door open to his mother or father practices love. The loving and reverent child will voluntarily yield the better portion of his favorite food to mom. Parents should require proper respect for a parent’s person. Ultra familiarity breeds contempt, not respect. Answering by appropriate title or name encourages loving respect.

Parents might require their children to answer them “yes, ma’am” or “no sir,” or as our family prefers, “no, mom” or “yes, dad.”

Love, grace, and tenderness are not at odds with requiring parental reverence. Meek and tender love goes far. However, parents must be ready to command when needed. A sullen or rebellious child may require a restrained degree of severity. I may get close to my son’s face and say with a low voice, “You will not treat your mother this way!” The rod is a Biblical remedy, particularly effective on young children. Small doses of strict discipline to subdue sin can quickly release a spirit amply capable of the liberty of self-government.

What honor is due to those of a more base character? The Scriptures speak against reviling Satan. A certain degree of respect is required even of the devil. Evil men deserve some degree of respect, if not toward their persons, at least toward their office as the image of God. Jesus requires that we love our enemy. Therefore, short of sinful compromise, children ought to respect all elders.

To those who fear the Lord, the Scriptures promise knowledge, understanding, wisdom, confidence, wealth, and long life.³

Cultivating an attitude of respect among men, serves to cultivate an attitude of reverence before God.

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), p. 900.
“Nay, human society cannot be maintained in its integrity, unless children modestly submit themselves to their parents, and unless those, who are set over others by God’s ordinance are even reverently honored.” John Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1996), Volume III, p. 7.
Exodus 14:13; Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; and Proverbs 1:7; 10:27; 14:26; 22:4.

Originally published in the Chalcedon Report, May 2003, copyright Chalcedon Foundation, Vallecito, CA. Republished by permission.

Meaning in the Folding of the American Flag

2009-06-11T14:29:00.000-07:00

The following was received in a circular email. Many sources bear witness to the fact that the folding of the American flag at solemn military assemblies, such as funerals, has for a very long time held a Christian significance. In light of the wonderful documentation in The Book that Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation that America is a Christian nation, this should come as no surprise. More difficult is discerning the true origin of the tradition. For now, we must be happy to know that it is an old military tradition. According to a Fox News report and the American Legion website, in October of 2007 the Department of Veteran Affairs recanted its then newly adopted policy that forbade the recitation of the Christian meaning in the folding of the American flag.¹ Here then is a recounting of that tradition according to the email:

The flag is folded thirteen times.

The 1st fold of the flag is a symbol of life.

The 2nd fold is a symbol ofthe belief in eternal life.

The 3rd fold is made inhonor and remembrance of the veterans departing the ranks who gave a portion oftheir lives for the defense of the country to attain peace throughout theworld.

The 4th fold represents theweaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in time ofwar for His divine guidance.

Folding continues in the same manner:
The 5th fold is a tribute to the country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, ‘Our Country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.'

The 6th fold is for where people's hearts lie. It is with their heart that they pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

The 7th fold is a tribute to its Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that they protect their country and their flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of their republic.

The 8th fold is a tribute to the one who entered into the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day.

The 9th fold is a tribute to womanhood, and Mothers. For it has been through their faith, their love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great has been molded.

The 10th fold is a tribute to the father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of their country since they were first born.

The 11th fold represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon and glorifies in the Hebrews eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The 12th fold represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in the Christian’s eyes, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The 13th fold, or when the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost reminding them of their nation’s motto, 'In God We Trust.'

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington, and the Sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones, who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for them the rights, privileges and freedoms they enjoy today. There are some traditions and ways of doing things that have deep meaning. In the future, you'll see flags folded and now you will know why.

[1]Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306186,00.html),and the American Legion (http://www.legion.org/national/americanflag/folding).

Flag Day 2009, a Remembrance

2009-06-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

by Ronald W. Kirk
The Banner of the Cross and Flag of Our Union
Anniversary Meeting of the American Sunday School Union in Boston, May 27, 1852.

Let the Banner of the Cross go forth side by side with the Flag of our Union wherever it is carried; let the Spirit of the Lord be invoked to accompany the Spirit of Liberty in its triumphant march; let the Bible be everywhere on the same shelf with the Constitution; let there be no region so remote, no valley so secluded, no wilderness so solitary or so desolate, that men shall be able to escape from the visible presence of Religion, as manifested in the observance of the Lord’s Day, and in that most attractive and fascinating of all its forms,—the religious instruction of young children; let this be accomplished, and, depend upon it, the people of this country will have much less to fear for the stability of their institutions, and Congresses and Cabinets will have much less to do to preserve the Union. There will then, too, be no longer any doubt that we are “a power on earth;” a power for every purpose of promoting either the welfare of men, or the glory of God. ¹

Robert Charles Winthrop, seventh generation descendant of founding Puritan governor John Winthrop and one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives and United States Senator², reveals his understanding of this truth: The flag or ensign of a people or nation declares the character and ideals of that people in symbolic form. The hammer and sickle of the USSR obviously stood for pure materialism and the absolute authority of the state. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that early flags were “almost purely of a religious character.” For example, for centuries the English ensign was the red cross of St. George. Over time that flag would evolve to its present form. “The national flag of the British Empire is the union Jack in which are combined in union the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick.”

The American Flag
Certain details of the American flag’s design intent are apparently lost to history. Nonetheless, some concrete things are known. For example, in 1777, Congress resolved, “that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union between thirteen stars, white in a blue field.” ³

We may reasonably speculate upon other things. For example, stars have long represented man’s desire for heaven and to reflect heaven’s ways. As illustrated by Joseph’s dream, stars represent human luminaries (Genesis 37:9-10). Given the religious ancient significance of flags, we may with some confidence take Old Glory’s stripes as a reflection of the cross of Christ, or of his scourging taken on our behalf. The individual stars and stripes in union and relationship one to another, echo America’s unique and profound understanding of the equal ultimacy of the individual and the community as the universal reflection of God’s Holy Trinity in creation—perfect individuality and perfect love. Neither the national power swallows up the states, nor do the states abandon their responsibility to each other in the form of the Union.

The American Colors are held significant in the history of heraldry and flags, but the authorities seem to fails us when attributing the older meanings to those colors. It should be obvious that colors, as we have noted regarding flags in general, have long had a religious significance. For example, God commanded the use of red, white, and blue in the garments of the priests of God (Ex. 28, where linen represents white.) The priests, called cohen—mediators—in the Scriptures, are those who represent God to men and men to God. These colors in national flags thus symbolically declare the Lordship of God, and represent a venerable heritage before Him. Blue is a long-held symbol for truth and loyalty. White is purity and wholeness—holiness. The Bible takes light as understanding of God on His terms. The white stars on a dark blue background suggest the light of God shining out of the darkness of mankind’s sin and rebellion. Traditional modern interpretations hold that red, stands for courage, warfare, and sacrifice. We might go further. Red as a religious symbol in the Christian heritage must surely represent the blood of Christ and the new covenant (Matt. 26:28).

What the Scriptures Say
The Scriptures often refer to banners or ensigns as representing a cause or viewpoint. Consider, for example David’s metaphorical application of the banner as a sign of God’s strength and of victory for the godly in Psalm 60.

Psalm 60--To the chief Musician upon Shushaneduth, Michtam of David, to teach

60:1 O God, You have cast us off; You have broken us down; You have been displeased; Oh, restore us again!

2 You have made the earth tremble; You have broken it; Heal its breaches, for it is shaking.

3 You have shown Your people hard things; You have made us drink the wine of confusion.

4 You have given a banner to those who fear You, That it may be displayed because of the truth. Selah

5 That Your beloved may be delivered, Save with Your right hand, and hear me.

6 God has spoken in His holiness: "I will rejoice; I will divide Shechem And measure out the Valley of Succoth.

7 Gilead is Mine, and Manasseh is Mine; Ephraim also is the helmet for My head; Judah is My lawgiver.

8 Moab is My washpot; Over Edom I will cast My shoe; Philistia, shout in triumph because of Me."

9 Who will bring me into the strong city? Who will lead me to Edom?

10 Is it not You, O God, who cast us off? And You, O God, who did not go out with our armies?

11 Give us help from trouble, For vain is the help of man.

12 Through God we will do valiantly, For it is He who shall tread down our enemies.⁴

The great prophet Isaiah declares the person of Jesus Christ to be our very standard and banner, our King and our Lord. He represents everything good:

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious (Isaiah 11:10).

The soon to be released title from Nordskog Publishing The Book that Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation, by Jerry Newcombe of Coral Ridge Ministries powerfully establishes the Christian foundations of the United States. In this light, we are not ashamed to declare with Robert Winthrop a proper fellowship between the American flag and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Star Spangled Banner
Finally, let us consider the closing stanza of our National Anthem “The Star Spangled Banner” and keep it in our hearts in these difficult days:

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war's desolation;

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just;

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust!"

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave!

Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions, by Robert C. Winthrop, Vols. I & II, Boston, 1852, in Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the American Revolution : Consider and Ponder (San Francisco : Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976), p. 21.
"Robert Charles Winthrop," Encyclopedia Britannica 11th Edition (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1910), Vol. XXVII, p. 736, and “Robert Charles Winthrop," Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Charles_Winthrop).
“Flag,” Ibid., Vol. IX, p. 455-460.
Cited Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

I, Pencil

2009-06-09T21:38:00.000-07:00

by Leonard E. Read
Founder, Foundation for Economic Education
December 1983

I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write. (My official name is “Mongol 482.” My many ingredients are assembled, fabricated, and finished by Eberhard Faber Pencil Company, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.)

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that’s all I do.

You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery—more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, as a wise man observed, “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders” (Chesterton).

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that’s too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Innumerable Antecedents

Just as you cannot trace your family tree back very far, so is it impossible for me to name and explain all my antecedents. But I would like to suggest enough of them to impress upon you the richness and complexity of my background.

My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!

The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make flat cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.

Consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small, pencil-length slats less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. These are kiln dried and then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. People prefer that I look pretty, not a pallid white. The slats are waxed and kiln dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tint and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light and power, the belts, motors, and all the other things a mill requires? Sweepers in the mill among my ancestors? Yes, and included are the men who poured the concrete for the dam of a Pacific Gas & Electric Company hydroplant which supplies the mill’s power! Don’t overlook the ancestors present and distant who have a hand in transporting sixty carloads of slats across the nation from California to Wilkes-Barre!

Complicated Machinery

Once in the pencil factory—$4,000,000 in machinery and building, all capital accumulated by thrifty and saving parents of mine—each slat is given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays leads in every other slat, applies glue, and places another slat atop—a lead sandwich, so to speak. Seven brothers and I are mechanically carved from this “wood-clinched” sandwich.

My “lead” itself—it contains no lead at all—is complex. The graphite is mined in Ceylon. Consider these miners and those who make their many tools and the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped and those who make the string that ties the sacks and those who put them aboard ships and those who make the ships. Even the lighthouse keepers along the way assisted in my birth—and the harbor pilots.

The graphite is mixed with clay from Mississippi in which ammonium hydroxide is used in the refining process. Then wetting agents are added such as sulfonated tallow—animal fats chemically reacted with sulfuric acid. After passing through numerous machines, the mixture finally appears as endless extrusions—as from a sausage grinder—cut to size, dried, and baked for several hours at 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit. To increase their strength and smoothness the leads are then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico, paraffin wax, and hydrogenated natural fats.

My cedar receives six coats of lacquer. Do you know all of the ingredients of lacquer? Who would think that the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil are a part of it? They are. Why, even the processes by which the lacquer is made a beautiful yellow involves the skills of more persons than one can enumerate!

Observe the labeling. That’s a film formed by applying heat to carbon black mixed with resins. How do you make resins and what, pray, is carbon black?

My bit of metal—the ferrule—is brass. Think of all the persons who mine zinc and copper and those who have the skills to make shiny sheet brass from these products of nature. Those black rings on my ferrule are black nickel. What is black nickel and how is it applied? The complete story of why the center of my ferrule has no black nickel on it would take pages to explain.

Then there’s my crowning glory, inelegantly referred to in the trade as “the plug,” the part man uses to erase the errors he makes with me. An ingredient called “factice” is what does the erasing. It is a rubber-like product made by reacting rape seed oil from the Dutch East Indies with sulfur chloride. Rubber, contrary to the common notion, is only for binding purposes. Then, too, there are numerous vulcanizing and accelerating agents. The pumice comes from Italy; and the pigment which gives “the plug” its color is cadmium sulfide.

Vast Web of Know-How

Does anyone wish to challenge my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me?

Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others. Now, you may say that I go too far in relating the picker of a coffee berry in far off Brazil and food growers elsewhere to my creation; that this is an extreme position. I shall stand by my claim. There isn’t a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how. From the standpoint of know-how the only difference between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paraffin being a by-product of petroleum.

Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.

No Human Master-Mind

There is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.

It has been said that “only God can make a tree.” Why do we agree with this? Isn’t it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!

I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles; a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

The above is what I meant when writing, “If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing.” For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive master-minding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free men. Freedom is impossible without this faith.

Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn’t know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation’s mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of a faith in free men—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that the mail can be delivered only by governmental “master-minding.”

Testimony Galore

If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it’s all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine, or to tens of thousands of other things.

Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person’s home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one’s range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!

Leave Men Free

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.

Copyright © 2008 Hillsdale College.
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

George Tiller, Randall Terry and the Appeasers for Life

2009-06-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

(Or: Tiller Killed - Randall Terry on Trial)

By Harley David Belew

Randall Terry has a mouth on him, don’t he?

Many people wish he would shut it. Why?

Some say his “harsh rhetoric” makes their jobs harder. So, what is their job? Beats me. If their job is to convert heathens—the misguided “Pro-Choice” to Jesus -- then they should go preach the Gospel.

If their objective is to save babies from abortion, then they should stop criticizing Randall Terry and start saving babies.

Is it possible that Randall Terry’s pro-life critics are more concerned with the opinion of some anti-Christian “news” organization, or some phony overnight poll than the plight of the unborn? Are they here to please man or God?

It is Big Media and the abortion industry that should be apologizing for how they covered Tiller’s death. It is they who should be chastised. It is they who should dial back the rhetoric.

What do we care about the opinions of the pseudo-intellectual rabble that control a few microphones and video cameras? When will they ever fight for what is right? When will they ever come to your aid? When will they ever show us a single one of Tiller’s victims?

The media rabble, that so many pro-life people are worried about, seem to run out of “fairness doctrine” sentiment when it comes to showing the truth about abortion. So, why in the name of God do Christians try to appease Big Media and the radical left?

The root of appeasement is fear. The fruit of appeasement is defeat.

Randall Terry may not see an end to abortion in his lifetime, but I can guarantee you he’ll go down swinging, not licking the boots of the Political Correctness Police. In these days of so-called “hate speech” and PC lunacy it takes courage to say what you think. Randall didn’t kill anybody, he commented on a murder with the unvarnished, unapologetic prose of an honest man.

The Church of Jesus Christ needs men. We have an ample quota of weak kneed wimps regurgitating warmed over pabulum and pseudo-psychology. I am so sick of the apologies I could scream.

Randall Terry stands as a man, because he stands for something. He is simply not of a disposition to moderate his words. Good for him. God bless him for having the courage of his convictions. Those babies are not moderately dead. Tiller did more than spout rhetoric.

Christians, I warn you solemnly- stop cowering and say out loud what you have dared only to think. Say it out loud while you still may. Those of you who choose to dance to the enemy’s tune - while trying to appear noble and caring - you are the one’s who should shut up and sit down. You are making Randall’s job harder. (That’s a joke; he’s not worried about your criticisms.)

Harley David Belew

Harley David Belew hosts a daily radio show in Texas and writes a weekly column for his hometown newspaper, the Hill Country Community Journal. Used with permission.

A Prescription for American Health Care

2009-05-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

by JOHN C. GOODMAN, president, CEO, and Kellye Wright Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University, and has taught and done research at Columbia University, Stanford University, Dartmouth College, Southern Methodist University and the University of Dallas. He writes regularly for such newspapers as the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor’s Business Daily and the Los Angeles Times, and is the author of nine books, including Patient Power: Solving America’s Health Care Crisis and Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Around the World.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Naples, Florida, on February 18, 2009, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ll start with the bad news: When we get through the economic time that we’re in right now, we’re going to be confronted with an even bigger problem. The first of the Baby Boomers started signing up for early retirement under Social Security last year. Two years from now they will start signing up for Medicare. All told, 78 million people are going to stop working, stop paying taxes, stop paying into retirement programs, and start drawing benefits. The problem is, neither Social Security nor Medicare is ready for them. The federal government has made explicit and implicit promises to millions of people, but has put no money aside in order to keep those promises. Some of you may wonder where Bernie Madoff got the idea for his Ponzi scheme. Clearly he was studying federal entitlement policy.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, many employer-sponsored pension plans are not fully funded. Nor is the federal government insurance scheme behind those plans. We have a potential taxpayer liability of between 500 billion and one trillion dollars for those private pension plans, depending on the markets. And on top of that, roughly one-third of all Baby Boomers work for an employer who has promised post-retirement health care. As with the auto companies, almost none of that is funded either. Nor are most state and local post-retirement health benefit plans. Some California localities have already declared bankruptcy because of their employee retirement plans and the first of the Baby Boomers is still only 63 years old.

What all this means is that we’re looking at a huge gap between what an entire generation thinks is going to happen during its retirement years and the funds that are there—or, more accurately, are not there—to make good on all those promises. Somebody is going to be really disappointed. Either the Baby Boomers are not going to have the retirement life that they expect or taxpayers are going to be hit with a tremendously huge bill. Or both.

The Mess We’re In

How did this crisis come about? After all, the need to deal with risk is not a new human problem. From the beginning of time, people have faced the risks of growing old and outliving their assets, dying young without having provided for their dependents, becoming disabled and not being able to support themselves and their families, becoming ill and needing health care and not being able to afford it, or discovering that their skills are no longer needed in the job market. These risks are not new. What is new is how we deal with them.

Prior to the 20th century, we handled risks with the help of family and extended family. In the 19th century, by the time a child was nine years old, he was usually paying his own way in the household. In effect, children were their parents’ retirement plan. But during the 20th century, families became smaller and more dispersed—thus less useful as insurance against risk. So people turned to government for help. In fact, the main reason why governments throughout the developed world have undergone such tremendous growth has been to insure middle class families against risks that they could not easily insure against on their own. This is why our government today is a major player in retirement, health care, disability and unemployment.

Government, however, has performed abysmally. It has spent money it doesn’t have and made promises it can’t keep, all on the backs of future taxpayers. The Trustees of Social Security estimate a current unfunded liability in excess of $100 trillion in 2009 dollars. This means that the federal government has promised more than $100 trillion over and above any taxes or premiums it expects to receive. In other words, for Social Security to be financially sound, the federal government should have $100 trillion—a sum of money six-and-a-half times the size of our entire economy—in the bank and earning interest right now. But it doesn’t. And while many believe that Social Security represents our greatest entitlement problem, Medicare is six times larger in terms of unfunded obligations. These numbers are admittedly based on future projections. But consider the situation in this light: What if we asked the federal government to account for its obligations the same way the private sector is forced to account for its pensions? In other words, if the federal government suddenly closed down Social Security and Medicare, how much would be owed in terms of benefits already earned? The answer is $52 trillion, an amount several times the size of the U.S. economy.

What does this mean for the future? We know that Social Security and Medicare have been spending more than they are taking in for quite some time. As the Baby Boomers start retiring, this deficit is going to grow dramatically. In 2012, only three years from now, Social Security and Medicare will need one out of every ten general income tax dollars to make up for their combined deficits. By 2020—just eleven years down the road—the federal government will need one out of every four income tax dollars to pay for these programs. By 2030, the midpoint of the Baby Boomer retirement years, it will require one of every two income tax dollars. So it is clear that the federal government will be forced either to scale back everything else it’s doing in a drastic way or raise taxes dramatically.

I have not even mentioned Medicaid, but it is almost as large a problem in this regard as Medicare. A recent forecast by the Congressional Budget Office—an economic forecasting agency that is controlled by the Democrats in Congress, not by some conservative private sector outfit—shows that Medicare and Medicaid alone are going to crowd out everything else the federal government is doing by mid-century. And that means everything—national defense, energy, education, the whole works. We’ll only have health care. If, on the other hand, the government continues with everything else it is doing today and raises taxes to pay for Medicare and Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by mid-century, a middle-income family will have to pay two-thirds of its income in taxes!

Cleaning Up the Mess

The only sensible alternative to relying on a welfare state to solve our health care needs is a renewed reliance on private sector institutions that utilize individual choice and free markets to insure against unforeseen contingencies. In the case of Medicare, our single largest health care problem, such a solution would need to do three things: liberate the patients, liberate the doctors, and pre-fund the system as we move through time.

By liberating the patients I mean giving them more control over their money—at a minimum, one-third of their Medicare dollars. Designate what the patient is able to pay for with this money, and then give him control over it. Based on our experience with health savings accounts, people who are managing their own money make radically different choices. They find ways to be far more prudent and economical in their consumption.

As for doctors, most people don’t realize that they are trapped in a system where they have virtually no ability to re-price or re-package their services the way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it will pay for, what it won’t pay for, and the final price. One example of the many harmful effects of this system is the absence of telephone consultations. Almost no one talks to his or her doctor on the phone. Why? Because Medicare doesn’t pay a doctor to talk to you on the phone. And private insurers, who tend to follow Medicare’s lead, don’t pay for phone consultations either. The same goes for e-mail: Only about two percent of patients and doctors e-mail each other—something that is normal in every other profession.

What about digitizing medical records? Doctors typically do not do this, which means that they can’t make use of software that allows electronic prescriptions and makes it easier to detect dangerous drug interactions or mistaken dosages. Again, this is something that Medicare doesn’t pay for. Likewise patient education: A great deal of medical care can be handled in the home without ever seeing a doctor or a nurse—e.g., the treatment of diabetes. But someone has to give patients the initial instruction, and Medicare doesn’t pay for that.

If we want to move medicine into the 21st century, we have to give doctors and hospitals the freedom to re-price and re-package their services in ways that neither increase the cost to government nor decrease the quality of service to the patient.

In terms of quality, another obvious free market idea is to have warranties for surgery such as we have on cars, houses and appliances. Many are surprised to learn that about 17 percent of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days—usually because of a problem connected with the initial surgery—with the result that the typical hospital makes money on its mistakes. In order for a hospital to make money in a system based on warranties, it must lower its mistake rate. Again, the goal of our policy should be to generate a market in which doctors and hospitals compete with each other to improve quality and cut costs.

We won’t be able to make any of this work in the long run, however, unless we pre-fund the system. Today’s teenagers are unlikely to receive medical care during retirement if they must rely on future taxpayers, because taxpayers of the future are unlikely to be agreeable to living in poverty in order to pay their elders’ medical bills. This means that everyone must start saving now for post-retirement health care. I would propose that everyone in the workforce put a minimum of four percent of his or her income—perhaps two percent from the employer and two percent from the employee—into a private account, invested in the marketplace, that would grow through time. These private accumulations would eventually replace taxpayer burdens.

In summary, if health care consumers are allowed to save and spend their own money, and if doctors are allowed to act like entrepreneurs—in other words, if we allow the market to work—there is every reason to believe that health care costs can be prevented from rising faster than our incomes.

The Market in Action

Let me offer a few examples of how the free market is already working on the fringes of health care. Cosmetic surgery is a market that acts like a real market—by which I mean that it is not covered by insurance, consumers can compare prices and services, and doctors can act as entrepreneurs. As a result, over the last 15 years, the real price of cosmetic surgery has gone down while that of almost every other kind of surgery has been rising faster than the Consumer Price Index—and even though the number of people getting cosmetic surgery has increased by five- or six-fold.

In Dallas there is an entrepreneurial health care provider with two million customers who pay a small fee each month for the ability to talk to a doctor on the telephone. Patients must have an electronic medical record, so that whichever doctor answers the phone can view the patient’s electronic medical record and talk to the patient. This company is growing in large part because it provides a service that the traditional health care system can’t provide. Likewise, walk-in clinics are becoming more numerous around the country. At most of these clinics a registered nurse sits in front of a computer terminal, the patient describes his symptoms, and the nurse types in the information and follows a computerized protocol. The patient’s record is electronic, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance.

We’re also seeing the rise of concierge doctors—doctors who don’t want to deal with third-party insurers. When this idea started out in California, doctors were charging 10-15 thousand dollars per year. But the free market has worked and the price has come down radically. In Dallas, concierge doctors charge only $40 per employee per month. In return, the patient receives access to the doctor by phone and e-mail, and the doctor keeps electronic medical records, competes for business based on lowering time costs as well as money costs, and is willing to help with patient education.

Finally, consider the international market for what has become known as medical tourism. Hospitals in India, Singapore and Thailand are competing worldwide for patients. Of course, no one is going to get on a plane without some assurances of low cost and high quality—which means that, in order to attract patients, these hospitals have to publicize their error rates, their mortality rates for certain kinds of surgery, their infection rates, and so on. Their doctors are all board-certified in the United States, and they compete for patients in the same way producers and suppliers compete for clients in any other market. Most of their patients come from Europe, but the long-term threat to the American hospital system can’t be denied. Leaving the country means leaving bureaucratic red tape behind and dealing instead with entrepreneurs who provide high-quality, low-cost medicine.

As these examples suggest, liberating the medical market by freeing doctors and patients is the only way to bring health care costs under control without sacrificing quality. Continuing on our current path—allowing health care costs to rise at twice the rate of income under the aegis of an unworkable government Ponzi scheme—is by comparison unreasonable.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/

THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF GOVERNMENT

2009-05-22T09:35:00.000-07:00

By Rus Walton former Exec. Dir., Plymouth Rock Foundation
Excerpted from his great work One Nation Under God
used by permission of Plymouth Rock Foundation, Plymouth, MA

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
~ John 3:16 ~

In the beginning...

At that point in God's perfect timing,when the Constitutional Conventionhad completed its work...

The lady sidled up to old BenFranklin. "Well, Dr. Franklin. Whathave you given us?"

Dr. Franklin turned to her andreplied: "You have a republic,madam—if you can keep it."

So it was, after thousands of yearsof false starts and forbidden fruits andwrong turns and tyranny and license,man finally made a true beginning incivil government.

No more graven images.
No more state shepherds.
No more kings, or empires, oremperors.
No more unrestrained authority orState religion or sanctioned appetite ormob rule.
No more tyranny.

The Great American Republic.

Self-Government with Union

Other governments before hadgone by that description -republic.
But, those were different. Different inorigin. Different in nature. Different in structure. The best of the past was incorporated into this new and true republic. The rest - the evil, the excess - was rejected.

This new creation stood unique. A system of self-government. A government of and by and for the people. A government by the consent of the governed. With union. Not with uniformity. With union. With unity.

One out of many. Mortared withthe blood of patriots and constructed bythe Spirit of the Lord wherein liesliberty. A constitutional republic withindividual liberty, elected representatives,and limited government. Agovernment resting squarely on Biblicalprinciples and limited by the inherentrights of the governed.

A government with its powersnailed down, chained and bound by theConstitution, fastened and confined tothe proper defense of the individual'spursuit of life, liberty, and happiness—those inalienable rights endowed by theCreator.

A republic in which the power togovern was checked and balanced bydevices designed to stop the tyrant inhis tracks.

Four Fences

Those early Americans, thoseindividualists, had no easy taskagreeing on government. Eachin his own way and in his own freedomworshiped Almighty God. Had they notcome to these shores "to enjoy theliberties of the Gospel in purities withpeace"?1 They were not about to submitto another king, or men, or mobs. Thesesubjects-turned-citizens were not onlymindful of their rights, they werejealous of them, determined that neveragain would their inherent freedom beusurped, abused, misused, or denied.

And so these cagey sons of libertyjoined to erect four fences around theirgovernment. Four fences, sogovernment could not get out of handor out of bounds:

the Executive
the Legislative
the Judicial
the Individual

Each was to be a check andbalance to the other. The final fence,the individual, was to be the greatestcheck of all. No despot, no tyrant, noteven a majority or a mob was toseparate him from his individual rights.In the individual's hand was always tobe the power to bring government toheel.

After God, the individual camefirst. Only by his consent couldgovernment govern—and then, only toprotect his life, his liberty, and hisproperty. Not just his, but all men's -equally.

"It is important to note that suchtoleration (of each individual'srights) comes about throughChristianity—because only theChristian idea of man honors allmen be they Greek, Jew,barbarian, Scythian, bond, or free.Christianity respects eachindividual because it honors Godand gives supremacy to Him (seeCol. 3:11).”

A Republic!

And so the Founding Fatherscreated a republic.A monarchy? No way!

They had just been down that bitterroad. They knew all about the misuse ofthose so-called “divine rights of kings”And, they knew the Scriptures. Theywere mindful of the Prophet Samuel'swarning when the nation of Israel haddemanded an earthly king:

And he said, "This will be thebehavior of the king who willreign over you: He will take yoursons and appoint them for his ownchariots and to be his horse- men,and some will run before hischariots. He will appoint captainsover his thousands and captainsover his fifties, will set some toplow his ground and reap hisharvest, and some to make hisweapons of war and equipmentfor his chariots. He will take yourdaughters to be perfumers, cooks,and bakers. And he will take thebest of your fields, yourvineyards, and your olive groves,and give them to his servants. Hewill take a tenth of your grain andyour vintage, and give it to hisofficers and servants. And he willtake your menservants and yourmaidservants and your finestyoung men and your donkeys, andput them to his work. He will takea tenth of your sheep.And you will be his servants.And you will cry out in that daybecause of your king whom youhave chosen for yourselves, andthe LORD will not hear you inthat day" (1 Sam. 8:11-18).

The Founding Fathers knew theBible. And they knew, firsthand, thestriking parallels between the excessesSamuel had prophesied and the bill ofindictments against the King ofEngland as set forth in their Declarationof Independence. They were not aboutto go down that road again.

Collectivism? Communism?Absolutely not!

“Ye taking away of propertie, andbring in communitie into a comonewealth.”2 The first Pilgrims had beenforced to make that false start -communism invoked by the financialunderwriters of their venture. It wascollectivism “under the most favorableconditions, among a peopleconscientious and bound together bystrong religious enthusiasm!”3

And it failed miserably. During thewinter of 1620-21 it had almost donethem in. “It resulted as such sinking ofpersonal interest must ever result, indissensions and insubordination, inunthrift and famine.”4 No more of that!

A democracy? Not on your life!

Democracy? Where half plus onecan squash the rest? Where a fanaticalmajority apart from God can deprivethe individual of his rights, his life, hisproperty? Not for these people. Theyknew democracy with its excesses, itsleveling processes, its inherent seeds ofdestruction.

Democracy? Wherein the peoplesee themselves as gods, sovereign overmen and nations? The early Americansbrought no such idea to this new world.John Cotton, one of the great preachersof the colonial period, put it this way:“Democracy? I do not conceive thatGod ever did ordain it as a fitgovernment for church orcommonwealth. If the people begovernors, who shall be governed?”5

Pastor Cotton was not arguing foran aristocracy. Rather, he understoodthat in the democratic philosophy, withits emphasis on the sovereignty of thepeople, it is a fundamentalcontradiction to the Biblical doctrine ofthe sovereignty of God.

The very essence of democracydepends upon the absolute sovereigntyof the majority. Unbridled, capricious,born of appetite and of envy. OurFounding Fathers could never acceptsuch tyranny. They recognized the seedand foresaw the fruit of humanism. Forthem there was but one rightfulsovereign over men and nations—theLord God. And under God? Theindividual—not the State, not thecollective, not the majority. Theindividual. Self governed with union inChrist.

Historian C. Gregg Singer remindsus that Governor John Winthrop alsowarned his fellow citizens ofMassachusetts Bay Colony that adoctrine of civil rights, which looks tonatural, sinful man like a source andguardian, would destroy the very liberty they were seeking to preserve andprotect. Dr. Singer wrote:

True freedom can never befound in institutions which areunder the direction of sinful men,but only in the redemptionwrought for many by Jesus Christ.Christ, not man, is the sole sourceand guarantee of true liberty.This two-fold indictment of thedemocratic philosophy ofgovernment is one of the enduringtestimonies to the keen insightwhich these leaders ofMassachusetts Bay had into thetheological and practical aspectsof an effective type ofgovernment.6

Consider this statement: "Eachreligion has a form of government, andChristianity astonished the world byestablishing self-government… thefoundation stone of the United States ofAmerica.”7

The Great American Republic!A government of law, not of men. Lawsbased on the laws of God. With aConstitution that set down certaindefinite ground rules. This was the lawof the land:

the rights of the minority protected,
the rights of the majority upheldbut not permitted to be destructive,
the process of change provided forbut in a manner that preventedcapricious act or wanton revision.

And, wonder of it all, the safeguardof representative government anddivision of powers to filter passion andemotion through the check gates andthe balances and divisions of local,state, and federal government.

Further excursion into the field ofmetaphysics would only emphasizewhat is too much ignored bycontemporary Americans—that theirRepublic is far more than anadministrative mechanism. The authorsof the Constitution were eminentlypractical men. But to consider thispolitical achievement critically is to seethat they realized the distinction wehave drawn between the condition offreedom and the urge to liberty;

That they realized the impossibility ofmaintaining freedom unless those whowere "at liberty" were able to exerciseself-restraint;
That their consequent objective was apolitical system permitting a happybalance and conciliation between thedynamic and the static.
In short, the problem to which theyresolutely addressed themselves washow to integrate a liberty of divineorigin with an order of humanmanufacture.8

The Golden Mean

Article 4, Section 4, of theConstitution of these UnitedStates of America states: "TheUnited States shall guarantee to everyState in this union a republican form ofgovernment.

There it is! Proposed, adopted, andratified: "a republican form ofgovernment."

Do you think for one moment thefounders of this nation would haveguaranteed a republican form ofgovernment for the states withouthaving the absolute intent of providingthe same for the nation as a whole?

A republic!

A form of government under aconstitution which provides forthe election of (1) an executiveand (2) a legislative body who,working together in a representativecapacity, have all the power of appointment, all power oflegislation, all power to raiserevenues and appropriateexpenditures, and are required tocreate (3) a judiciary to pass uponthe justice and legality of theirgovernmental acts and torecognize (4) certain inherentindividual rights.9

That's it - the golden mean,the dynamic balance!

All through the realm of natureand of human activity we findexamples of the trinityclassification—the two extremesand the golden mean. A few ofthe more striking classifications[in government] are cited [infigure 1] in order to emphasizethis fundamental truth and toillustrate the importance and thesoundness of the law of thegolden mean.

Figure 1

Extreme	Golden Mean	Extreme
___________________________________
Autocracy	Republic	Democracy
Tyrants Bondage Oppression Arbitrariness Submission Coercion Reaction Feudalism	Statesmen Liberty Reason Arbitration Content Justice Progress Property rights	Demagogues License Impulse Agitation Discontent Anarchy Chaos Socialism10

To my mind, the mostimportant event that has occurredsince creation was the coming ofChrist, for He came to establishthe standard of right living for allmankind. The next importantevent was the founding of thisRepublic under the Constitution,because it provided for thestandard of right forgovernment.11

God gave His only begotten Son,so that those who believe on Himshould not perish but have life eternal.Yes! Praise God! But is not Christ to beour King even as He is our Savior? Andif He is our King, are we not to be governed by Him, according to God'slaws? We are indeed! James Madison,"the architect" of the Constitutionwrote:

We have staked the whole futureof American civilization, not uponthe power of government, far fromit. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and allof us to govern ourselves, tosustain ourselves, according tothe Ten Commandments of God[emphasis added].12

Chained to the Constitution

That embryonic power, which hadboldly proclaimed its independencefrom an empire - andbacked its words with blood, fortune,and sacred honor, firmly relying onDivine Providence—would not readilyhand the keys of freedom to anothertyrant regardless of the guise. Even onehomegrown. They were tight-fistedwith their liberty, jealous of their rights.And they meant to be.

They gave to their federalgovernment just enough power to serve,to defend. Just enough and no more.The citizens were to be the master; theState, the servant.

Even then, with all the checks andbalances and fences of thatconstitutional document inspired byHoly Writ, it was not until the Bill ofRights was tacked on that the stateswould consent to union. Then and onlythen would they ratify the federation.

Those precious first tenamendments to the Constitution.Freedom of religion. Freedom ofspeech and press. Freedom to assemble.The right to trial by jury. The right tobear arms for defense and security. Theprohibition against unwarranted searchand seizure. The right of speedy andpublic trial by impartial jury. Theprohibition of excessive bail or fines orcruel and unusual punishments.

Point by point those vital caveatsdetailed what government could do andwhat it could not do. Then, with a finalwhack of their hammer, thoserepresentatives of a free and independentpeople capped their holy affirmation.

The Ninth Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution ofcertain rights shall not be construed todeny or disparage others retained by thepeople.

And, the Tenth Amendment:The powers not delegated to the UnitedStates by the Constitution, norprohibited to it by the States, arereserved to the States, respectively, orto the people.

Take heed, all would-be Caesars!Government and men of governmentwould be bound and kept in bounds.Restricted, confined to their proper roleby the Constitution. A government oflaws, not men; of principles, not whim.

Bedrock

All those fences, all those checksand balances were vital. Arevital. Vital to the core of theRepublic. Yet in a way they were thesuperstructure. A wrought-iron superstructureanchored in a master rock.

A greater spirit.
A greater law.
A higher authority.
An eternal truth. A light unto theway.

The rock—the power, the beauty,and the light—that was the spirit of theAmerican Republic, and its Constitutionexisted even before thebeginning of time.

It was there when Christ with Godcreated the heavens and the earth andman. It was there when Christ with Godthe Father gave man dominion over theland and the sea and the plants and thebeasts—but not over his fellow man. Inthe image of God created He man. Afree agent with a free will. Not a robot,not a vassal; a steward only a littlelower than the angels. In the finalreckoning, man's accountability is toGod. Man's dominion is not untohimself but unto God as His viceregent.

The genesis—the spark—it wasthere, too, when Christ with Godestablished civil government, when Heordained it after the flood through Noah(see Gen. 9:5,6).

The power: it was there when Godgave men the law through Moses. Thereon Mount Sinai and in the days thatfollowed. The law and the statutes andthe ordinances to govern man's comingsand goings on God's earth (see Exod.19-20). And surely it was there throughthe manifested power and purity andlove and light and sacrifice of ChristJesus, our Savior and our King.

Free!

Christ died and rose to make menfree. Whosoever will! PraiseGod!

Through Christ we are freed fromthe wages of sin. Eternal freedom. Freeif we choose to be. Free from thebondage and the ravages of appetite andself. Internal freedom. Free if wechoose to be. Free from the savagery ofdemagogues and the tyranny of kings.External freedom. Free if we choose tobe.

Just as Christ Jesus brought usinternal freedom (and a rebirth into anew life in Him) so He also brought usa new direction for our externalfreedom (and a new purpose for ourcivil government). Internal and externalfreedom. Self-government with unionin Christ. For if Christ would die formen, how could Caesar force men tolive and die for him?

There! There was the spark, theflame, the beacon light of the Americanidea. The power of the Great AmericanRepublic. The sense and the spirit ofthe Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution of these United Statesof America.

The concept of a secular statewas virtually nonexistent in 1776as well as in 1787, when theConstitution was written, and noless so when the Bill of Rightswas adopted. To read theConstitution as the charter for asecular state is to misread history,and to misread it radically. TheConstitution was designed toperpetuate a Christian order.
Let us consider the obviousrebuttal to such a statement, for itneeds to be met: Why then isthere in the main, an absence ofany reference to Christianity inthe Constitution?
The response must be equallyblunt: There is an absence ofreference because the framers ofthe Constitution did not believethat this was an area ofjurisdiction for the federalgovernment. It would not haveoccurred to them to attempt to reestablishthat which the colonistshad fought against, namely,religious control andestablishment by the centralgovernment. The colonists wouldnot have tolerated power in theFederal Union which they hadrebelled against when claimed bycrown and parliament.
The freedom of the firstamendment from federalinterference is not freedom fromreligion but freedom for religionin the constituent states.13

Separation of church from Statecontrol? Absolutely! Divorcement ofGod from government? Not so!

Both the church and the civilgovernment have been ordained byGod—institutions with a distinctdivision of labor. The ministry of thechurch is grace; the ministry of theState is justice. Both are answerable toGod, the Supreme Sovereign.

Next to the Christian religion,of which America is the mostinfluential advocate, theAmerican government andConstitution is the most preciouspossession which the world holds,or which the future can inherit.This is true: True because theAmerican system is the politicalexpression of Christian ideas… anation founded upon the rock ofreligion and rooted in the love ofman [emphasis added].14

So it was that John Quincy Adams,fourth president of the Republic couldutter these words in truth: "The highestglory of the American Revolution wasthis: It connected, in one indissolublebond, the principles of civil governmentwith the principles of Christianity"(emphasis added).15

Christian Idea of Government

This nation was founded, itsgovernment was conceived andformed, by men who knewGod's Word, men who had a strong,abiding faith in Christ Jesus. They weremen who embraced without hesitationthe Christian idea of man and, for thefirst time in man's history, made it thefoundation of civil government.

The Christian idea of man!
Not some pagan idea of man.
Not some proposition that man wasan accident of biochemistry.
Not the claim that man was simplysome higher form of ape.

But this: the Christian idea, theChristian truth concerning man—hisorigins, his purpose, his worth. Thetruth that in the image of God made Heman.
And this: "For God so loved theworld that He gave His only begottenSon, that whoever believes in Himshould not perish but have everlastinglife!" (John 3:16).

God gave His only Son! He gaveHis Son to die for us. For each one ofus. For you. For me. If God loved eachman, each woman, each child thatmuch... If each individual counts thatmuch in the eyes of the Lord God, theSupreme Sovereign, the Creator andSustainer of all that is… Then how canthe individual count for any less in theeyes of men and nations?

What our Savior's blood onCalvary's tree purchased was not agroup life insurance plan. The ransompaid was a one-for-one covenantbetween God and the individual sinnerwho believes on His Son. There wehave the root, the source, and the powerof the Christian idea on which thisRepublic was founded.

If each individual counts, then eachindividual is accountable. And becauseeach individual counts and isaccountable, God sent His Son theLamb, perfect, without spot or blemish,to pay the wages of man's sin. That isthe crux of the gospel of salvation.Consider this also: It is the core of theChristian idea of man and the Christianmethodology of government!

Christ's Great Commandment?"Love one another; as I have loved you.you also love one another" (John13:34). That is the very taproot of selfgovernmentand individual freedomunder God!

His Golden Rule for life?"Whatever you want men to do to you,do also to them" (Matt. 7:12). That isthe power that can make men free andforce governments to seek their properplace and stay within those bounds.

His Great Injunction? "Seek firstthe kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shallbe added to you" (Matt. 6:33). Onceand for all, that established the balanceand the order in self-government andcivil government. For men and nations.

"For what will it profit a man if hegains the whole world, and loses hisown soul?" (Mark 8:36). And whatdoes it profit a nation if it gains theworld and rejects the Lord?

These were the ideals, the ideas,the principles, the spirit of the men whofounded this Republic.

These texts, and many others ofsimilar import, were as guidinglights to the resolute men andwomen who came to America notmerely to worship as they wished,but even more to live, so far ashumanly possible, in the mannerChrist ordained!16

Perhaps no single man had a greaterpositive influence on the framers of ourConstitution than John Locke, theEnglish theorist and philosopher of theseventeenth century: "Our Saviour'sgreat rule, that `we should love ourneighbors as ourselves; is such afundamental truth for the regulating ofhuman society, that, by that alone, onemight without difficulty determine allthe cases and doubts in socialmorality!17

Years later, in 1851, when DanielWebster was reviewing the history ofthis great American family, hereaffirmed the need and role of God ingovernment:

Let the religious element inman's nature be neglected, let himbe influenced by no highermotives than low self-interest,and subjected to no strongerrestraint than the limits of civilauthority, and he becomes thecreature of selfish passion orblind fanaticism.On the other hand, thecultivation of the religioussentiment represseslicentiousness, incites to generalbenevolence, and the practicalacknowledgement of the brotherhood of man, inspiresrespect for law and order, andgives strength to the whole socialfabric, at the same time that itconducts the human soul upwardto the Author of its being.18

More than one hundred years afterWebster, Charles Malik, thenambassador to the United Nations fromLebanon, put it this way:

The good (in the United States)would never have come intobeing without the blessing and thepower of Jesus Christ.Whoever tries to conceive theAmerican word without takingfull account of the suffering andlove and salvation of Christ isonly dreaming.I know how embarrassingthis matter is to politicians,bureaucrats, businessmen, andcynics; but, whatever thesehonored men think, the irrefutabletruth is that the soul of America isat its best and highest, Christian.When the tears and joy ofChrist come to perfect fruition inthis land, then America will utterher word.19

God First!
Christ did, indeed, command us torender unto Caesar that which isCaesar's (see Matt. 22:21).

Just what belongs to Caesar? Weare not to render unto him those thingsthat belong to God. Our body, ourspirit, our soul, our conscience—thoseare not Caesar's. They belong to God;God has made us—not Caesar.

God had a clear and definitepurpose when He ordained civilauthority. Civil authority was and is toserve God and to protect the life,property, and wellbeing of men andwomen from those whose lack of moralresponsibility and whose disobedienceto God's laws turned them to crime andviolence.

Human government was institutedby the Lord God as a protective,defensive agency. Civil governmentwas ordained to serve the Lord God bybeing a protector—not a provider—ofthe people. Its laws were established tobe in concert with God's laws.

And what of those laws and thepurpose of those laws and statutes andjudgments? Those laws that Godhanded down to man through Moses?They were given to make clear theimperative doctrine of man'sresponsibility to God and thus hisresponsibility to his fellow man. Theywere given to define and to delineatethe purity and the holiness that shouldcharacterize the life of a people forwhom the law of the nation was, at thesame time, the law of God.

"Therefore you shall love theLORD your God, and keep Hischarge, His statutes, Hisjudgments, and His commandmentsalways" (Deut. 11:1).

Christians know that civilgovernment is ordained by God. Weknow that civil magistrates (elected andnon-elected) are to be "servants of Godto the people for good" (Rom. 13:4).We also know that it is His will that wepray for those in authority and ask thatthey be receptive to God's guidance asthey conduct our civil affairs

In his book Shaping Historythrough Prayer and Fasting, DerekPrince reminds us that “Christiancitizens of the United States should beforever thankful that the basic charterof their nation agrees so exactly withthe purposes and principles ofgovernment ordained in the HolyScriptures.”20

Remember Paul's counsel in 1Timothy 2:2?Roughly translated, Paul'scounsel boils down to this: "Goodgovernment is the will of God."

In Christ's teachings and in thewritings of His apostles, we find thekeys to good government and to itsreformation and reconstruction shouldgovernment cease to be good.

the Law (Matt. 5:17)
the Great Commandment (John 15:17)
the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12)
the Great Injunction (Matt. 6:33)
the Whole Spectrum of Love (1Cor.13:1-13)
the Whole Armor of God (Eph. 6:10-18)

Clearly it is affirmed andreaffirmed: Man is God's servant. He isGod's steward, not Caesar's. The Stateis to serve the law-abiding and punishthe lawbreaker. Not vice versa. UnderGod, the individual is to be selfgoverning."Christianity is a strangerto despotic power.”21

First Christian Congregations
What dynamic ideas, theseChristian precepts found inGod's Word! These divineprecepts and principles, which had beenfrom the beginning, burst forth as theMaster walked and talked on earth.Truths that were propagated as Hisdisciples and apostles spread thegospel.

As these ideas spread fromindividual to individual to family togroup, a secondary transformationbegan to occur. The power of the HolySpirit, first internal, took external shapeand form and practice. It manifesteditself in the Christians' daily lives andin the structure of the early Christiancongregations.

Consider the spirit, the structure,the lovely work of those early Christianchurches at Galatia, Philippi, Antioch,Thessalonica, Ephesus, Colosse,Corinth, and Rome. There was trueself-government. Christianity applied.The seed and fruit, the patterns forothers to follow-to modify, perhaps, butto maintain.

In the beginning Christianitywas simply Gospel. Ecclesiasticalorganization was not the causebut the effect of life.
Churches were constituted bythe spontaneous association ofbelievers. Individuals andfamilies, drawn toward each otherby their common trust in Jesus,The Christ, and their commoninterest in the good newsconcerning the kingdom of God,became a community united, notby external bonds, but by the vitalforce of distinctive ideas andprinciples ... in every place thesociety of believers in Christ wasa little republic.22

“Christianity, in its essence, itsdoctrines, and its forms, isrepublican.”23

Republican. Not in any narrowpartisan sense or meaning of the word.Certainly not in any reference to thepolitics of this day. But republicanmeaning, "that form of governmentwhich derives all its powers directly orindirectly from the body of the peopleand is administered by persons holdingoffice with the consent of thegoverned.''24

Consider the republican features ofthe early churches. "These churches hadofficers, which were to be regarded andobserved, in their proper spheres, asmuch as officers of any other republic.But the manner of their ruling was notto be as ‘Lords over God's heritage’.”25

"Whoever desires to be first amongyou," said the Savior, "let him be yourslave" (Matt. 20:27).

The churches instituted by theapostles were local institutions. Eachlocal church was complete in itself andwas responsible to Christ for itscharacter and the characters of those inits fellowship. The members of thecongregations elected their elders anddeacons. Through prayer and study,they sought God's will in their lives andin the affairs of their church. Theysought to imbue themselves with thelove and light and spirit of Christ. In allthings. The whole suit of armor.

Matters of congregational politywere attended to by the membersthrough their chosen elders anddeacons. If, upon occasion, the churchsought the apostle's advice or opinion,that was their decision.

Daniel Neal wrote in his History ofthe Puritans, "If the Apostle Paul, whowas an inspired person, had notdominion over the faith of the churches,how came the Roman emperor, or otherChristian princes, by such ajurisdiction—which has no foundationin the law of nature or in the NewTestament?"26

One Mind in Christ

No regional body, no state board,no national council, no selfanointedhierarchy enforceddictums or edicts or decrees or tributes.Christ was Lord, Master, and Governorof individual and congregational affairs,because faith was strong, vibrant, alive!(As Dr. C. Gregg Singer has pointedout, the weaker the creed, the strongerthe hierarchy!)

Hundreds and hundreds of milesstretched between those far-flungchurches. But the churches were united.There was no central control, but therewas a common bond. Many members,one body. Out of many, one! It was anew heart, a new mind, a new lovethrough Christ. It was the power of theuniverse, the seed of Creation, the blazeof souls on fire. And it spread!

Against all adversity it spread. Inhidden rooms. By quiet shores.Through the marketplace. In the darkestcatacomb. Through martyrs andthrough persecutions. Even when thescore read "Lions, ten; Christians, zero;'it would not die. A glorious,unyielding, lifting faith which wouldnot—could not—be denied. Tyrantswould try to snuff it out; hierarchieswould try to smother it; emperorswould try to subordinate it; demigodswould try to pervert or divert it. But itwould not die and it would not yieldand it would not compromise. Its truth,its purity, its power would prevail. Andit would find its form in God's goodtime.

Westward to America!

Others have documented thewestward movement of thatChristian light. Other volumesdetail the rise and fall, the contributionsand inquisitions of the dark Dark Ages.Suffice to mention here that eachregime and every transit added to man'sconstantly expanding sum: Pythagorasand Euclid, Aristotle, Socrates andPlato, Galileo and da Vinci; language,laws and logarithm, politics andscience, arts and architecture; theoutward reach of navigation and theinward quest of introspection—theability to examine and define theconcrete, the intellect to conceptualizethe abstract. All increased man'sknowledge of the Creator and Hisuniverse, and all were preparation forthe development of man's republicancapacities.

The Christian light movedwestward through the epochs.Persisting like a blade of grass thatshatters through the boulder to flourishin a virgin land an ocean span away.

It came through John Milton'sParadise Lost and through his ProPopulo Anglicano Defensio:

Our liberty is not Caesar's. It is ablessing we have received fromGod Himself. It is what we wereborn to. To lay this down atCaesar's feet, which we derive notfrom him, which we are notbeholden to him for, were anunworthy action, and a degradingof our very nature.

It came through Wycliffe, the"morning star of the reformation,"whose love of truth, of freedom, and ofindependence compelled him to givehis English countrymen the openScripture as their best safeguard andprotection during "the thickest darknessof anti-Christian idolatry."27

Wycliffe published his conclusions"that the New Testament or Gospel is aperfect rule of life and manners andought to be read by the people." Hethen proceeded, before his martyrdom,to translate the New Testament into theEnglish language.

This light spread, too, throughTyndale, the father of the EnglishBible. Through Martin Luther, JohnCalvin, Thomas Cartwright, and thePresbyterians. God moved in wondrousways His mysteries and His majesties toperform!

That mysterious influence ofthat Power which enchains thedestinies of States, overruling thedecisions of sovereigns and theforethought of statesmen.

A Genoese adventurer,discovering America. An obscureGerman, inventing the printingpress. An Augustine monk,denouncing indulgences,introduced a schism in religionand changed the foundations ofEnglish politics.

A young French refugee,skilled alike in theology and civillaw ... entering the republic ofGeneva, and conforming itsecclesiastical discipline to theprinciples of republicansimplicity, established a party ofwhich Englishmen becamemembers and New England theasylum.28

The Christian light came with thegrowing thunder of a new age dawningin the West. First the Pilgrims, then thePuritans. Followed by the Quakers, theHuguenots, the Catholics, the DutchReformed, the Lutherans, thePresbyterians, the Methodists, and theBaptists. Joined here in this unchartedland by the Anglicans of Virginia whowould raise their voices and lend theirarms and give their sons as presidents.

It came on the written wings ofLocke and Montesquieu, of Sidney andBlackstone, of Mason and Paine, and ofAdams and Franklin - and theCommittees of Correspondence. And itrang out from the pulpits of NewEngland, New Jersey, the Carolinas,Georgia.

It came through the crimsontyrannies of king and parliament,through Stamp Acts, writs ofassistance, and quartered troops.Impelled by the Sons of Liberty inBoston, triggered by the shot atConcord, impassioned by the words ofyoung Patrick Henry, member ofVirginia's House of Burgesses,speaking. at St. John's EpiscopalChurch in Richmond:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet,as to be purchased at the price ofchains or slavery? Forbid it,Almighty God! I know not whatcourse others may take, but as forme—give me liberty or give medeath!"

Thus, in the course of human events,the Christian light formed and marchedand moved “…with a firm reliance onthe protection of Divine Providence.”And on that day a Boston man, SamAdams, stood in Independence Hall asthe Declaration was signed andproclaimed:

"We have this day restored theSovereign to Whom all men oughtto be obedient. And, from the rising to the setting of the sun, letHis kingdom come!"

The Pagan View of Man

So it arrived—the Christian light.Not a birth, but a rebirth!

A continuation, after so long atime, of the seed and fruit, of thecourage and persistence of precedingChristians. A propagation of the faith inthings spiritual, in things of civilgovernment—and a propagation ofliberty wherein Christ had made menfree.

Christianity then appeared withthe central doctrine that man wascreated in the Divine image, anddestined for immortality; pronouncingthat, in the eye of God,all men are equal. This assertedfor the individual an independentvalue. It occasioned the greatinference that man is superior tothe State, which ought to befashioned for his use. This wasthe advent of a new spirit and anew power in the world.29

And Christianity met head-on anothervalue placed on man. - The pagan view.

The old world view "that the social order rested on the assumed naturalinequality of men"; that the individualwas "of value only as he formed a partof the political fabric and was able tocontribute to its uses, as though it werethe end of his being to aggrandize thestate."30

Such a humanistic, nihilisticphilosophy could not and would notabide the Christian truth that man iscreated in the image of God, for Hisglorification; that man is. not a politicalunit or an economic digit; that man isnot an end unto the State. Man isunique, distinct, important—and God's!

“Socialism's government is theexternal control of the parts, as opposedto Christianity's internal control of theindividual.”31 Thus the battle wasjoined. It continues in this day – athome as well as abroad

Is the individual the master or theslave?
Is man created in the likeness ofGod, accountable to his Maker? Or ishe a means to an end, subservient to theState?

The eternal struggle; part andparcel of the eternal war. "For we donot wrestle against flesh and blood, butagainst principalities, against powers,against the rulers of the darkness of thisage, against spiritual hosts ofwickedness in the heavenly places”(Eph. 6:12).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:RUS WALTON

The content of this newsletter was reprinted with permission from Rus’ wife Ila Walton.It is excerpted from his great work One Nation Under God. Plymouth Rock Foundation’sfirst Executive Director was an exceptionally talented and experienced Christianjournalist. He had a rare understanding of America’s Biblical principles of self and civilgovernment, and this country’s Christian history. Rus carried these principles Throughouthis career. He served as writer-advisor for the Governor of California in 1966 - RonaldRegan. when He was a skilled newspaper editor, radio and TV commentator, andmanager of state and federal legislative campaigns.

As executive director of Plymouth Rock Foundation, Rus put his unique background togood use in writing his nationally circulated Letters from Plymouth Rock, some halfdozenbooks (including best sellers One Nation Under God, and Fundamentals forAmerican Christians), and in counseling Christians determined to express true principlesof government in the political arena.

REFERENCES:

New England “Articles of Confederation,” 1643
Governor William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1647 (Wright and Potter Printing Co., 1901). See The Christian Historyof the Constitution of the United States, vol. 1 (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1966), 213.
Ibid.
Ibid.
As cited by C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964), 18.
Ibid., 19.
Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of The Constitution of The United States, vol. 1 (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1966). iii.
Felix Morley, The Power in The People (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1949), 41.
Harry F. Atwood, Back to the Republic (Chicago: Laird and Lee, 1918), 28,29.
Ibid., 37.
Ibid.
As cited in Frederick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics; Neighborly Love and Ricardos Law of Association (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1958), 31.
R. J. Rushdoony, The Nature of The American System (Nutley, N.J.: The Craig Press, 1964), 2,3.
J.A. Partridge, The Making of the American Nation (1866)
July 4th, 1821, Fourth of July oration.
Felix Morley, 47.
John Locke, "The Reasonableness of Christianity" 1695 (The Works of John Locke, Esq., John Churchill, 3 vols., 1714). See The Christian History of The Constitution of the United States, vol. 1, op cit, 56.
Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster, vol.1 (Little, Brown and Co., 1851). See The Christian History of The Constitution of The United States, vol.1, 245.
Honorable Charles Malik, Ambassador to the UN from Lebanon. Farewell address to the United States upon retiring from the UN.
Derek Prince, Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting, (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1973), 42.
Edwin Hall, The Puritans and Their Principles (Baker and Scribner, 1846). See The Christian History of The Constitution of The United States, 27.
Leonard Bacon, Genesis of The New England Churches, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1874).
Edwin Hall.
Noah Webster, The American Dictionary of The English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828); facsimile edition by Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco.
Daniel Neal, The History of The Puritans, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1844).
Ibid.
George Bancroft, History of The United States, 10 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1866). See The Christian History of The Constitution, vol.1.
Richard Frothingham, The Rise of The Republic of The United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1890). See The Christian History of The Constitution of The United States, vols. 1, 2.
Ibid.
Rosalie J. Slater, Teaching and Learning American Christian History (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1973), 187.
Ibid.

Working Toward Authentic Recovery

2009-05-18T09:13:00.000-07:00

by Larry P. Arnn

One of the worst financial crises inAmerican history broke into publicview in the first ten days of September,2008. Several of the oldest and largest financialinstitutions in the world were wiped out, all ofthem highly profitable until the very eve of theirdemise. The government rescued the largest insurancecompany in the world. Two quasi-publiccorporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thatinvest in about half the mortgages in the U.S. werealso rescued. For days the regular system of credittransfers that makes commerce possible wasnearly frozen. The stock market lost more than40 percent of its value. Recession is upon us,and it is likely to be sharp and may be prolonged.The economic storm will pass, God providing.

It is time for recovery, both economic and political.The two are related as political recovery will, inthe end, determine economic policy for many years.The goal of that recovery is simple to state: we mustrecover the art of constitutional government. Thatwe have lost sight of it is plain. The means are alsosimple to state: we must begin by studying that art.Its beauty will call to us as it ever has.One imagines that there is plenty of greed onWall Street. Greed is a moral vice, a failure ofjustice involving taking more than one’s due. Toeliminate greed would surely be a fine thing, as would the elimination of any vice. It would alsobe an astonishing achievement.

It would be astonishing for the simple reasonthat the teaching and practice of virtue, and thediscouragement of vice, is a necessarily continuousand difficult challenge in human affairs. Notmany of us, likely, are simply vicious, simply practitionersof vice. But similarly, not many of us aresimply virtuous, simply ready to do the right thingfor the right reason all the time.

Should we build our political institutions uponthe elimination of greed? A caution stirs the mindimmediately at the thought of it. James Madisonwrites in The Federalist Papers about faction,about our making combinations to serve ourinterests, even when those interests do not correspondto the public interest. One will read in vainto find the chief author of the Constitution suggestingthat faction, much less greed, could ever beeliminated. Rather, he writes that “Ambition mustbe made to counteract ambition. The interest ofthe man must be connected with the constitutionalrights of the place.” In other words, we must buildour political institutions to operate around theproblem of human vice, to mitigate that problemby discouraging vice, but also to place our interests in alignment with the public interest.

“Liberty,” writes Madison, “is to faction whatair is to fire.” To eliminate the effects of self-interestwould be to eliminate freedom itself. Thisis, then, just the point. The Constitution of theUnited States is a document full of safeguards. Itsets out to do two things: first, to build a powerfulgovernment, competent to defend our rightsagainst oppressors both foreign and domestic;second, to limit that government, and to arrangeits powers, so as to render it, itself, harmless tothe liberties of those it governs. That is why wehave the key devices of the Constitution: separationof powers; federalism, which requires afederal government of enumerated and not unlimitedpowers; bicameralism; the Bill of Rights.

In a splendid essay in Forbes magazine,“How Capitalism Will Save Us” (11/10/08), SteveForbes explains that the problems we face areconnected to two major government policies,along with some minor ones. The major ones arethe subsidy of mortgages, including risky ones,by the government, and the inflation of the currencyover the last four years. This inflation is thereason that gold has more than doubled in value.It is the reason that the dollar, until the last fewmonths, slid relentlessly against world currenciesfor almost four years. Forbes writes: “Greed andrecklessness always run rampant during bubbles,and the mania that engulfed housing and muchof the financial sector was no exception.” Thesethings have come together to make trouble.

I mention the art of constitutional government.I mean simply the art that provides goodlaws directed to encouraging free people togovern themselves. The national defense, securedso well as human contrivance can secure it, hasa high place in this art. So too does the provisionof a stable currency. So too does the protectionof property and contracts. So too does the maintenanceof a tax burden that does not stifle labor,savings, and investment.

Of course this list leaves out most of the federalgovernment as we have it today. Very much andprobably most of what we have today cannot beeliminated. It should, however, be managed in anew spirit. Under that spirit, decentralized administrationof things would be achieved whereverpossible. Under that spirit, the delegation of publicgoods to private and to local action should bepursued ardently.

There are models in our past of this art thatwould be worth studying again today. They includethe wonderful Northwest Ordinance, whichprovided the largest subsidy to education in ournation’s history, and which contained no elementof federal management. They include thegreat Homestead Act, signed by President Lincoln,which gave federal land to any citizen who wouldagree to live on it and work it. The way out of ourentitlement mess is implicit in such acts as these.One need only read these short, principled andbeautiful laws, and compare them to the kind wepass today, to see the difference. It is not detailsthat should be legislated, but rather grand things,especially ends. We should be seeking to recoverin our laws the grand and sublime simplicity ofwhich the Constitution is a beautiful example.

What is fundamental is the purpose and functionof our political system. Either we shall havelimited government, in which a few vital things aretended to with a careful eye and strong but limitedpowers, or else we shall attempt to allocate the laborand capital of the nation by force of law. Thissecond will make a disaster of a kind not seen inthis country from its first days.

When one sees that these principles are writtenin the Declaration of Independence and in theConstitution, he begins to see then what a revolutionarything was achieved here in our nation.He begins to see the reason why for two centuriesand more the American people have been the lastbest hope of mankind on earth. By becoming astudent of his country, the citizen becomes againan intelligent lover of it.

Download this article for print.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publicationof Hillsdale College. Read the entire “A Work of Recovery” speech on the Culture on www.hillsdale.edu. Larry P. Arnn, Ph.D., is the twelfthpresident of Hillsdale College.

CONCERNING THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE

2009-05-05T22:34:00.000-07:00

Affirmations and Denials
(Topic No. 22)

A. FOUNDATIONAL BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

The Bible is truth
We affirm that the Bible—being God’s inspired, inerrant, written Word—is truth in its entirety,and as such, is the ultimate standard by which all other truth-claims are to be judgeda, and thus
offers mankind the clearest, most complete picture of all reality and the only logically coherent
worldview.

We deny that there is any source of truth higher than, or equal to, the Bible or that the Bible’s
truth may be judged by any other standard.

Jn 17:17; Ps 1:1; 111:7; 119:89, 128, 151, 160; Mt 24:35; Nu 23:19; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pt 1:3; 1
Cor 3:19
Science, medicine, and law are part of a worldview
We affirm that no one is religiously, metaphysically, epistemologically, or ethically neutral—
having no presuppositions, no view of truth, no view of right and wrong, and no worldview by
which to see reality and filter all data. All humans live and work on the basis of either the
Christian worldview or some non-Christian, anti-biblical worldview.
We further affirm that modern history declares that scientists, medical researchers, and medical
practitioners (including psychiatrists and psychologists) who are not submitted to the absolutes
of the Christian worldview have often become very dangerous weapons in the hands of a
totalitarian state.

We deny that non-biblical worldviews can provide an adequate basis for the sanctity of human
life.a

a See Appendix, “Non-biblical worldviews provide no basis for the sanctity of human life”
God created humans in His own image
We affirm that the infinite, personal, Triune God of the Bible created man in His image;a thus
human beings reflect and represent God to some degree and are qualitatively distinct from and
superior to all the rest of creation.b Since man is the image of God, each human life is of
inestimable value from conception to death.¹

We deny all views that would undermine the absolute and eternal Creator-creature distinction or
that claim man is divine or can ever become divine.
We further deny the rationality and morality of any attempt to distinguish persons from nonpersons within the human race.

a Gn 1:26f; 5:1, 3; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Ja 3:9; cf. Ps 8:5
b Gn 1:27–30; 2:19f; 9:1–3; Job 35:10; Ps 8:6–8; Ec 7:29; Mt 12:11f
The fall of man disrupted, but did not destroy, the image of God
We affirm that, after the fall of man, sin disrupted and marred God’s image, but fallen man still
bears the image of God, however distorted it may become.a

We deny that, after the fall, man no longer retains any aspects of the image of God, including his
original, God-ordained value that makes him superior to all animals, vegetables, minerals or
galaxies.

a Gn 5:1ff; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Ja 3:9
Humans were created for God’s glory, pleasure and purposes
We affirm that the triune God, Who reveals Himself in the Bible, created mankind for Himself,
and thus all people, Christian and non-Christian alike, are obligated to exist primarily for God’s
own glory, pleasure, and purposes.a

We deny that people have a right to exist for the purpose of serving their own pleasures, security
or prestige, or that any human may rightly deny Gods existence and not live in grateful
obedience to God’s biblical commands.b

a Col 1:16; Ro 11:36; Rv 4:11; 1 Cor 10:31
b Ro 1:18–21ff
God’s plan and providential control of life
We affirm that: God is the ultimate givera and ownerb of human life, and therefore He alone can
determine and delegate the lawful means for bringing new human life into existence.
We further affirm that as the Creator, God has the right to take human lifec and determine and
delegate what is the lawful means for ending a human life.d
We further affirm that God opens and closes the womb and thus is active in the conception
processe, and that children are a gift from God.f

We deny that the forming of new life, or that the control over human beings, belongs to man to
do as he wishes, independent from God’s written law-Word.
We further deny that the formation of a new human life should introduce seed or eggs beyond
that of the husband or wife.g
We further deny that any person or state has the right to take human life in violation of God’s
written law-Word.h

a Gn 2:7; 4:1; Dt 32:39; Job 33:4; 32:8; Ec 12:7; Is 42:5; 57:16; Zc 12:1; Heb 12:9
b Ezk 18:4; Ps 24:1; Nu 16:22; Heb 12:9; Dn 5:23
c Dt 32:39; 1 Sm 2:6; 2 Ki 5:7; Job 1:21; 14:5; Ps 68:20; Rv 1:18
d 2 Ki 14:6; Ac 25:11
e Gn 16:2; 20:18; 30:2, 17–24; Ex 23:25f; 29:31f; 30:22f; Ru 4:13; 1 Sm 1:5f, 10, 19f)
f Gn 17:16; Ps 127:3–5; 128:3f
g Mal 2:14f; 1 Tim 5:14
God’s absolute sovereignty over the time-space universe and over all history
We affirm that God works all things according to His sovereign, all-wise, and all-comprehensive
plan.a
We further affirm that (though we may not understand why) God’s plan includes physical and
mental defects,b debilitating diseases,c calamities,d the extent of each person’s financial
resources,e and God’s plan exercises control over the sinful acts of every person.f
We further affirm that God has His own good purposes for human suffering, and gives people
grace to endure it, and that suffering is never meaningless.

We deny that anything or anyone is outside the scope of God’s sovereign plan and providential
control.
We further deny: that there are any “accidents” from God’s perspective; that God has no future
knowledge of all things; and that there is any real thing called “chance” in this universe.

a Eph 1:11
b Ex 4:11; Is 45:9–11; Jn 9:1–3
c Jn 11:4; Ex 15:26
d Am 3:6; Job 1:21
e Job 34:19; 1 Sm 2:7; Dt 8:18
f Gn 50:20; 2 Sm 16:10; 24:1; Ps 76:10; Ac 3:13; 4:27f; Ro 11:32
k Job; Ro 5:3f; 2 Cor 1:3–6; 12:7–10; Ja 1:2–4; Ro 8:28; 1 Cor 10:13
God is in control of all death
We affirm that God has ordained human mortalitya and that—though death2 is an enemyb—
dying is not always to be resisted.c
We further affirm that—though life is a gift from God—life is not to be worshipped and that
God’s will includes some self-sacrifice—sometimes even to death.d
We further affirm that the biblical definition of death is God’s separation of the human body
from its spirit, and that the physical criterion for death is the coagulation of the blood so it can no longer circulate the “breath of life.”

We deny the errors that: death is the end of human existence; death is an illusion; and death, in
itself, is a good thing.
We further deny that the continuation of an individual human life is always the highest good or
that it is always God’s will.
We further deny that the recent technological definitions of death (other than that stated above)
are either adequate or ethical.

a Gn 2:16f; 3:19; Job 14:5; Ps 90:10; Ec 3:2; Ro 5:12; Heb 9:27
b 1 Cor 15:26
c Gn 49:33; Mt 27:50; Ac 21:13; 25:11; Ro 14:7f; Ph 1:21
d Jn 10:11; 15:13; Ro 5:7f; 1 Cor 13:3; 2 Cor 4:7–18; chapters 11–12; Ph 1:20–26; Heb 11; 1 Jn
3:16; cf. Est 4:16; Dn 3:17f
Stewardship: A person’s body and soul belong to God, not to the person
We affirm that people are God’s creation,a and they belong to Him in their entiretyb—bodiesc
and souls.c
We further affirm that, since we are the Lord’s, no one has a right to live or die to himself.e

We deny that a person’s body belongs to oneself, and that one has a right to do with it whatever
one wishes.

a Ps 100:3
b Ps 24:1
c 1 Cor 6:15–20; 7:4
d Ezk 18:4
e Ro 14:7f
Human knowledge is finite
We affirm that, because man’s knowledge is finite,a apart from the Bible, there is no logically
coherent standard for ethicsb and no adequate standard for determining: human value; the
purpose of human life; or the usefulness or the quality of someone’s life.
We further affirm that finite human knowledge, coupled with the depravity of the human mind
and will, is incompetent to control life and to develop a superior form of humanity.
We further affirm that—though the Bible speaks truth—the truth we humans know is finite and
will always be so—even in heaven.

We deny that man, starting from himself, has the right, or the mental or moral competence, to
develop his own ethical standards,c to control life or to determine whether someone’s life has no
purpose.
We further deny that people can know with absolute certainty who is incurable, or that they can
know all of God’s purposes in allowing suffering.d

a Dt 29:29; 1 Cor 13:9, 12; Ro 11:33f; Ps 139:6; Is 55:8f
b Ja 4:12; Ex 20
c Jn 9:1–4; Job 38–41
d Job 1–2; Ps 44

B. GOD SAFEGUARDS HUMAN LIFE WITH BIBLICAL LAWS
Normative ethics for all humans
We affirm that God reveals His absolute ethics to man through the Bible and that the Bible’s
ethics and principles are binding upon everyone, everywhere, for all time. We further affirm that
normative ethics, the “ought”, cannot be derived from what “is”.

We deny that ethics is relative and that ethics may be personally, culturally, pragmatically or
statistically determined.
We further deny that, because man is scientifically and technologically able to do something, it
is necessarily morally right for him to do so.
Murder
We affirm that murder is the intentional killing of a human being in violation of God’s law.

We deny that murder includes: accidental manslaughter;a killing in self-defense;b Biblically authorized capital punishment; or killing combatants in a just war.c

a Ex 21:13f; Nu 35:11–15, 22–25; Dt 19:4–6, 10; Jos 20:1–9; with the exception of Ex 21:22f
b Ex 22:1
c 1 Ki 2:5f
God decrees that all convicted murderers must be executed
We affirm that, because all humans bear the image of God, God forbids murder and commands
and exemplifies in the Bible that all murderers must be executed by legitimate civil
governmentsa as swiftly as reasonably possible.

We deny that the New Testament overturns capital punishment and that any state, legislature, or
court may rightfully dispense with capital punishment for murder.b
We further deny that the Church has ever been given authority by God to execute capital
punishment.

a Gn 9:5f; Ex 21:12–14; Nu 35:16–21, 30–33; Lv 24:17; Dt 19:11–13; 21:1–9
b Mt 15:3 (citing Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9); Ro 1:32; 13:4; Ac 25:11, 25; 26:31; Rv 13:10; cf. 1Ti 1:8–
10; Mt 5:17–19
Failure to execute murderers brings God’s judgment on such societies
We affirm that when a murder occurs the land is polluted,a and the murderer’s family,b his cityc
and his nationd share the guilt of the murderere until the murderer is justly executed.
We further affirm that God will judge nations that fail to execute murderers,f but He will bless
cities and nations that obey Him in this matter.g

We deny that God holds guiltless cities and nations that fail to execute murderers.h
We further deny the erroneous belief that God brings no judgments within history.i

a Nu 35:33f; Gn 4:10f
b 2 Sm 21:4–6; 2 Ki 9:26
c Dt 21:1–9; Jer 26:15
d Dt 19:10, 13
e Dt 21:7f
f Jer 2:34–37; Ho 1:4; 4:1–5
g Dt 19:13
h Am 1:11–15;Na 3:1
i Gn 6:13; 19:24; 1 Ch 16:14; Ps 105:7; Jer 18:7; Dn 2:21
Various forms of murder
We affirm that abortion (i.e., the intentional killing of an unborn human baby)—at any stage of
his or her development, regardless of motive—is murder.
We further affirm that:
- infanticide (i.e., the intentional killing, by act or omission, of a human infant);
- euthanasia/“mercy-killing”/assisted suicidea (i.e., the intentional killing, by act or omission, of a human being, whose life is deemed not worth living or too painful);3
- suicide (i.e., the voluntary and intentional killing, by act or omission, of oneself; selfmurder);b4
- hastening death to obtain fresh organs;
- birth control involving the destruction of fertilized human embryos (e.g., IUD, progestin “minipill,” progestin injections, high estrogen “morning after pill,” etc.);5
- destruction of fertilized human embryos when using reproductive technologies (including freezing human embryos, much in vitro fertilization, human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, etc.);6
- human embryonic and fetal experimentation resulting in death;
- reckless actions causing physical injury to a pregnant mother that directly results in the death of her babyc
are all forms of murder by God’s standards.
We further affirm that mercifully allowing natural death may be right in cases of imminent and
irreversible7 death from incurable disease, fatal injury or old age—without unnatural, lifesustaining
equipment, unless the person desires such heroic measures and has financial means to
pay for them.

We deny that patients and their families have a moral obligation to receive medical treatments
for which they have no righteous means of paying.8
We further deny: that it is the state’s God-given responsibility to provide for, or to fund, medical
care;9 that civil magistrates may enact legal definitions of death that are unbiblical,10 for the
purpose of furthering organ harvesting, without becoming an accessory to murder; and that the
end justifies the means.d
We further deny that birth control methods that do not prevent conception, but prevent
implantation of a fertilized human egg in the uterus are not murderous.
We further deny that it is ever proper to withhold basic care and love for those who are dyinge or that laying down one’s life to save the lives of others is murder or unlawful suicide.f

a 2 Sm 1:6–16
b (Every instance of suicide and assisted suicide in the Bible is directly associated by the Biblical
authors with the person’s spiritual collapse and disobedience against God) (Jdg 9:52–57; 1
Sm 31:3–6 // 1 Ch 10:3–6; 2 Sm 1:6–16; 17:23; 1 Ki 16:15–20; Mt 27:5; Ac 1:18).
c Ex 21:22f11
d Ro 3:8
e Pr 13:6; Job 29:13 with 31:19; Mt 25: 35–45
f Jn 15:13;1 Jn 3:16
The fetus is a human person, distinct from its mother
We affirm that the Bible is unambiguous in teaching that a fetus12 is a human person, a living
child,13 distinct from its mother.a
We further affirm that the fetus has its own unique set of genes and chromosomes, brain waves
and fingerprints.
We deny that it is either biblical or scientific to claim that the fetus is merely a part of the
mother’s body or that it is simply “tissue”.

a See Appendix “Evidence that a fetus is a person: Biblical evidence,” which discusses the
following verses: Gn 16:11; Ex 21:22; 2 Sa 11:5 NKJ; Is 7:14; Ex 21:22; Lk 1:41, 44; Gn
25:22; Job 3:3; Lk 1:36; Lk 1:15; Lk 1:41, 44; Lk 2:12, 16; Ac 7:19; 1 Pt 2:2; Lk 18:15; 2
Tim 3:15; Job 3:13; 31:15; Ps 22:9f; 139:13–16; 51:5; Is 49:1, 5; Jer 1:4f; 20:17f; Ho 12:3;
Job 10:8–12; 31:15; Ps 119:73; 139:13–16; Jer 1:5; Ps 78:5f; Ex 21:22f; cf. Gn 9:5f; Gn
25:23; Ex 21:22f; Lk 1:15, 36, 41–44; Gal 1:15; Ps 51:5; Ro 5:12ff; Job 3:13–15; Lk 1:15;
Lk 1:41, 44; Ps 51:5; Lk 1:41, 44; Gal 1:15f; Jdg 13:3, 5, 7; Is 49:1, 5; Jer 1:5; Ro 9:11f; Heb
10:5; Mt 1:20; Lk 1:35; Lk 1:31; Mt 1:20; Lk 1:31; Heb 2:17, 14; cf. Ps 22:9f; Is 49:1, 5; Lk
3:23–38; Ho 9:14; Job 3:10–16; 10:18f; Ec 6:3; Ex 23:26
Birth defects, rape and incest
We affirm that the Bible teaches that children must not be punished for the sinful lifestyle or
crimes of their parents.a
We deny that it is not murder to abort a baby for reasons of birth defects,b rape, incest, lifestyle
choice, overpopulation or financial or personal stress.

a Dt 24:16; Ezk 18
b Ex 4:11; Is 45:9–11; Jn 9:1–3; 11:4
The life of the mother
We affirm that, in very rare cases in which pregnancy directly threatens the physical life of the
mother, the doctor has two patients, the mother and the baby, and his efforts should be to save
both.
We further affirm that, in the process of seeking to save the lives of both mother and child, it is
not murder if medical science is unsuccessful in saving the life of one or both.

We deny that it is morally right for a doctor to care for a pregnant mother and neglect attempting
to save the life of her unborn baby.
Non-lethal violations of the sanctity of human life
We affirm that eugenics14 (now expanded through the technologies and use of sperm banks,
artificial insemination by donor, surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering,
cybernetics, nanotechnology, etc.) is a violation of the sanctity of human life.
We further affirm that:
Forced sterilization;
Torturing prisoners of war, or torturing for any reason;
Dangerous medical experiments with humans;15
Unbiblical buying and selling human beings, including:
Kidnapping people to sell them and buying kidnapped people;a
Buying or selling human sperm or human eggs for the purpose of producing human embryos;
A woman renting her womb as a surrogate mother;
Buying and selling one’s sexuality (e.g., prostitution, pornography);
Bestiality;b
Racial prejudice;16c and
Imprisonment as punishment for crime

are all non-lethal violations of the sanctity of human life.

We deny that any of the above acts can be justified by the Bible.

a Rv 18:11, 13; Ex 21:16; Dt 24:7
b Ex 22:19; Lv 20:15f
c Contrast the racial solidarity of all mankind in:
• Creation (Gn 1:26–28 God created all mankind in his image; Ac 17:26);
• Fall (Gn 3:15–19; Ro 5:12; 1–3); and
• Redemption—including: the atonement (Jn 3:16; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 Jn 2:2); the preaching of
the gospel (Mt 28:18f; Ac 1:8; 2:8–11; 10:15, 34f); and union with Christ and unity in
Christ’s church (Mk 11:17; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:8, 28f; Eph 2:13–19; Col 3:11; Rv 5:9f; cf.
Lk 10:33).
Citizen’s obligations to obey God where man’s laws contradict God’s laws in the Bible
We affirm that individual citizens and civil magistrates are not Biblically-bound to obey human
laws or court rulings that violate the laws or commands of God’s written Word.
We further affirm that people must disobey any unjust law (as Biblically defined) whenever
obedience to that law would cause them to disobey God’s written Word.

Endnotes to the Sanctity of Human Life Document

“Scripture never defines the image of God in terms of specific qualities or abilities. Instead, Scripture teaches that
human beings as such are individually created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26f; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9)
and that a ‘human being’ is anyone who belongs to the race of Adam (Genesis 5:1–3ff). Thus everyone who belongs
to the race of Adam bears God’s image (cf. Genesis 5:1–3ff). Because being the image of God is the scriptural
ground for having the rights of a person (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9), we can say that Scripture equates ‘being God’s
image’ with ‘being a person.’ … In Genesis 9:6 and in James 3:9, Scripture commands us to respect the image of
God. And the context of these verses absolutely excludes any attempt to distinguish persons from nonpersons within
the human race” (John M. Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R,
1988], p. 35).
Death is not merely a biological event; it is also a spiritual event. Death occurs when a human spirit leaves its body (Ec 12:7; Ja 2:26) and goes either to heaven (Lk 23:43; 2 Cor 5:6, 8; Ph 1:23; Rv 7:9–17; Ec 12:7) or to hell (Lk 16:22–27).
Patients and their families normally have a moral obligation to receive available medical treatment that is clearly effective in restoring their health and saving their life. Cf. the Westminster Larger Catechism’s positive requirement to save life implied in the Sixth Commandment (Q. 135–136).
Thus suicide does not include acts of self-sacrifice in which persons do not directly will their own death, but are prepared to accept death as a possible consequence of performing some act of charity, justice, mercy, or piety to which God has called them. Such acts of self-sacrifice may include: attempting to save the lives of others during a military campaign or rescuing someone during a natural disaster; defense of family or friends unjustly attacked (Est 4:16); ministering to the infectious sick; and bearing witness to Christ in times of persecution and martyrdom (Dn
3:17f; 1 Cor 13:3); cf. Jn 15:13; Ro 5:7f.
Franklin E. Payne, Making Biblical Decisions (Escondido, CA: Hosanna House, 1989), p. 38.
In this paper no distinction is made between the terms “zygote” (the cell formed by the joining of the male sperm and the female egg), “embryo,” and “fetus.” The term “embryo” is commonly used to denote the first eight weeks of human development, and the term “fetus” often denotes human development from the beginning of the third month of pregnancy through the ninth month.
“A condition is ‘irreversible’ from a human perspective when there are no known available medical means to correct the injury or disease process leading to death. In other words, there is no medical hope for recovery, and it is only a matter of time before a person dies. Medically, this means that even the best unnatural (mechanical) means will not stop death” (Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], p. 169). Cf. John J. Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2004), pp. 192f.
Furthermore, the responsibility to save one’s life must be balanced against other biblical responsibilities, such as: providing for one’s family (1 Tim 5:8), leaving an inheritance to children (2 Cor 12:14; Pr 19:14) and grandchildren (Pr 13:22), supporting spiritual leaders (1 Tim 5:17f), etc. (cf. Franklin E. Payne, Biblical Healing for Modern Medicine [Augusta, GA: Covenant Books, 1993], pp. 43, 58, 70, 97). Furthermore, does the Old Testament limitation of debt to six years apply to contemporary debt incurred for medical services?
There is no biblical basis for the state paying for medical expenses—except the medical expenses for diseases and injuries acquired in the “line of duty” by military personnel, policemen, firemen, and other civil servants. See Franklin E. Payne, Biblical Healing for Modern Medicine, p. 169. There is no inherent right to medical treatment.
The term (physical) “death” denotes the total and permanent (i.e., without possibility of resuscitation or recovery) cessation of all the vital functions and signs of any organism. In determining a biblical definition for physical death the following concepts are relevant:
- the life is in the blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:11, 14; Dt 12:23; cf. Jn 6:53f);
- the breath of life (Gn 2:7; 6:17:7:15, 22; Job 7:7; 12:10; 27:3; 33:4; Is 2:22; Ezk 37:5–10; Ac 17:25; Rv 11:11);
- to cease breathing is to die (Gn 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:33; Jos 10:40; 11:11, 14; 1 Ki 15:29; 17:17; Ps 104:29; Mk 15:37, 39; Lk 23:46; Ac 5:5, 10); and
- the heart is the wellspring of life (Pr 4:23) (metaphorical usage).
Since life is in the blood/circulatory system, we must not treat a person as dead as long as his blood continues to provide oxygenation (the “breath of life”) to the cells. Once the blood dies (i.e., is coagulated), the person can be treated as dead. This encapsulates the cardio-pulmonary definition of death (i.e., irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions), since the blood carries the oxygen (the “breath of life”) to the person’s body cells (Phillip G. Kayser).
Thus “brain-death” alone is not a sufficient criterion of physical death. A medical definition of “death” should include the irreversible loss of heart, lung and perhaps brain function—making each a “necessary criterion and all three together the sufficient criteria for declaring someone to be dead.” Other criteria, such as body temperature, color, kidney function, etc., may be used by way of confirmation (John M. Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems, p. 58–62, 75–81). (Note that a human embryo does not have brain waves or brain function
until 6–7 weeks after conception, but he or she is most definitely alive.)
H. Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22–25,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978), pp. 109–123. John M. Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” in Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Christian Case against Abortion, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1978), pp. 51–57. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), pp. 275, 277.
“Fetus” is a Latin word meaning children (of human beings) or offspring (of animals); it is used for both the young already born and the young still in their mother’s womb (P.G.W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004], p. 695).
Personhood must not be confused with personality. Personhood is an ontological category; personality is a psychological concept.
The term “eugenics” denotes the scientific and social attempt to produce “superior” offspring by processes of selective breeding of humans, encouraging childbearing among those deemed most “fit” and impeding or preventing parenthood among those deemed “inferior.”
In such scientific or medical experiments, the risks to the participant or patient outweigh possible benefits to him or her.
Racism may be defined as the belief that one race is inherently superior to another race/s, and that the superior race has the right to dominion over the other/s. Biblically, individual acts of racial prejudice (e.g., refusing to hire or to conduct business with a person of another race) are sins, but they are not crimes to be punished by the state.

Home as a Nursery

2009-05-05T14:41:00.000-07:00

By Rev. S. Phillips, Chambersburg, PA, 1859
From Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History
Rosalie J. Slater, Ed.
Foundation for American Christian Education: The Principle Approach*

1 Thessalonians 2:7
Isaiah 5:17

To nurse means . . . to protect, to foster, to supply with appropriate food, to cause to grow or promote strength, to manage with a view to increase ... In horticulture, a shrub or tree is the nurse or protector of a young and tender plant. We are said to nurse our national resources…

In the same sense and for the same reason, the Christian home is the nursery of the young ... The nursery is that department of home in which the mother fulfills her peculiar mission. This is her special sphere. None can effectually take her place there. She is the center of attraction, the guardian of the infants' destiny; and one like she, can overrule the unfolding life and character of the child. God has fitted her for the work of the nursery. Here she reigns supreme, the arbitress of the everlasting weal or woe of untutored infancy. On her the fairest hopes of educated man depend, and in the exercise of her powers there, she sways a nation's destiny...The nursery is that department of home in which the formation of our character is begun…

John '21:15

The nursery is moral and spiritual. The first moral and religious training of the child belongs to the nursery, and is the work of the mother. Upon her personal exhibition of truth, justice, virtue, &c., depends the same moral elements in the character of her child. In the nursery we receive our first lessons in virtue or in vice, honesty or dishonesty, in truth or in falsehood, in purity or in corruption. The full-grown man is the matured child morally as well as physically and intellectually. The same may be said of the spiritual formation and growth of the child. Spiritual culture belongs eminently to the nursery. There the pious parent should begin the work of her child's salvation...

[Let us all thank God for our mothers.—Ed.]

*P. 17. Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History and Government: The Principle Approach is available from http://face.net/. Used by permission.

Proclamation for a Day for National Prayer and Humiliation

2009-05-05T14:36:00.000-07:00

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

A State of War

2009-05-04T14:47:00.000-07:00

by Christopher J. Ortiz

We are therefore in a state of war, war between heaven and humanism, war between the Almighty God and the totalitarian state, war between God and the scientific planners, predictors, and controllers, war between God and all those who deny His infallibility. Such a conflict is a very uneven one, and there can be no doubt as to the outcome of this war.¹

Like our Savior, we were born into battle. Not merely by our natural birth—but by being born of the Spirit: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). For our Lord, the prophetic injunction of the Garden of Eden constrained the ancient serpent to retain a clear eye on the Seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). What he did not know was that the Seed of the woman would bear a remnant:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. 12:17

The dragon declared war on them “which keep the commandments of God.” In other words, Satan does not prioritize the antinomian for serious conflict, since the antinomian can expect no outward victory in history—he has forsaken God’s primary means to measurable success. In actuality, the antinomian is a tool to help further the satanic victory, as Rushdoony notes:

The true Church is not destroyed by Satan’s efforts. The false church can be captured and made a tool of autonomous man’s pretensions, but the true Church, the remnant of God, although the object of warfare, cannot be destroyed.²

It is during times of conflict that God helps to provide covering for the true church by causing a false or compromised Christianity to absorb the dragon’s flood (Rev. 12:15). And because the flood is a raging one, victory for the true church is miraculous, since the church is able to traverse the earth on dry ground.

The dragon pursues the people of God and seeks to destroy them. Failing to destroy Christ, Satan seeks to destroy Christ’s people. “And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood” (v. 15). The delusions coming from his mouth are every kind of false doctrine and teaching, every delusion of religion and science whereby men try to infiltrate and destroy the true Church of God. But verse 16 reveals that such attempts are frustrated: the earth, that is, the world apart from Christ, so welcomes these delusions that the dragon’s flood of falsity only overwhelms his own people, while the true Church is delivered into safety by God.³

The Devil Makes Them Do It

With whom are we at war? For the overly spiritual Charismatic, we are engaged in a heavenly conflict with principalities and powers requiring only protracted seasons of intense intercessory prayer, viz. “spiritual warfare.” For the average Conservative Christian, we are at war with Democrats, the liberal media, and the ACLU. Two very different perspectives, but do either represent our true spiritual conflict?

At the outset of this article, Rushdoony saw the church as being at war with humanism, the totalitarian state, the scientific controllers, and all those who deny God’s infallibility. How can we harmonize these outlooks with the supposedly clear statements of the apostle Paul?

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph. 6:12

At first glance, this text appears to favor the Charismatic view. Isn’t Paul saying that we should look beyond physical opponents and engage in warfare praying against the real source of evil? That was the premise behind Frank Perretti’s best-selling novel This Present Darkness—the book that helped launch the spiritual warfare movement.

The apostle Paul is not denying that we contend with the organized wickedness of men, i.e. “flesh and blood.” This is initially proved by the fact that the offensive weapon of the Christian armor is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (v. 17). What Paul is saying is that we should not see men alone as our opposition, but recognize that behind the cultural institutions of this world system is an elaborate super structure of spiritual wickedness. In this sense, our contending with the kingdom of darkness is very much a ground war, because “the prince of the power of the air… worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2).

The Collapsing of Satan’s Kingdom

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 10:18

When the seventy disciples of our Lord returned from preaching the gospel, they celebrated the fact that “even the devils are subject unto us through thy name” (v. 17). To this, our Lord replied that He saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. However, the disciples did not directly confront the heavenly powers—they were engaged in a ground war that resulted in the collapsing of Satan’s spiritual kingdom. Our Lord did not need to hear the disciple’s testimony of gospel victory. He had seen the end result of their ministry demonstrated in the heavens.

The kingdom of darkness organizes wickedness beneath itself, viz. on the earth. It empowers embedded philosophies such as humanism and provides substantial insight to the social engineers who seek to manipulate history. What the disciples did to the demon possessed, we must do to the social order. Fallen man is aided in his blackened thinking by a sophisticated evil that wants to frame its mischief into law (Ps. 94:20), and it becomes the purpose of the people of God to both resist and rebuild. This is the meaning of Christian Reconstruction.

The Great Christian Protest

This is why Rushdoony perpetually held forth his sustained polemic against the humanistic state. It was for him the embodiment of evil, since he agreed with Hegel that fallen man sees the state as god walking on earth. It is for this reason that devils push for a secularized society—they must remove God from the public sphere in order to establish the satanic-human society. This is the end result of statism, and Robert Lewis Dabney saw this early on and offered a strange prophecy predicting that one day a Christian segment would rise up against the monstrosity of the state:

[T]he Jeffersonian doctrine of the absolute severance and independence of church and state, of the entire secularity of the State, and the absolutely equal rights, before the law, of religious truth and error, of paganism, atheism, and Christianity, has also established itself in all the States; and still the politicians, for electioneering ends, propagate this State education everywhere. By this curious circuit “Christian America” has gotten herself upon this thoroughly pagan ground; forcing the education of responsible, moral, and immortal beings, of which religion must ever be the essence, into the hands of a gigantic human agency, which resolves that it cannot and will not be religious at all. Surely, some great religious body will arise in America to lift its Christian protest against this monstrous result!⁴

Dabney was right. A great religious body did arise in Christian protest. It’s called Christian Reconstruction, and it’s a great indicator that victory is sure to come. So long as a persistent Christian voice remains to speak out against the institutions of Satan’s kingdom, there is hope the church of Jesus Christ will hear what the Spirit and the Word are saying.

Two Sides Working for Conquest

We are in a state of war, and set over against us is the covenant breaker working out the implications of his will to be as god. His goal is a victory in history, and without a Christian body to resist him, he will prevail in the short term. The covenant keeping Christian must therefore embrace the call to overcome the world through faith. As Rushdoony says, history is essentially a war between two world orders:

A fourth factor which prevents any destruction of the antithesis is precisely the fact that both the godly and the godless will, if true to their faith, work for conquest. The very unity of the human race in Adam leads men to seek a unified order, but the godly seek the Kingdom of God, and the godless, the kingdom of man. The clash between the two is inescapable. The doctrine of creation gives men a common origin and a common framework of purpose. In the regenerate, this means dominion over the earth under God; in the unregenerate, this means dominion over all things in defiance of God. Conquest is thus a common goal but with very differing programs, two radically different kinds of kingdoms.⁵

The true nature of spiritual warfare is to contend with the children of disobedience, because the prince of the power of the air works in them (Eph. 2:2). As Revelation says, “they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast” (Rev. 13:4). You cannot separate the one from the other. To defeat the dragon, you must first defeat the beast. Is this a simple task? Not in man’s eyes:

Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Rev. 13:4

“[T]he Lamb shall overcome them” (Rev. 17:14); and with Him are the “called, and chosen, and faithful.” If we keep the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus, we shall possess the Kingdom. It need not be our generation, because regardless of the time of God’s visible reign, our participation would be the same. Therefore, war today as if the victory was coming tomorrow!

Originally published in a circular mailing by Chalcedon Foundation. Republished with the permission of Chris Ortiz and Chalcedon Foundation, April 29, 2009

R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), 7.
R. J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2001), 168.
Ibid.,167.
Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions, Vol. IV: Secular (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1979), 548.
R. J. Rushdoony, Salvation and Godly Rule (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1983), 224.

Change the Words, Change the World

2009-04-29T15:12:00.000-07:00

By Coach Dave Daubenmire

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within... An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."

—Cicero (106-43 BC)

A coup has taken place in America. Our nation is no longer controlled by “the people.” Our domestic enemies are now officially in power. We are no longer free, we just think we are—and it has happened on our watch.

What we have failed to realize is that the Spiritual War and the Cultural War were one and the same. Because of our ignorance, the Church has engaged in the former but has ignored the latter. We did not understand that the “war in the heavenlies” manifests in the world. Our failure to fight for Truth has given us a nation ruled by liars.

We are a sin-laden nation because we have codified evil into the law. Content to focus on the “saving of souls” we have neglected Jesus’ admonition to “occupy until He comes.” As evil flourished, the Church retreated. We have failed to recognize that the battle in the heavenlies was for control of the earth.   Jesus prayed that His Kingdom would come ON EARTH. We have yielded the earth and submitted to evil.

Cicero was right. Evil did not come dressed up in a red suit and carrying a pitchfork. It has come clothed in a three-piece suit and brandishing an Ivy League degree. While we looked for an army riding tanks and planes, we have been over run by a force promoting education and arts. Using guns and bullets would have been too obvious. This war has been fought and won with words.   Language was their weapon of mass destruction.

Paul warned us of this in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

They called it multi-culturalism and it was promoted in our schools, but the formal name is Cultural Marxism. It gave birth to “political correctness” where thoughts became crimes. But it did not happen by accident. The only thing standing between Communism and world dominance was Western Civilization and its underpinnings of the Christian value system. The only way Communism could advance would be if Christianity could be rendered powerless; or, as Jesus said, if the salt was to lose His savor.

Do you remember the cries of the hippies? "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Western Civ has got to go." It was the fight song of Communism. The only thing preventing government from being god was the fact that the throne was already occupied. Twentieth century American’s believed that Jesus was God. The followers of Marx and his acolytes knew that in order to ascend to the throne they would have to overthrow God. They would advance gradually. “Make haste slowly” was their mantra and they would be patient.

They seized our public schools and infiltrated the universities. They captured the media, Hollywood, music, art, literature, science, history, civic organizations, and the seminaries. They changed the world by changing they way we thought about words; tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity were their linguistic weapons. (Is it just me or are those words permeating all of society today?) Do you think this happened by accident?

They would use our children to impeach God.   Applying Critical Theory they would attack all things Christian. The Boy Scouts were bigots, the Ten Commandments were judgmental, Christmas was exclusive, and traditional marriage was discriminatory. They brainwashed us to think that real Christians were inclusive and tolerant, that truth was relative, that all cultures were the same and that homosexuality was not a sin.

They didn’t have to kill Jesus, only His influence. To be considered a good citizen in this new America, one only had to be tolerant of everything and believe in nothing. In fact, to be sure that you kept your thoughts to yourself they began to call certain thoughts "crimes." They attacked you and even destroyed you if you dared to speak against them. Slowly, the voice of Jesus was muted.

Into the void the god-haters slinked. A different Christianity and a different America emerged. The God of judgment and wrath was dead and a resurrected "non-judgmental" Jesus became the new god that the new America embraced.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." said Karl Marx.

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism," said his buddy Vladimir Lenin.   "Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever. Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. A lie told often enough becomes the truth," Lenin went on to say.

Elected officials call America a democracy. Our school books teach the same. Yet we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, a nation of limited government chained down by a Constitution. Kill the Constitution and the Marxists can create or ignore the law. Change the words, change the world.

Communism can only thrive in the absence of the Gospel. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty. Lady Liberty has been nearly decapitated.

But the battle is far from over. Each one of us is going to have to make a decision on just how valuable we think liberty is. Are you willing to sit silently as the chains of slavery are forged for your children? Ben Franklin warned us, "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." We should heed his words.

Washington DC is rapidly becoming the enemy. It is the terrorists with Ivy League degrees that should scare us. The ideological wars are really a religious war. Intellectual terrorism has reaped more havoc on this land than Al Qaeda ever will. Will the God of the Bible and the Principles that He declares rule on earth? Or will we give in to the "tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world." Our generation will make the decision.

Marxists are in control of America. They are not liberals, they are not progressives, they are Communists. Their godless system has failed every place it has been tried. America is their beachhead. Will she be overthrown? Will Jesus lose this Spiritual battle? Will He yield the world once again to the Devil? I think not. "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." We are His ambassadors on the earth. It is time to do our duty.

So here is a good place to start. Let's take back our language. Stop allowing the cultural Marxists to create new labels. We must call things what they are.

"Progressives" and "liberals" are Marxists.
"Conservatism" is counterfeit salt.
"Pro-choice" means pro-baby murder.
A "fetus" is an unborn child.
"Tolerance" means acceptance of sin.
"Gays" are sodomites.
"Affirmative Action" is white male discrimination.
An "undocumented worker" is an illegal alien.
The "mainstream media" are Marxists.
The "religious left" are humanistic socialists.
"Social justice" means advancement of homosexuality.
"Reproductive rights" is a buzz word for abortion.
"Sex education" is destruction of natural childhood modesty.
"Economic justice" is welfare.
"Government investment" means taxation.
"Sensitivity: means keep your mouth shut.
"Diversity" validates deviant ways to engage in sex.
A "Republican" is a socialist and a "Democrat" is a communist.
An "expert" is an academician with no practical experience.
"Public education" is atheistic, humanistic indoctrination.
"Separation of church and state" legalizes Christian discrimination.
Supreme Court "decisions" are opinions and are not laws.
"Christianity" is not a religion; it is a kingdom.
"Change" means Communism.

America can be saved if Americans will wake up. Look at this list of self-proclaimed socialists in Congress. They have seized the Republic.

Stop using their words. Words have power. Let’s call a Marxist a Marxist. Stand up and speak up. Our kids are depending on us.

Otherwise, see you at the Gulag.

Permission to post given by Coach Dave Daubenmire.

You Are Funding Forced Abortions in China

2009-04-23T12:01:00.000-07:00

by Reggie Littlejohn

So am I. Not only elective abortions. Forced abortions. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on this issue. No one can support forced abortion, because it is not a choice.

What do I mean by “forced abortions”? Here are a couple of examples from the U.S. Department of State China Report, just released on February 25, 2009: “In March [2008] family planning officials in Henan Province reportedly forcibly detained a 23-year-old unmarried woman who was seven months pregnant. Officials reportedly tied her to a bed, induced labor, and killed the newborn upon delivery. In April [2008] population-planning officials in Shandong provinces reportedly detained and beat the sister of a woman who had illegally conceived a second child in an attempt to compel the woman to undergo an abortion.”

According to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China report, released on October 31, 2008, “Violators of the [one-child] policy are routinely punished with exorbitant fines, and in some cases, subjected to forced sterilization, forced abortion, arbitrary detention, and torture.”

In my opinion, systematic use of forced abortion is a crime against humanity. And now, you and I will be footing the bill.

Just this month, Congress quietly passed $50 million in funding for UNFPA, the United Nations Family Planning Fund. The bill includes language that voids Kemp-Kasten, which for 23 years has stood to prevent US dollars from funding coercive family planning.

The US cut off funding UNFPA in 2001 because an investigation, headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell, found that UNFPA was complicit with the Chinese Family Planning officials in coercive implementation of China’ One-Child Policy. According to our own State Department, as well as Amnesty International, China Aid and others, the implementation of China’s One-Child Policy remains coercive.

Why must we fund forced abortion with our tax dollars?

Not only are women dragged out of their homes screaming and pleading in “family planning raids,” but the One-Child Policy has also led to many other serious human rights violations. I’ll name just three:

Gendercide. Because of the traditional preference for boys, most of the aborted babies are girls. There are 120 boys born for every 100 girls born in China, and in some areas the number is as high as 130 boys born for every 100 girls. Since the One-Child Policy was instituted in 1978, 400 million births – greater than the entire population of the United States – have been “prevented.” You could say that an entire nation of women is not living in China today because they were selectively aborted before they were born. This is gendercide.
Human Trafficking and Sexual Slavery. Because of abortion, abandonment, and infanticide of baby girls, there are an estimated 30 million Chinese men who will never marry because they cannot find wives. This gender imbalance is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery from nations surrounding China. According to the February, 2009 State Department China Report, “Over the past five years, there reportedly was an increase in cross-border trafficking cases, with most trafficked women and girls coming from North Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam. Others came from Burma, Laos, Russia and Ukraine.”
Female suicide. According to the World Health Organization, China has the highest female suicide rate of any country in the world. Approximately 500 Chinese women commit suicide each day. Forced abortion traumatizes women. Could this high suicide rate be related to forced abortion?

And now, our taxpayer dollars will subsidize forced abortion in China. Think about that when you write your check to Uncle Sam on April 16. Then let President Obama and your Congressional Representatives know what you think. If there’s enough of an outcry, Congress can pass an amendment blocking our UNFPA funding from going to nations that practice coercive family planning. China should be excluded from UNFPA funding.

The great 19th century admirer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” May we not lose our goodness, and hence our greatness as a nation by funding forced abortions in China.

Op-Ed by Reggie Garcia Littlejohn
Reggie Littlejohn serves as an expert on China's One-Child Policy for Human Rights Without Frontiers, in Belgium, as well as the China Aid Association. On December, 2008, she delivered an address at European Parliament in Brussels concerning the One-Child Policy. A graduate of Yale Law School, Ms. Littlejohn has represented Chinese refugees in their political asylum cases in the United States.

Paulson: What would we do if Ayn Rand's novel were real? Galt wants Atlas to strike

2009-04-13T11:42:00.000-07:00

By Terry Paulson

President Barack Obama’s rapid race into socialism is creating an escalating tax revolt. With a never-ending stream of stimulus packages and new entitlement programs, the Americans who will be stuck with the bill are shouting a clear message: “Enough!”

Many organizations are calling for a Tax Day Tea Party (http://taxdayteaparty.com/) on April 15. To Democrats, “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share,” but many of the top 20 percent of wage-owners who pay 83 percent of the income taxes are taking to the streets.

Yes, Obama is my president, and as Warren Buffett said, “We’re all in the same boat.” But if the boat’s captain is so busy enjoying his applauding throng to notice that he’s sending us full-speed into an iceberg, you’d better do more than just disagree.

Writing letters, complaining to your representatives, even tax-revolt protests may not be enough. When workers reject their contract, they strike. Maybe it’s time for Atlas to do more than shrug! Is it time for the top tax-paying Americans to strike?

John Galt, the fictional protagonist in Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged,” responded to the growing regulations and taxation in Rand’s fictional socialist America by convincing “the rich” to leave and let socialism fail. How would you respond if John Galt wrote this letter today?

My fellow taxpaying Americans,

I write you to warn you and to challenge you. We deserve this economic collapse. We’ve allowed our politicians to sacrifice justice to forced compassion, trade our freedom for government dependence and confiscate earned wealth to fund more entitlements.

For more than two centuries, the American Dream has demonstrated what excellence unleashed can do, but for decades, politicians have conducted a war on excellence. Personal responsibility has given way to entitlement. Instead of honoring excellence, we elect politicians to confiscate as much money as possible from wealth producers to fund entitlements for those who haven’t earned it.

Some of today’s bailout recipients are no better than burglars, but burglars don’t ask us to sanction their crime. As the government seizes your wealth through unfair taxation rates, liberal politicians want voluntary compliance from you, the tax-paying victims.

When America began, government cost the average citizen $20 in today’s money. That’s $20 a year! Taxes rose during wars, but for most of the history of America, spending never exceeded a few hundred dollars per citizen.

During and after World War II, government just kept expanding.

The cost of the recent stimulus packages alone is more than $18,000 per household. We are witnessing the climax of over 70 years of creeping socialism. America created a system that produced the wealth of the world, and we’re letting the destroyers dismantle it.

Citizens and companies now compete not to achieve but to receive the biggest bailouts. The responsible citizens pay, and the beggars collect. But money taken from the achievement of others won’t buy intelligence for the fool, admiration for the lazy or respect for the incompetent. The irresponsible takers are unwelcome hitchhikers.

We have always been a compassionate people, but compassionate Americans, not the government, should help their neighbors in need.

When those who fund our growing federal debt stop buying, who’ll pay the bill? Washington could confiscate all the taxable income of everyone making over $75,000 and it would barely produce $4 trillion.

Our unchecked entitlement system will eventually collapse; I challenge you to make that happen now! It’s time for Atlas to shrug — to calmly, consciously and deliberately go on strike for true fairness. Our collective response must be simple and non-violent: “No more! I will cease to achieve, invent, produce, hire, serve or invest until all Americans pay the same flat income-tax rate!”

Re-engage when America once again is a country that protects everyone’s rights — the right to property, the right for every person to rise as far as she’s able. We ask for no special rights — only freedom to take our own risks, to bear our own losses and to experience our own rewards.

For those of you who voted for this liberal takeover, take pause. Do you have so little confidence in yourself and your children’s ability that you can’t succeed without government subsidies?

It’s not too late to choose freedom over dependence, earned rewards over entitlement and personal responsibility over collective rights.

American automobile companies can emerge from bankruptcy with a smaller but more vibrant business model. Out of a bankrupt America can emerge a leaner government based on America’s founding principles. With shared equal responsibility and shared equal opportunity, a new optimism and entrepreneurial spirit will unleash an economic recovery like we have not seen in decades.

Risk striking for a new America worth believing in!

— John Galt

There is no letter. There is no strike. John Galt does not exist. How would you respond if he did?

— Terry Paulson of Agoura Hills is a psychologist, speaker and author. E-mail him at terry@terrypaulson.com. Website: http://www.terrypaulson.com

Daniel 12: The Certainty of Victory

2009-04-08T15:18:00.000-07:00

"Daniel 12: The Certainty of Victory"—by R. J. Rushdoony1

The vast perspective of Daniel, historical and political prophecy with all time in purview, does not work, however, to the detriment of the personal perspective. Daniel's very private grief at the setting aside of Israel as a nation, and the creation of a new non-racial Israel to be the people of God, is always in view. It comes into especially sharp focus in 12:1.

The last prophecy began (10:14) with Israel's destiny and fall in view, and Daniel's concern and relation thereto. Again, with reference to "that time," the vision continues. Jesus' citation of 12:1 (Matt. 24:21-22) with reference to the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:21-22 is otherwise interpreted by some, however), is of significance here. The fall of Jerusalem, and the public rejection of physical Israel as the chosen people of God, meant also the deliverance of the true people of God, the church in Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem, "which were aspects of "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). Daniel is accordingly identified with the elect, and is to seek his identity therein, for "at that time thy people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the book" (12:1). This new people of God shall not be confused with the remnant of Daniel's day; rather than a remnant, it is a multitude, ultimately the overwhelming majority, so that this description (12:2), setting forth salvation and pointing ahead to the general resurrection, can speak of the elect of God as the "many," and the reprobate as "some." Those who are wise or are teachers of the elect during the course of the oppression of the elect shall have all the greater reward and responsibility in the eternal kingdom (12:3).

Daniel's prophecy was given the status and dignity of Scripture, and was stated to be valid throughout time, as a means of true knowledge for men. The pursuit of knowledge, earnest but vain in that God is bypassed, will characterize human history. As Young translates it, "many shall run to and fro, that knowledge may be increased" (12:4).2

The conclusion of Daniel, 12:5-13, itself introduces, as Deane and Young have both noted, a new symbol, "the river" of verses 5, 6, and 7, a word in the original which indicates reference to the Nile, although the actual river is the Tigris or Hiddekel.3 The double reference gives evidence of the generality of reference: every captivity of the elect, whether to Egypt, Babylon, or the organic or legalistic states, will be in its entirety in the hands of the Almighty, and will be used by Him for His own glorious purpose. God is on both sides of the river with His angels, and controls every aspect of every step of history (Rom. 8:28), so that no captivity can end in other than God's glory and the destruction of the captors. Even as God miraculously delivered Israel from Egypt, and was about to use the Persian Empire to His glory, so in every age the wrath and treasures of men are made to serve Him.

The objective of all these events is the triumph of the saints, to be revealed with the collapse of the "little horn" at the end of "a time, times and an half' (12:7; cf. 7:25). With that collapse, Christian society shall triumph in every realm; then the suffering shall "be finished," that suffering which indeed is a cause for "wonders," since it seems to indicate the helplessness of God's people, and the failure of God to deliver (12:6-7).

This answer failed to satisfy Daniel, who "understood not" and accordingly asked, "O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?" The response is pointed: Drop the subject, go no further, for here the matter goes beyond your time and your concern, but it will be understood by those who need it, who are wise, redeemed, and mature in the Lord (12:8-10). Much as the suffering may seem to dominate the worldview, yet it is far from being the total picture. The daily newspaper may report fires, murders, and thefts, all in actuality far from depicting the day's events, in the main made up of worship, work, rest, and play, but the abnormality dominates the stage. Even so, the tribulation of the elect seems to dominate the perspective, while far from representative of it. The persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes is compared to 1290 days, i.e., a little more than half of seven years, or the fullness of time, so that these grim days, not without their important revitalization of faith, can at best be said to represent the fact that the suffering of the true church, with every aspect thereof, will be only a circumscribed and limited element of history. Those who wait through these trials and attain their victories in Christ find the blessedness at the 1335 days, 45 days more than the earlier period. The two sums, 1290 and 1335, add up to more than seven years, and are not intended as proportionate representations of time and history. The first represents persecution; the second, blessing of a signal sort. History also has its eras of stagnation, development, groping, etc., and the depiction of these two periods as "days" indicates their limited nature in terms of the whole, and yet, by their relationship to seven years, their importance in terms of the meaning of the whole. Suffering or trial, and fulfillment, have both decisive roles in man's life and history. The culminating word is one of triumph in history, in the "1335 days" (12:11-12).

The concluding word to Daniel is, "But go thou thy way till the end," or, as Young has interpreted it, "Go on as thou art until the end of life,"4 and rest, and then "stand in thy lot at the end of the days," i.e., receive your eternal inheritance in the Lord (12:13).

Daniel is political prophecy, and it is confident prophecy, declaring the certain victory of the kingdom of God (not to be confused with or limited to the institutional church, which is one manifestation thereof), in history. If the victory of Christ is to be eschatological only, and in terms only of an eternal order, then Daniel is a monstrous piece of irrelevance. The sorry tribulation-complex of a smug and self-satisfied church, surrounded by ease and luxury, is certainly an amazing fact, one surely indicative of a masochistic desire for self-atonement by means of suffering. But the whole of Scripture proclaims the certainty of God's victory in time and in eternity, and the resurrection is the bold and uncompromising declaration of that victory in time. There can be no retreat from victory without a corresponding retreat from Christ. The Great Commission, with its confident command to make disciples of all nations (Matt, 28:19), was no mere hyperbole or vain expression of wistful hope, but the assured promise of Him who could say, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18), "Go ye therefore" (Matt. 28:19). Unhappily, since the day of Calvary, the church has all too often been concerned with embalming Christ, while His enemies, a little more realistically, have vainly sought to guard themselves from His power. It is high time to proclaim the power of His resurrection.
The resurrection is given in Daniel 12:2 as the keynote of the gospel age, i.e., of the latter days. The "day" or time of resurrection began with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that Christians live in the resurrection era. The age has its tribulations, its battles unto death, but its essence for the Christian is victory unto life. Because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it cannot be otherwise.

1) A chapter excerpt from R.J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1970 and 1998). Used by permission of Chalcedon Foundation (http://chalcedon.edu).
2) Commentary, ad loc.
3) H. Deane, in Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, v. V. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 400; and Young Commentary, ad loc.
4) Commentary, ad loc.

The Risen Christ Reveals Himself!

2009-04-08T15:08:00.000-07:00

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on John 20:19-25

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe (John 20:19-25 KJV).

On the evening of the day upon which our Lord arose, the apostles and other disciples met together in some room they had procured. Here is a Christian assembly solemnized by the disciples, and expressly owned by the Lord Jesus. The evangelist especially notes that this was the first day of the week, and this day is afterwards frequently mentioned by the sacred writers; for it was evidently set apart as the Christian Sabbath, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. The disciples had shut the doors for fear of the Jews; and when they had no such expectation, Jesus him-self came and stood in the midst of them, having miraculously, though silently, opened the doors. It is comfort to Christ's disciples, when their assemblies are reduced to privacy, no doors can shut out Christ's presence.

Christ rose in that natural body which was crucified and laid in the grave, and it is certain that flesh and blood cannot penetrate through a door. Such an idea would destroy not only the end of Christ's coming among them, but would disregard all that he said or did to convince them that the same body which was crucified appeared to them.

Before his crucifixion, our Lord had promised the disciples his peace, Ch. 14.27, 28; this he now pronounced, and conferred upon them, thus giving assurance that he was entirely reconciled, and forgave their forsaking him. To convince them also of the reality of his resurrection, he showed them his wounded hands and side, which satisfied their doubts, and made them glad. When Christ manifests his love to believers by the comforts of his Spirit, assures them that because he lives, they shall live also, then he shows them his hands and his side. A sight of Christ will gladden the heart of a disciple at anytime; the more we see of Christ, the more we shall rejoice; and. our joy will never be perfect till we arrive where we shall see him as he is. Having repeated to them the assurance of his peace, he confirmed their commission to declare his truth to the world. And, as an earnest of the approaching descent of the Spirit upon them, he breathed upon them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, thus showing that their spiritual life, as well as all their ability for their work, would be derived from Him, and depended upon Him.

Every word of Christ which is received in the heart by faith, comes accompanied by this divine breathing; and without this there is neither light nor life, Nothing is seen, known, discerned, or felt, of God, but through this.

After this he authorized them to declare the only method in which sin would be forgiven, so that, to the end of time, all decisions or declarations concerning any, in respect to their acceptance with God, are correct, provided they accord with the doctrine and rule of the apostles, but not otherwise. God will never alter this rule of judgment, nor vary from it; those whom the gospel acquits, shall be acquitted, and those whom that condemns, shall be condemned. The language of authority used by our Lord on this single occasion, seems exclusively appropriate to the great Head of the church, and marks the immense disparity between him and his most eminent servants.

This authority did not exist at all in the apostles, but only as declaring the character of those whom God would accept or reject in the day of judgment. They have laid down with the utmost clearness the marks whereby a child of God may be discerned and be distinguished from a hypocritical professor; according to what they have declared, shall every case be decided in the day of judgment.

The Spirit of the Lord rested upon them to qualify them for all the services that lay before them. Whom Christ employs he will clothe with his Spirit, and furnish with all needful powers. And when we assemble in Christ's name, especially on his holy day, he will meet with us, and speak peace to us. He will assure us of his forgiveness; allay our fears of enemies, and communicate his sacred Spirit of life, love, holiness, and consolation; according as our services or our difficulties require his special assistance, support, and influences.

Thomas, by his absence, missed the satisfaction of seeing his Master risen, and of sharing with the disciples in their joy upon that occasion. Those who absent themselves from the stated solemn assemblies of Christians, will surely be losers. But it seems though Thomas was then absent from them, he was not long away; absenters for a time must not be condemned as apostates for ever; Thomas was not Judas.

Observe with what exultation and triumph the disciples speak—We have seen the Lord. The disciples of Christ should endeavor to build up one another in their most holy faith, both by repeating what -have heard to those that were absent, as also by communicating what they have experienced. Those who by faith have seen the Lord, and have tasted that he is gracious, should tell others what God has done for their souls; only let boasting be excluded.

Thomas raised objections to justify himself in his unwillingness to believe that his Lord was risen. He either had not heeded, or had not duly regarded what Christ had so often said, according to the Old Testament, that he would rise again the third day. He did not pay a just deference to the testimony of his fellow-disciples. He limited the Holy One of Israel, when he would be convinced by his own method or not at all. The open avowal of this in the presence of the disciples, was an offense and discouragement to them. His proclaiming his unbelief, and that so peremptorily, might be of ill consequence to the rest who were as yet but weak and wavering. He might, therefore, justly have been left in his unbelief, after rejecting such sufficient and abundant proof. The fears and sorrows of the disciples are often prolonged as a chastisement for their negligence.

ST. PATRICK'S EARLY MORNING HYMN

2009-04-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

Words: Rev. Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. (Here is my attempt to get Patrick's Irish Lorica to rhyme in English.)
Tune: St. Petersburg or Melita (U.S. Navy Hymn)

Today I rise, and now commune
with my Creator God Triune.
He's One, by grace through faith I know
Jehovah God, from long ago!
He's also Elohim. Thus Three
from, and until, eternity!

Today I rise, and with my eyes
I see how John did Christ baptize --
His cross and grave I clearly see.
I know He went there, all for me.
Because He rose up from His tomb,
my sin no longer means my doom!

Today I rise, while angels serve
I'll pray with every ounce of nerve.
I'll heed God's heralds; read His Word;
then I will very gladly gird
His Spirit's sword for works of love.
His saints must be: pure as a dove.

Today I'll rise before the sun
its daily rising has begun --
before the rushings of the wind,
or thunderbolts have loudly dinned.
For God's deep sea is in His hand,
and rock-firm is His promised land.

Today I rise. God's strength me guides;
His might all day with me abides.
His wisdom leads; His eye shall guard;
His ear shall hear; His Word bombard
my foes. His gentle hands protect
and keep me on His road correct.

God's angels guard me 'gainst all snares;
against all vicious trials and scares;
against all of my carnal lusts;
against all nature's stormy gusts;
against all harm, both far and near.
Against all foes, I have no fear.

Christ shelters from each harmful wound
no matter what my foes impugned.
'Gainst burns and drownings, 'gainst all falls.
Against all poisons, and all brawls
Christ guards me with His mighty sword.
So I'll yet get His good reward.

My Christ is with me, and before,
behind, beneath, above -- and more.
Christ's on my left, Christ's on my right --
there when I sit, and when I fight.
Whatever I may take to hand,
Christ's there -- when I'm asleep, or stand.

Christ's where I rise, when every day
I read His Word and to Him pray.
When I'm discussed, He's in the heart --
He's in the mouth, right from the start.
He's in the eye of all who see
and hear the actions done by me.

Today I rise, in God's strong Name,
the great Jehovah to proclaim.
The Lord is always One and Three --
my God, for all eternity!
Yes, God is always One and Three --
my Lord, for all eternity!

Experiencing the Aesthetics of Freedom: A Journalistic Look Through the Eyes of a French Aristocrat, A British Abolitionist, and an American Economist

2009-03-31T13:40:00.000-07:00

by Amanda Manuel (Public Relations and Business Administration Major Spring 2009)

  Imagine sitting in the board room of a South Carolina school district where arguments for the line between church and state are presented. Listen closely; the underlying principles of freedom are there. Look down the hallways of a multinational corporation as it conceives a marketing plan to sell the potato chip. A strength of the free market resides there. Detect the chatter of Washington political activists using the debate over a president’s plan for tax relief to make their case for the appropriate balance between federal and state power. Take one more look at an American musical staged and presented by a Colorado high school student who believes lyrics and melodies are freedom’s sincere expression. François-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire writes, "In general, the imaginations of painters contribute more to exhibit the learning in the artist than to increase the beauty of the art." ¹ Likewise, beauty is found in the imaginations of a citizen, like you, contemplating freedom the same way the artist contemplates the final finish on his painting.

      One of the beauties of freedom in American is that it is a journey through the imagination. America’s founders contemplate a journey of ideals perhaps unattainable, but set forth as worthy goals for a striving nation. They imagine a nation in centrifugal motion, constantly weighing and measuring new ideas and ambitions with the center solidly grounded in democratic principles. Americans readily strive for justice, but do not always achieve justice; they pride themselves on living in a free society, yet they do not always respect freedoms; they revere democracy, but they are sometimes undemocratic.

A French Aristocrat
In a period of just nine months², Frenchman, Alexis Charles Henri Clerel de Tocqueville journeys through the cities and country sides of a nation he never calls home. Measuring the nation against the founders’ intentions, he identifies the political convictions and national preoccupations that set America apart from the rest of the world. Beginning with the earliest monuments of American history, de Tocqueville imagines how problems contrary to democratic principles form within individuals and within nations. "Go back, look at the baby in its mother’s arms. The whole man is there. Something analogous takes place in free nations. If it were possible to examine the first monuments of their history, I do not doubt that we could discover in them the first causes of prejudices, habits, and dominant passions, of all that finally composes the national character." Tocqueville asserts that this is what America has been from the very beginning: the sum of the early imaginary landscapes and character of each individual American.

      A journalist establishing a method for defining the imaginary landscape will thoroughly examine the material, question assumptions, reevaluate strategy, and rely on the canon of wisdom created by historians of the American story. Advocating a journalistic approach, de Tocqueville does not just look about to discover the beauty of freedom; he also engages the people of America. "A stranger sitting at fireside with his host will often hear important truths that might be withheld from a friend," de Tocqueville writes. "With the stranger it is a relief to break an enforced silence, and the stranger’s indiscretion need not be feared because his stay will be short." When he is not ruminating about the American character or complaining about the quality of transport (Democracy In America is filled with descriptions of the inferior nature of American carriages), the French aristocrat often relates stories of his encounters with the American people – a businessman and a politician, a priest and a slave owner. In the lives of these citizens, de Tocqueville develops an image of freedom purified by motive. "I sought there an image of democracy itself- its inclinations, character, prejudices, and passions. I wanted to become familiar with democracy if only to find out what we had to hope from it, or to fear," Tocqueville writes. Adapting his method, we are not certain to find the beauty of freedom in the halls of power, but on the streets and in the churches, in the lives of emerging businesspeople and new immigrant workers. "The boldest theories of the human reason were put into practice by this community of men so humble that not a statesman condescended to attend to it; and a legislation without a precedent was produced offhand by the imagination of the citizens. In the bosom of this obscure democracy, which had as yet brought forth neither generals, nor philosophers, nor authors, a man might stand up in the face of a free people and pronounce a fine definition of liberty."³ Based on de Tocqueville’s theory, individuals have a powerful potential to change their immediate surroundings.

      Citizens acting on potential in a democratic society create the very image of freedom in beautiful, coherent ability. Freely engaging in civic discussions, identifying needs, and affecting change at the grassroots level in America is the very image of citizenship and service essential to maintain free society. Voluntary, proactive social responsibility holds moral value and carries with it long run economic value in perfect symmetry and balance. It can be noted how close the ideas do link to the concept of the American dream, with the individual having the power to change society and maybe history from below, rather than being manipulated from above.

A British Abolitionist

      Thomas Clarkson, a young, middle-class, Cambridge-educated minister, also advocates a journalistic approach and identifies a stark interior of aesthetic freedom within the British slave trade. Face-to-face with the struggle that raged on the slave ships and along the waterfront in the slave-trading ports, Clarkson journalistically uncovers a deep contrast of freedom in human experience. As it turns out, the definition of freedom formulated in Clarkson’s mind requires a description of lack. Aiming at the metaphysical realties of free nation, the mind operates in a dualistic, limited, time-space environment. In this environment, the mind breaks up the whole of its awareness into different parts. One part of this broken awareness is this definition of freedom as a "great negative." Relating negativity to beauty, Voltaire writes, "Beauty is the result of contrast, and universal concord springs out of a perpetual conflict." ⁴ Uncovering the beauty of freedom in his inquires, Clarkson begins with the premise that the slave trade and the conflict perpetuated throughout society as a result is capable of emulating all the power of servitude and the defects of a society falling desperately short of its ideals.

Fearlessly, Clarkson finds and interviews the British citizens who know the slave trade from the inside out. These sources are deserters, cripples, rebels, dropouts and the guilty of conscious. Clarkson uses their stories to transform the abstract and distant slave trade into a concrete, human, and immediate situation.⁵ The pro-slavery members of Parliament expect to hear the testimony of admirals and men of honor. Instead, Clarkson fearlessly presents evidence from ship-keepers, ship-sweepers, and deck cleaners. Yet, is the testimonies of ordinary men that examine the visceral realities of the slave trade by matter of connection to the harsh realities of everyday life far separated up until that point from the House of Commons debates.

      Clarkson also uses printed imagery as a second journalistic tool. He brings forth evidence in the form of a detailed drawing of the slave ship, Brookes. The ship is, at first sight, a thing of beauty; however, as Clarkson uncovers another portion of the drawing, viewers imagine a vast machine of workers and floating dungeon of enslavement. Graphically expressing the sufferings caused by the trade, Charles James Fox addresses the House of Commons in April, 1791, concerning the drawing of the slave ship Brookes. The printed section of the slave-ship is, to Fox, "Where the eye might see what the tongue must fall short in describing."⁶ William Wilberforce also coins a memorable phrase as he observes the Brookes drawing, "So much misery condensed in so little room is more than the human imagination had ever before conceived."⁷ Clarkson insists that the power of the image of Brookes lay primarily in its ability to make the viewer identify and sympathize with those whose freedom is stripped and laid naked on the lower deck of the ship. The image agitates and moves the viewer to join the debate about the slave trade with more human understanding of what is at stake. In conveying the horrors of transportation, the picture also appeals to the emotions of the observer and seals the issue in his or her memory. In doing so, the image becomes a language, which is at once intelligible and irresistible.⁸ As a result, Clarkson anticipates what modern scholars have labeled the "iconic vocabulary" and "visual identity" of the abolitionist movement.⁹

      Secondly, Clarkson insists that the power of the image of the Brookes lay primarily in its ability to make the viewer imagine, identify, and sympathize with the injured Africans on the lower deck of the ship. The Brookes image is not simply a critique of the slave trade but an equally a striking illustration of the barbarity inextricably liked to the imagination of those deprived of freedom. In journalistic style, moral questions are in full force and aim to advocate for those deprived of freedom. Who were the agents of this violent, cruel barbarism? Who imagined this horrific ship? Who designed it? The power of these questions increases as the image of the Brookes evolves; however there are three very specific design alterations that turn the Brookes drawing into abolitionist propaganda. First, The Plymouth broadside dropped all text referring to the slave trade. The paper even reduced and eventually removed all headings to create ambiguity. As a result, many people view the Brookes slave ship drawing and do not know they are looking at abolitionist propaganda.

      Apart from drawings and persuasion, a deeply perceptive journalistic perspective among the enslaved below deck was written by seaman William Butterworth, in an account of his voyage aboard the Hudibras, from Liverpool to Old Calabar in 1786-87. Butterworth lends an imaginative description of freedom’s absence among the female slaves with whom he is stationed and whom he observes closely. As he observes, he writes a detailed account of a nameless woman who is universally esteemed among the bondwomen and especially among her own countrywomen. The woman is "an oracle of literature" –an "orator" and a "songstress." When she speaks or sings, the female slaves of the Haudibras arrange themselves on the quarter deck in circles, "the youngest constituting the innermost circle, and so on, several deep, the most aged always being found outermost."¹⁰ The singer stands, or rather kneels, at the center of the inner circle, singing "slow airs, of pathetic nature," no doubt capturing the sorrows of dispossession and enslavement. Butterworth says, "I consider the expressions of women deeply deprived of freedom to be thought provoking."⁹ Is there any doubt that Butterworth is contemplating the sweetness of his own freedom? In the bondage of slavery, the woman also gives orations, some of which, Butterworth believes, are recitations from memory, perhaps epic poetry. Depending on the tale and the circumstances, these pieces "move the passions; exciting joy or grief, pleasure or pain, as fancy or inclination led," ¹¹ The effect, even on the young Englishman who cannot even understand the words, is moving: to his surprise, he shed tears of involuntary sympathy. Conclusively, Butterworth’s experiences with the expressions of slavery demonstrate the influence of the senses on the ability to define and cherish freedom.

      Clarkson and Butterworth demonstrate that some Englishmen in the 1700’s observe neglected freedoms and are not willing to tolerate the accepted state of affairs. Tradition is rarely challenged with affluent public support in the 1700’s; however, both men seek public support before defending the freedom of man. They seek the harsh facts of slavery and make them known. They demand an unusual effort of imagination from the public to comprehend the sufferings of remote foreigners. Many of the leaders of church and state are convinced to support the abolitionist movement on moral grounds, but still choose to do nothing because of their economic interests.

      The British slave trade is a profitable business. Liverpool slavers, for instance, between 1783 and 1793, carry over 300,000 slaves to the West Indies, sell them for £15,000,000, and pocket a net profit of 30 percent.¹² The efforts of the abolitionists threaten the productivity of the West Indies. "The impossibility of doing without slaves in the West Indies," wrote a London publicist in 1764, "will always prevent this traffic being dropped. The necessity, the absolute necessity, then, of carrying it on, must since there is no other, be its excuse."¹³ Since the slave trade is believed to be an economic necessity, the premise must stand that the economy will fail or be significantly hindered by the abolition of the slave trade. At the same time, men who are constantly striving for economic improvement are often faced with opposition from the values and norms of a given society and are, perhaps, unintentionally on the wrong side of the battle.

An American Economist

      A deeper look into the economics of liberty would show that the quest for continual improvement sometimes leads to an unexpected hindrance. Take this illustration. If an enterprising florist sets out to perfect a plant, he will strive to unite size, symmetry, and beauty of color. Achieving the highest success, he will possess a carnation in which each quality is considered to be in the state of perfection. However beautiful his flower may be, other care, other soil, or altered sunlight, might produce one still more beautiful. The enterpriser knows by what means he attained that degree of beauty in the flower, but he cannot be sure that by pursuing similar means, like increasing sunlight, he will obtain a more beautiful blossom. It is possible that by endeavoring to improve one quality, he may impair the beauty of another part of the plant. He could destroy the symmetry he once called beautiful by striving for a larger size.¹⁴     Similar to the enterprising florist, Counselors in the House of Commons force the economic factors of the slave trade in the name of preserving the beauty of balance and order in their economy. In reality, they strain the very bond of society to a point where the nation, at the time of perceived improvement, becomes on some level a loose, deformed, disjointed mass, without union, and symmetry. At best, the bond of society is in stasis while considering the situation of slavery.

      While the economic factors of the trade are extremely hard to overcome, slave traders eventually understand how pushing the economic necessity of the slave trade causes division in their industry; however, a balanced view of liberty and economics can produce symmetry in beautiful collaboration. In another expression, economic prosperity and individual liberty are inextricably linked. A joint study currently led by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation produces a journalistic report called the Index of Economic Freedom. The report ranks 157 countries based on 10 economic indicators such as property rights, freedom of government, over-regulation, taxation, government corruption, and trade restrictions. The birth of America with its unique Constitution unleashes human creativity and its economic benefits are nearly immediate. Drawing from his observations, economist and syndicated columnist Walter Williams writes, "Some people claim that countries are rich because of abundant natural resources. "That’s nonsense! Africa and South America continents are rich in natural resources, but are home to some of the world’s poorest people." ¹⁵ The economic development lesson is clear: Extensive government control, weak property rights and government corruption almost guarantee poverty. Poverty is the ultimate depravation of freedom. Citizens in poverty do not have the resources available to engage in the pursuit of improvement. Their imaginations are often stifled by their immediate circumstances.

      The spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing improvements on an unwilling people. The spirit of liberty resists attempts to force improvement. "Free labor is incomparably more productive than slave labor. The slave has no interest in exerting himself fully. He works only as much and as zealously as is necessary to escape the punishment attaching failure to perform the minimum," according to renowned economist Ludwig von Mises. "The free worker, on the other hand, knows that the more his labor accomplishes, the more he will be paid." The only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since independent individuals are the strongest centers of improvement.

Conclusion

The free worker continually strives, through their imagination, to make new inventions in mechanical things. Some citizen workers are even eager for improvement in politics, education, and morals, though realizing they could fail to attain the aesthetic ideals.¹⁶ Again, one of the beauties of freedom in American is that it is a journey through the imagination. America’s founders contemplate a journey of ideals perhaps unattainable, but set forth as worthy goals for a striving nation. They imagine a nation in centrifugal motion, constantly weighing and measuring new ideas and ambitions with the center solidly grounded in democratic principles.

The joys and sorrows of human beings form a chief element in the subject matter of beauty; and evidently the pleasures which beauty gives increases as the feelings associated with these joys and sorrows strengthens. In modern times, the imaginative works which glorify destructive activities are less numerous, there are an increasing number of works gratifying to the kindlier sentiments of spectators.¹⁷ Those spectators who care little about the hardship of their fellow citizens are, by implication, shut out from a wide range of the aesthetic pleasures of freedom. Remember, Voltaire writes, "In general, the imaginations of painters contribute more to exhibit the learning in the artist than to increase the beauty of the art." ¹⁸ Likewise, beauty is found in the imaginations of a citizen, like you, contemplating freedom the same way the artist contemplates the final finish on his painting. Citizens find the beautiful in the degree to which they value liberty.

SAINT PATRICK’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN (CHRISTIAN) CIVILIZATION

2009-03-13T15:52:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Marshall Foster, Founder, Mayflower Institute and World History Institute

from Mayflower Institute Journal – July 2008

“Battle is Your Calling”

Across America, great frustration and anger are rising, as productive Americans feel that they are buried in hundreds of thousands of laws and tax codes that dominate their everyday lives, families, property and businesses.

Our nation not only has too many laws, but they are overly complex and often impossible to understand or comply without the help of expensive attorneys. Journalist Radley Balko documents that “the federal tax code covers over 17,000 pages and requires over 700 different forms. The IRS estimates Americans spend 5.1 billion hours annually merely preparing their taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that those wasted hours drain some $194 billion annually from the U.S. economy….The Federal Registry which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses, now exceeds 75,000 pages. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that merely complying with these regulations – that is, paying lawyers to keep educated on them, interpret them and implement them - costs U.S. business another $500 to $600 billion per year.”

Why is this happening? America is at the tipping point between the two major conflicting law systems of people and nations: King’s or Ruler’s Law and God’s Law. America was founded upon a simple and yet profoundly effective infrastructure built upon voluntary obedience to God’s Law. The result was blessing, prosperity and personal liberty as the world had never before experienced. Taxes were low, laws were few and life and charity were focused at the family and community level.

But the past few generations have been seduced back toward the top-down Ruler’s Law which has dominated most nations of the world. This system always enslaves a people through an elaborate network of bureaucracy and ruler’s laws, eventually leaving them dependent upon government for everything. The rulers often make god-like promises and always exempt themselves from their own onerous laws and taxes.

The answer to this juggernaut of Ruler’s Law has always been the same throughout history. The story of the rise of liberty has repeated itself for two millennia. First a people find themselves in misery under the strong arm of their government. Then God raises up a small minority, sometimes one individual, who rediscovers that the only source of liberty is God and His Word. Working together with God, they then proceed to liberate millions with His truth. Be encouraged that we can restore our nation against all odds. There is no better place to start to see what can be done than to track the impact of early believers as they faced the cruelty of Rome on the one hand and the anarchy and barbarity of the pagan tribes of Europe on the other. They ultimately outlasted and defeated the Roman Empire and laid the foundations for Western Civilization. They turned the world upside down by following their Lord’s strategy of servant leadership (Mathew 20:25). They started by first living out God’s Law in their homes, businesses and church fellowships. Then they extended charity in many ways including, feeding the poor and saving abandoned babies left to die. They evangelized the unbelievers, and established God’s Law as the basis for all of their societal institutions.

When these believers arrived in England in the first century to evangelize the Celtic people, England was still a Roman colony. Over time, Rome and its Ruler’s Law crumbled and the Roman legions left England. But the Celtic believers continued to follow the laws of the Scripture to create a simple, fair legal system and societal structure. These English believers followed this Biblical infrastructure to progressively displace the pagan traditions of the Celtic clans and the heavy handed tyranny of the Roman Empire.

In the fourth century, pagan Druid pirates from Ireland destroyed a village in England of Celtic Christians, capturing a 16 year- old boy named Patrick. Patrick became a slave tending sheep for a cruel Druid chieftain in the frozen fields of Northern Ireland for six years. The boy, who was a near atheist when he was captured, cried out to God in his despair. He prayed over one hundred times a day and the same all night. He grew close to Christ in his suffering and became repulsed by the witchcraft and even human sacrifice of the Druid priests. Eventually, God provided an escape back to England where Patrick prepared for the ministry.

Three decades later, Patrick returned to evangelize the lost people of Ireland who had enslaved him. Patrick’s fearless courage and faith in Christ so impressed the king that he was given free passage to go throughout the Island. Patrick baptized over 120,000 Irish people and planted 300 churches. He evangelized all of Ireland, and in his lifetime he ended the Irish slave trade. Wherever he set up a church he left them with an old Celtic law book, LIber ex Lege Moisi (The Book of the Law of Moses), along with the books of the Gospel. The Liber begins with the Ten Commandments, and continues with selections from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. From that time forward, this book became the basis of all social organization, including family, economics, welfare, and government. The Liber is the first essential document of liberty that led Christian civilization to far surpass the Roman Empire. The decentralized, God-centered worship of the Christian Celtic peoples avoided hierarchy and gave glory to God.

What was the result of Celtic Christianity in the British Isles? The Irish, who had been barbarians controlled by Druid priests, now became Christians. Then Scottish, English and Irish believers became the founders and evangelists for the early development of the Christian world. For the first time since ancient Israel, civility, charity, monogamous marriage, successful family life, limited civil government, limitation on the power of kings, private property rights, the development of learning, including the publication and preservation of the books of antiquity – all of these became the law of the land and were accomplished with few laws.

Could God and His people rebuild nations today as He did then? Of course! In fact, He did it again and again through the centuries with Alfred the Great, William Wallace, John Knox, John Calvin, the Pilgrims, and America’s Founders and others. May we be encouraged that if God can use a former unbelieving, teenage slave to bring liberty and civilization to the barbarous Irish, He can use us to restore liberty to the most well established Christian nation in history.

Abraham Kuyper, the Christian prime minister and preacher of Holland in the 1890s, who led the revival of his nation which had been mired in skepticism and modernism, left us this challenge: “When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.” Let’s do it.

Dr. Dobson's February Newsletter: America at the Crossroads of History

2009-03-13T13:26:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,
I write to you today with contrasting and conflicting emotions. Wehave just seen the inauguration of the nation's first black President,and many of us, even those who didn't vote for him, are celebratingthat historic moment. Given the scourge of slavery and the suffering ofAfrican Americans through most of the past 400 years, our ancestorswould never have believed that a black man would someday be elected tothe most powerful and influential position on earth. That is, indeed, apolitical achievement that is unprecedented in the history of thisgreat nation. I congratulate President Barack Obama on his victory andhis inauguration. Shirley and I are praying for him, the First Lady,and their children.

At the same time, I am deeply saddened and profoundly troubled bymany of the policies and positions that the new president has pledgedto support. He has taken dead-aim at the institution of the family andthe moral principles on which it is based. This is the way TonyPerkins, president of the Family Research Council, described thosepolicies on his Web site the day after the inauguration^1:

Americans watched on television as President Bush's jumbo jet soaredout of sight yesterday—and with him, a long record of protecting theunborn. Although the Obama administration is a little over 24 hoursold, the new President has already set to work undoing years ofpro-life and pro-family policy.

Minutes after Obama took the oath of office, the transfer of powerwas made complete on the White House website. The page, once home to ahost of family values, now welcomes an extreme collection of anti-life,anti-woman, and anti-family agendas. Under the caption "civil rights,"Obama pledges to fight for nationwide civil unions [for homosexualpartners], repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual adoption,the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanded "hate crimes," and over1,100 costly same-sex benefits. He promises to repeal "Don't Ask, Don'tTell" [in the military] as well as block a federal amendment topreserve marriage. In exchange for the support of groups like PlannedParenthood, the abortion business is also due for a rich payoff fromthe 44th president, including his support of abortion-on-demand, morefunding for "family planning" programs, embryonic stem cellexperiments, and tax-funded abortion.

Then Tony addressed the pro-life rally that occurred in Washington, D.C., on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

The media consider a dozen war protesters newsworthy, but why not200,000 pro-life witnesses? As those of you who have visitedWashington, D.C. on January 22 know, the tradition of the pressignoring America's biggest pro-life event is almost as old as the Marchitself. Over the years, the scant coverage hasn't deterred us. Instead,we have banded together to find new ways around it.
This city may have changed overnight, but our values are enduring.We will continue to advance faith, family, and freedom in the next fouryears.

We knew that President-elect Barack Obama would assault the sanctityof human life and the institution of marriage. Indeed, he promised atone point to make passage of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" hisfirst priority, which would nullify more than 200 laws designed toregulate and limit abortion.² As disturbing as this is, weare shocked by how quickly the anti-family policies are being put intoplace. Three days after taking office, the new President struck downthe Mexico City policy, which prohibited U.S. taxpayers' money frombeing used to support abortions around the world.³ Millionsmore babies will die as a result of this executive order. Speaker ofthe House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had sought to earmark huge increasesin funding for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortionorganizations.⁴ She said these taxpayer funded allocations would serveas a "stimulus to the economy." She is actually asserting that one wayto grow the economy is to kill more babies in the womb and help preventmore of them from being conceived. Fortunately, that language wasstripped from the "economic stimulus" package, but such efforts willcontinue.

We at Focus on the Family® and Focus on the Family Action™ will doour best to defend the values and principles that have characterizedthis ministry from the beginning. Though our "army" may be smaller,certainly in Congress and in the state houses of government, we willcontinue the struggle. One of my favorite historical personalities wasBritish Prime Minister during World War II, Winston Churchill. He saidduring the darkest hour when his country was facing defeat andenslavement, "Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothinggreat or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions ofhonour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to theapparently overwhelming might of the enemy."⁵

I promise you that we will stay true to that charge. We will loseneither heart nor nerve. With your prayers and support, we will fightfor righteousness for as long as we have strength to resist. I alsourge you not to become discouraged, either. Joshua said four timesbefore invading and conquering the Promised Land, "Be strong andcourageous." God is still in control, and if He is for us, who can beagainst us? (Romans 8:31) Amen!

Before closing, I want to thank those of you who sacrificed at theend of the year to help both organizations financially. This has been achallenging few months for thousands of nonprofit ministries, and yourgenerosity has kept us afloat. As you know, we have pared down ourstaff by more than 200 people as stewardship required, and it lookslike we will stay within our smaller budget. God has been wonderfullygracious to give us loving and caring friends who have stood with usthrough these past 32 years, in times of plenty and in periods of need.The task of both these organizations, now, is to continue to defend thevoiceless little human beings who desperately need passionateadvocates. We will also fight for the traditional family, recognizingthat the Creator ordained it in the Garden of Eden. How can we nowstand on the sidelines as it is thrown on the ash heap of history? Wewill stay on the front line, with God's help.

We appreciate your partnership and your prayers more than I canexpress. Blessings to you and your family in the name of Jesus Christ.We'll converse again in March.
Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. As you may know, Shirley and The National Day of Prayer TaskForce, along with President George W. Bush and two governors, are beingsued for praying publicly on the National Day of Prayer. The litigantsrepresent the Freedom From Religion Foundation, made up of atheists,agnostics and free thinkers. It is apparent that Christians who dare toexpress their faith in the public square will increasingly pay a pricefor doing so. How different was the world when President Harry Trumanaddressed the American people from the lawn of the White House on theoccasion of the lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree:

"Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairerplace. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind forcenturies past. This is why the Christmas story, with the bright starsshining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our heartsto praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmasfilled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of futurehappiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth."

December 24, 1952

Now I must share something that I believe you will want to read. Itis the text of a powerful speech given at Georgetown University the dayafter the inauguration by my long-time friend, Professor Robert P.George. Professor George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence andDirector of the James Madison Program in American Ideals andInstitutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President'sCouncil on Bioethics and previously served on the United StatesCommission on Civil Rights. He also sits on the editorial board ofPublic Discourse. This is Professor George's address, speaking onbehalf of millions who share our convictions:

Our Struggle for the Soul of our Nation
Thirty-six years ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its infamous decision in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton.In the name of a generalized "right to privacy" allegedly implicit inthe Due Process Clause of the constitution's Fourteenth Amendment,seven justices created a license to kill the unborn.
These men probably had no idea that they were unleashing a strugglefor the soul of the nation. Five had been appointed by Republicanpresidents—two by Eisenhower, three by Nixon. Four of these five wereregarded as "conservative," "law and order" judges: Warren E. Burger,Potter Stewart, Lewis F. Powell, and Harry Blackmun. All no doubtbelieved that legal abortion was a humane and enlightened policy, onethat would ease the burdens of many women and girls and relieve theenormous cost to society of a high birth rate among indigent (oftenunmarried) women. They seemed blithely to assume that abortion would beeasily integrated into the fabric of American social and politicallife.
They were wrong on all counts.

They were wrong about the Constitution. As William H. Rehnquist andByron White, the two dissenting justices in the case, pointed out, itis absurd to claim that a right to feticide follows from theconstitutional injunction that "no state shall deprive any person oflife, liberty, or property without due process of law." If theConstitution can be read to imply anything about abortion, it is thatunborn human beings are, like everyone else, entitled to "the equalprotection of the laws." At a minimum, Roe and Doewere an outrageous usurpation of the constitutional authority of thepeople of the United States to shape law and policy through theinstitutions of representative government.

The Roe justices were also wrong to imagine that legalabortion would prove to be enlightened or in the slightest respecthumane. On the contrary, the policy imposed by the Court has proven tobe an unmitigated disaster. In the thirty-six years since Roe and Doe,abortion has taken the lives of more than fifty million unbornvictims—each a distinct, unique, precious human being. It has doneimmeasurable moral, psychological, and sometimes physical harm to womenwho are so very often, and in so many respects, truly abortion's"secondary victims." It has corrupted physicians and nurses by turninghealers into killers. It has undermined the moral authority of the lawby its injustice. It has abetted irresponsible—even predatory—malesexual behavior. Far from reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births,particularly to poor women, illegitimacy has skyrocketed in the age ofabortion. Now the abortion license has metastasized into widespreadelite support for deadly embryo experimentation and even, in my homestate of New Jersey, to the express legalization of the horrific andgrisly practice of fetal farming—the creation of human beings bycloning or other processes for the purpose of harvesting their tissuesand organs at any point up to birth for experimentation andtransplantation.

The justices were wrong, moreover, to suppose that America, as anation, would learn to live with the abortion license. A notable effectof the Court's rulings was to energize the grassroots pro-life movementthat had come into being a few years earlier to resist legislativeefforts to liberalize state abortion laws. In the beginning, themovement and its leadership were largely Catholic. The mainlineProtestant churches, if they concerned themselves with the issue atall, positioned themselves on the pro-abortion side. At a decisivemoment, however, the Evangelical community became fully activated inthe cause. Today, a common commitment to defending the unborn is at theheart of an unprecedented Catholic-Evangelical alliance that extendsbeyond abortion to issues of sexuality and marriage, education,welfare, crime and prison policy, international human rights, and theplace of religion in American public life. Great Evangelical leaderssuch as James Dobson and Charles Colson stand arm in arm with theirCatholic brothers and sisters in defending the right to life of everyhuman being, irrespective not only of race, sex, and ethnicity, butalso of age, size, stage of development, and condition of dependency.It is this alliance that stands in the gap today in the fight againstcloning and embryo-destructive biomedical research.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are at the heart of the divide between the nation's major political parties. When Roe and Doewere decided, many Democratic Party politicians—and even some notableliberals—were outspokenly pro-life. Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, DickGephardt, and Al Gore, for example, publicly proclaimed theircommitment to defending the unborn against the violence of abortion.Soon, however, the number of pro-life Democrats began to dwindle andpro-life liberals became an endangered species. Some, includingKennedy, Jackson, Gephardt, and Gore, defected to the pro-abortioncamp, evidently for political reasons. People of firmer convictionfound themselves in many cases carried by the force of conscience outof the Democratic Party and into the Republican fold.

Although pro-abortion Republicans are today more common thanpro-life Democrats, and carry much more influence within their party,the Republican Party has been officially pro-life since Ronald Reaganwon the presidential nomination in 1980. "Pro- choice" Republicanpresidential aspirants, such as California Governor Pete Wilson in1992, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in 1996, and former New YorkCity Mayor Rudolph Giuliani have failed miserably, and the pro-lifemajority in the Party has beaten back attempts to nominate individualswho are not clearly pro-life for the Vice Presidency. John McCainclearly wanted to select renegade Democrat Connecticut Senator JosephLieberman as his running mate in 2008, but was prevented from doing sofor one reason and one reason only: Lieberman's pro-abortion recordmade him unacceptable to the base of the Republican Party.

In recent years, pro-abortion Republicans have not even venturedtoken efforts to remove the strong and unequivocal pro-life plank inthe Party's platform.

The Republican Party's support for the unborn has brought into itsranks many disaffected rank-and-file Democrats, including a largenumber of Catholics and Evangelicals. I am one. Indeed, it overstatesthe matter only a bit to say that, as a result of the conflict ofworldviews that began with abortion, the Republicans have become theparty of the religiously engaged, while the Democrats have become theparty of liberal secularists. Barack Obama is trying to win overreligiously serious Catholics and Evangelicals, without altering in theslightest his support for abortion, including late-term andpartial-birth abortions, the funding of abortion and embryo-destructiveresearch with taxpayer dollars, the elimination of informed consent andparental notification laws, and the revocation of conscience andreligious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and other healthcareworkers and pharmacists. He will ultimately fail. We must see to itthat he fails.
In this project, Obama is being served and abetted by a small numberof Catholic and Evangelical intellectuals and activists who have beenpeddling the claim that Obama, despite his pro-abortion extremism, iseffectively pro-life because of his allegedly enlightened economic andsocial policies will reduce the number of abortions. This isdelusional. The truth is that Barack Obama is the most extremepro-abortion candidate ever to serve in the United States Senate orseek the office of President of the United States. The revocation ofthe Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy, funding limitations onembryo-destructive research, informed consent laws, parentalnotification statutes—all of which Obama has promised to hispro-abortion base—will dramatically increase the number of abortions,and will do so for reasons that have been articulated by the abortionlobby itself. It is the pro-abortion side that tells us that the HydeAmendment alone has resulted in 300,000 fewer abortions each year thanwould otherwise be performed—and that is why they so desperately wantit to be repealed. Yet the putatively pro-life Obama apologists claimthat the man who pledges to repeal it is going to reduce the number ofabortions. Let me say it again: this is delusional.

One great disappointment to the pro-life cause over the first three decades of the era of Roe v. Wadewas the failure of Republican presidents from Nixon through George H.W.Bush to secure Supreme Court appointments for jurists who would reverseRoe. Of the six justices appointed by Republicans between 1973and the retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in 2004, onlytwo—Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—opposed Roe.

However, George W. Bush's two appointees, John Roberts and SamuelAlito, give every indication of being true constitutionalist judges.They have voted to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions,and I am hopeful that they will in due course vote to send Roeto the ash heap of history alongside moral and constitutionaltravesties such as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson.Still, at least one more pro-abortion justice must be replaced if theregime of judicially imposed abortion-on-demand is to be dismantled. Atbest, the vote on the Supreme Court today is 5 to 4 in the wrongdirection. Obviously, no Obama nominee will support overturning Roe,and this may be the greatest tragedy of the 2008 election. But let usnot forget that three of the four constitutionalists on theCourt—Justices Thomas, Roberts, and Alito—are its youngest members; andthe fourth, Justice Scalia, at age seventy-two is far from elderly bySupreme Court standards and he remains, thank God, physically vigorousand mentally sharp. I have no doubt that Obama will have one or twovacancies to fill in the next four years, but there is a very goodchance that the seats that will be vacated are seats already held bypro-abortion justices. What is likely to happen, then, is that thestatus quo will hold. So let us even now look forward to the 2012election which will almost certainly be the decisive one when it comesto the Supreme Court and the future of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, from the pro-life vantage point, success on the judicialfront is only the prelude to the larger political struggle overabortion. If Roe is reversed, the result will be to returnthe matter to the domain of ordinary democratic deliberation forresolution by the state legislatures or the Congress. The burden willthen be on the pro-life movement to win the struggle for the soul ofthe nation. We must, with God's help, persuade our fellow citizens tofulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence by bringing theunborn fully within the protection of our laws.

On this score, we have a marvelous model in the great anti-slaverycrusader William Wilberforce. When he began his work against themonstrous evil of chattel slavery, the odds appeared to be long againstabolition. He was attacked by partisans of the slave power as a zealot,a religious fanatic and, most perversely, an enemy of freedom. He was,they said, imposing his religious values on others. If he didn't likeslavery, well, no one was forcing him to own slaves. He should mind hisown business and stay out of other people's affairs. Less vitrioliccritics said that he was unrealistic. He was a dreamer. He was makingimpossible demands. Does any of this sound familiar?

Wilberforce refused to be intimidated. He would allow nothing todeter him from his mission of Christian charity to free the slaves andend the practice of slavery. He was undaunted by the ridicule oftenheaped upon him.

A more recent hero, Mother Teresa of Calcutta reminded us during herfinal visit to the United States that prayer is the most powerfulweapon in the pro-life arsenal. Wilberforce would certainly agree. Wemust ask God's forgiveness for our great national sin of abandoning theunborn to the crime of abortion and implore His guidance and assistancein recalling the nation to its founding ideals of liberty and justicefor all. While not all pro-life citizens are in a position to beactivists or exercise leadership in the social and political spheres,all are able to participate in the prayer effort, and no one's prayersare superfluous.

In addition to prayer and our political efforts, there is theobligation to reach out to pregnant women who are in need or who aresubject for other reasons to pro-abortion pressures. The partisans ofabortion, with the help of an overwhelmingly sympathetic and deeplybiased news media, have portrayed people who oppose the killing of theunborn, whether by abortion or in embryo-destructive research, asheartless moralizers bent on oppressing women and impeding the progressof science. Nothing could be further from the truth. For decades,pro-life people—mostly women—have devoted themselves, often at greatpersonal cost and in the face of many obstacles, to assisting theirpregnant sisters in need. They have recognized that a truly just andhumane understanding is one that recognizes the common dignity andmutual interests of mother and child. Ordinary pro-life individuals andfamilies have worked and sacrificed to provide for the material,emotional, and spiritual needs of pregnant women in need—many of whom,it must be noted, are driven to contemplate abortion under pressurefrom boyfriends, husbands, family, and friends. Even women who havesuccumbed to the temptation to destroy their unborn children are notcondemned or abandoned by the pro-life movement. Rather, they areoffered forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing—no strings attached.At the same time, it is pro-life Americans who are leading the chargefor ethical and therapeutically useful forms of stem cellresearch—research that does not compromise biomedical science bykilling in the cause of healing.

And those of us who are Christians must, in obedience to the commandof Christ himself, love our enemies. We must pray for those who havebrought the abortion license upon our nation and for those who todayprotect and sustain it. We must also pray for those who perform andprofit from the taking of human life. Our love for them must be godlyand ungrudging. We must never give up on its power to transform.

Will we achieve our goal of establishing justice for the unborn?Will abortion finally go the way of slavery? Dare we hope that thekilling of the unborn can be made not only unlawful but for most peopleunthinkable?

Of course, it is not given to us to know just how much we will, inthe end, be able to achieve. Despite the triumph of the pro-abortionparty in the recent elections, there is no good reason to believe thatour efforts in the domain of law and policy are futile or are doomed tofail. Yet we have no guarantee of their success. As the great Fr.Richard John Neuhaus so often said: for us, there is only the trying.The rest is God's business, not ours. Yet we are given to know that intrying, we fulfill God's commands, and build up His kingdom.

And we know this: our prayers, political and educational efforts,and outreach to pregnant women in need have, by God's mercy, alreadysaved countless precious lives. We must not lose sight of this fact inour grief at the loss of so many others due to the injustice of ourlaws and the coldness of so many hearts toward abortion's tiny victims.

Reflecting on the carnage of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln in hisSecond Inaugural Address concluded that "the great scourge of war" hadbeen brought upon both North and South as punishment for the nationalsin of slavery. Perhaps God saw fit to let the nation survive despitethat sin because of the sincere, selfless, and prayerful efforts of theenemies of slavery to end that monstrous evil.

Thanks be to God, the conflict over abortion has not produced, andwill not produce, a civil war. Still, we must not forget that we are apeople under judgment. We are called to account for the national sin ofabortion. Like Thomas Jefferson reflecting on the evil of slavery—anevil in which he was personally complicit—we must "tremble for ourcountry when we consider that God is just." Like Abraham Lincoln, whomPresident Obama invokes but does not emulate, we must pray that God, inHis mercy, will not abandon us, but will rather restore us to the trueand lofty moral ideals of our founding. Even at this dark hour for ourmovement, let us here highly resolve to hasten the day when thisnation, under God, will be truly and fully and finally dedicated to theproposition that all are created equal.

Professor George's powerful message conveys perfectly what I amfeeling in response to President Obama's unprecedented assault on thesanctity of life. I know my heaviness of heart is shared by many of youpeople at this particular time. Let's continue in prayer for our greatnation and for the institution of the family and the sanctity of humanlife.

ENDNOTES
¹ frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09A11 [January 28, 2009].
² youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8 [January 28, 2009].
³ abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1 [January 28, 2009].
⁴ usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/01/26/pelosi-contraception-is-good-for-the-economy.html [January 28, 2009].
⁵ winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=423 [January 28, 2009].

Esther’s Legacy

2009-03-11T13:45:00.000-07:00

As Jews (and Christians) celebrate The Festival of Purim (Jewish holiday) this week, a new friend
Gail and I met and lunched with at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville a month ago, Eric Voogd, has written, with contributions from Tikvah, the following very important essay “Esther’s Legacy” for our times in the USA and worldwide. While NPI does not agree 100% with all contentions made in the article, we largely concur with its focus, cautions, warnings and exhortations to the Christian community today! Please read and also see the account of Queen Esther (and Mordecau) toward the end of the essay for a reminder of God’s grace and providence in history. - publisher)
________________________

Esther’s Legacy
by Eric Voogd and Tikvah

Mordecai sent this reply to Esther. “Don’t think for a moment that because you’re in the palace you will escape when all Jews are killed. If you keep quiet at a time like this deliverance and relief for the Jews will arise from some other place, but you and your relatives will die. Who knows if perhaps you were made queen for just such a time as this?” Esther 4:13-14

As dark, ominous clouds gathered, a perfect storm was soon to erupt with a violent and wicked fury over the European continent with an unimaginably cruel price to be exacted upon the innocence of humanity. On 30 January 1933, Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of Germany; subsequently, the spiritual deception among Germany society and throughout Christendom was significant, as the blind euphoria and godless pandemonium surrounding this event fueled the insatiable thirst of this intoxicated crowd while they chanted praises to their soon to be appointed Fuehrer, “Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil.” Two days later on 1 February 1933, a somber and prayerful Dr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer arrived at the German Broadcasting Company to deliver a rehearsed speech addressing the gravity of culminating events; however, as Bonhoeffer learned at the conclusion of his speech during a live radio broadcast, the closing remarks were omitted from the broadcast. Throughout Germany individuals never heard his prophetic warning: “For should the leader allow himself to succumb to the wishes of those he leads, who will always seek to turn him into an idol, then the leader will gradually become the image of the ‘misleader.’ This is the leader who makes an idol of himself and his office, thus mocking God.” The Reichstag parliament building in Berlin was engulfed in flames on the night of 27 February 1933. In the days following, Hitler capitalized on this chaos to obtain his first bare majority in the national election on 5 March 1933. This outcome set in motion an irreversible, historical course of fate with devastating consequences for the Jewish people. Absent from this German society was a hatred of evil and love for good virtues; her legal system had no true halls of justice. The moral ambivalence, apathy and complacent attitudes of individuals in German society combined with the passive spiritual leadership of Christendom who failed to take a definitive stand in defense of the principles of righteousness and moral ethics were met with resistance by only a relatively small number of authentic Christians. These obedient, courageous women and men answered a call from G-d in their lives to boldly declare the Truth regarding the dark reality of the political and religious landscape obscured by spiritual blindness during a crucial window to act in history.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller were among only a few spiritually discerning, authentic Christians in Germany. They were cognizant of the odious nature of the situation unfolding with this false messiah of the German people and the darkness in his heart toward the Jewish people. While Bonhoeffer and Niemoller fervently sought G-d in prayer regarding this spiritual darkness that claimed ownership over Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain fancied himself on weekend retreats in discourse with Mary Astor and other “Christian” scientists, apostates of Christianity who believed evil was simply an illusion. This dichotomy of authentic Christians versus false believers further illustrated the intensity of the forces of hell that were unleashed during this crucial time in Europe. As Hitler systematically silenced and imprisoned his opposition in the authentic Christian community, Prime Minister Chamberlain and other European leaders were spiritually blind to the forces of hell surrounding Hitler. These government leaders were dangerously naïve and ignorant of Hitler’s sinister modus operandi and the foreboding events to unfold across Europe. As the cries of Jewish women, men and children reached the heavens during Kristallnacht on 9 November 1938, the collective voice of Christendom in Germany, Europe and the United States was virtually silent regarding Hitler’s heinous actions against the Jewish people in Germany.

The poignant warnings of Bonhoeffer, Niemoller and others within their sphere of influence fell upon deaf ears, as Hitler’s invasion of Europe became a reality along with his plans for the Final Solution fostered by the Islamic world for dealing with the Jewish problem. When the cremated ashes of innocent lives of the Jewish people rained down over Europe, the lives of six million Jewish women, men and children brutally murdered in Hitler’s death camps throughout Europe did not evoke a collective outcry from the Christendom in Europe and the United States. The collective body of Christendom around the world miserably failed to grasp the poignancy of the story of Esther in the Tanakh and recognize the Haman-Adolph Hitler-who unleashed a satanic wrath against G-d’s Chosen People. As the gruesome horrors of the Shoah were exposed during the Nuremberg Trials, individuals and historians through time would note the haunting memories of the atrocities against the Jewish people associated with the cry “Never Again!” Tragically, Christendom has learned nothing from history following the Shoah, as the modern day state of Israel is perpetually subjected to unrelenting forces of evil that seek the wanton destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the diaspora throughout the international community. Today, Christendom’s blatant disregard of Biblical consequences and defiant attitude in rejection of eternal Truth is used by Christendom to justify actions for supporting the enemies of the Jewish Homeland.

While nearly seventy years have passed since Kristallnacht, we are witness to the highest levels of anti-Semitism in Europe from the time of the Shoah. In 2009, an inquisition against the Jewish people in Spain is in the early stages. As the Jewish people live under absolute fear throughout Europe, repeated warnings are issued to make aliyah to Israel. At this time, the Jewish people are experiencing a pogrom in Venezuela. Before the end of 2008, the Jewish people had already suffered the tragedy of terrorism at the Chabad Center in Mumbai, India with the cold blooded murder of Rabbi Gabi, his wife Rivka and their unborn child. Members of Christendom and elected officials of European governments are joining ranks in solidarity with Muslims in violent demonstrations against Israel and the Jewish people, while supporting the terrorist entities of Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 2009, as the international community has plunged into economic crises at multiple levels, individuals, governments and Christendom are conspiring against the Jewish people to make them the scapegoat for the worldwide financial turmoil and political instability in the Middle East. This 21st century reality faced by the Jewish people shares parallels with the events leading up to Kristallnacht. Before his murder at the hands of Nazis in 1943, Bonhoeffer wrote the following words: "We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds: we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretense; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use?” Today, after 66 years, the words of Bonhoeffer readily apply to individuals and churches throughout Europe and the United States, as Christendom is virtually silent regarding the perilous challenges faced by the Jewish people in the 21st century. If individuals truly believe in the cause, "Never Again!” why then the deafening sea of silence?!?

Less than six weeks before the US presidential election on 25 September 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Mange Bondevik and other leaders from Christendom gathered in New York City at a dinner to honor Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The latest military and intelligence reports indicate that Ahmadinejad now has the capacity to create a nuclear warhead to use against Israel, as he routinely calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people and the destruction of the Jewish Homeland. The presence of Prime Minister Bondevik at this dinner honoring Ahmadinejad reinforces the sentiments of a Norwegian society and government which openly scorns and ridicules the very small authentic Christian community in Norway that stands with the Jewish people and Israel. Not too many decades ago, the Norwegian government had a policy that prohibited Jews from living in Norway. The endemic darkness that permeates the heart of this anti-Semitic society in Scandinavia was duly noted in December 1994, when the murderous PLO leader Yassir Arafat became the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. In September 1993, Norway was the infamous scene of the fatal Oslo Peace Accords. The alignment of current government leaders in Europe and members of the US government including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama who appease the Islamic world and terrorist entities at the expense of Israel and the Jewish people is an unprecedented wickedness. These actions bear consequences of Biblical proportion from G-d for both individuals and nations that curse Israel. The insidious evil of the violence and anti-Semitism against the Jewish people in a post-Christian era Europe provides a stern warning to the United States, as the false gods of moral relativism and secular humanism reign supreme over a European society that is collapsing at its core under the satanic stranglehold and weight of Islamic dhimmitude.

While Israel has expressed her absolute insistence that the United States not participate in the Durban II Conference in Geneva, Switzerland on 20-24 April 2009, Barack Obama must prohibit the participation of the United States at this anti-Semitic conference of the United Nations. Canada, The Netherlands and Italy stand with Israel in boycotting this anti-Semitic conference while the leadership of the European Union forges an arrogant path mocking G-d. Following Obama’s misguided and historically incorrect speech with the Muslim media during his first formal press interview as President of the United States in January 2009, these gratuitous overtures to the Muslim world signal red flag warnings. Obama’s willful decision to request the participation of Ingrid Matson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, in a prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC is most alarming. The anti-Semitic history of Matson and her attitudes regarding sharia law and silencing individuals who dare to speak the truth regarding Islam are a chilling reminder of the spiritual darkness surrounding Obama. The recent decisions of Obama and his administration with the selection of anti-Semitic advisers to deal with Israel reflect the arrogance of Obama for a coming disaster with consequences for violating the clear words of G-d within the Torah and Tanakh. Duly noted during the course of his presidential campaign, Obama mocked the text of the Torah and Tanakh. Thus, Obama’s decisions and actions only bring judgment from G-d on the United States closer for the dangerous course of present action executed by him and his administration. More inflammatory, Christendom in the United States fully advocates the course of actions of Obama and his administration at a time where anti-Semitism and violence against the Jewish people are gaining momentum in the United States.

The powers of hell have surfaced in vitriolic demonstrations waged by supporters of the Hamas terrorist entity in cities throughout the United States since the commencement of the Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. After eight years of attacks and 10,000+ rockets raining down on Israel, the international community and Christendom have condemned Israel’s right to defend her people against the onslaught of terrorism. In the hometown of Barack Obama, the Jewish people have come under fire with attacks on synagogues in both Chicago and the suburbs. On the anniversary of Kristallnacht on 9 November 2008, a suburban synagogue had a pipe bomb incident. The spiritual mentor, family friend and pastor of Obama for several decades lead a lawless church in Chicago with apostate teachings in utter defiance and mockery of G-d. Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his lawless church support anti-Semitism and the ideology of Hamas; however, Christendom in the United States who voted for Obama saw no problem with Wright’s influence on Obama for several decades. On 29 December 2008, a synagogue in Chicago was firebombed with an improvised moltav cocktail. Both of these incidents represent hostile acts of terrorism against the Jewish people in Chicago. A large scale public outcry from the Christian community throughout the Chicago metropolitan area was never issued in the wake of these two most disturbing incidents.

On Friday, 2 January 2009, three thousand pro Hamas supporters gathered outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Chicago in a most heinous demonstration against the Jewish people and Israel. Slightly more than one hundred of us primarily from the Jewish community gathered to stand with Israel. We were met with anti-Semitic hate speech in both Arabic and English from three thousand pro Hamas supporters, as we quietly stood with Israeli flags, singing in Hebrew for the Jewish Homeland. While an Israeli flag with a swastika symbol was trampled, spit upon and then burned, small stones and coins were thrown at our group by these pro Hamas supporters. The Chicago Police Department was not adequately prepared for this demonstration outside the Israeli Consulate. As I stood yelling, asking members of the Chicago Police Department to address a pro Hamas supporter who broke through a police barricade intent on physically assaulting a member of our group, these members of the Chicago Police Department were slow to respond. I continued yelling for their immediate intervention to no avail. Finally, the decision was made by our group to exit this area under police escort since we were surrounded by this vitriolic mass of anti-Semitic, pro Hamas supporters. A warning issued by the police to remove any items that identified us with Israel was unsettling, since our safety could not be guaranteed upon leaving the protection of the police escort. This scene was the Israeli Consulate at Michigan Avenue and East Wacker Drive on the Gold Coast in downtown Chicago!

The following week on Friday, 9 January 2009, around 1000 members of the Jewish community with some Christians gathered at the Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago to stand in solidarity with the Jewish people and Israel. In stark contrast to the previous week, this occasion was a time of prayer, songs and speeches by members of the Jewish Federation, Illinois elected officials and members of the Israeli government. Within hours of the conclusion of this peaceful event, four thousand pro Hamas supporters staged yet another hideous demonstration where they disrupted traffic in downtown Chicago while marching with grotesque signs denigrating the Jewish people and Israel. On Shabbat the Jewish community witnessed attacks on five more synagogues in the Chicago metropolitan area. While the Muslim Brotherhood is increasing in strength in the Chicago metropolitan area aided by support from the Council on American Islamic Relations, the powers of hell unleashed against the Jewish people in Chicago are characteristic of anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish people throughout the United States. Before his death, Adolph Hitler made a chilling statement: “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.” The Muslim Brotherhood increases in influence and strength throughout the United States; however, the majority of citizenry and elected members of state and federal government are unprepared for this imminent crisis of home grown Islamic terror cells that threaten the national security of the United States.

In the wake of these anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish people and synagogues throughout the United States, every authentic Christian pastor of every authentic Christian church in the United States has a Biblical mandate to publicly condemn these acts of terrorism against the Jewish people and storm heaven with prayers for the safety and protection of the Jewish people in the US, Israel, Europe and throughout the world. Every member of the authentic Christian community in the United States and throughout the world has a Biblical mandate to stand in support of the Jewish people and Israel, defending her right to exist and to confront the terrorist entities that seek her wanton destruction and the annihilation of the Jewish people. Individuals in the United States are ignorant of the European governments that are collapsing under the satanic stranglehold and weight of Islamic dhimmitude. Individuals in the United States are ignorant of the violent history of Islam and the role that Muslim leaders played with Adolph Hitler for developing the Final Solution. Barack Obama’s apologies to the Muslim world and his support of sharia law in Pakistan during a recent negotiation by him and his administration paint a sinister portrait of Obama’s true character. Today, the grim reality in the international community facing Israel and the Jewish people presents a challenge for individuals willing to act with self-sacrifice and take a courageous stand to answer the call from G-d in their lives to be a modern example of Esther or Mordecai.

Throughout the course of history the Jewish people have encountered the scourge of evil men seeking the wanton destruction of Jews in Israel and those in the diaspora. As we prepare for the celebration of the Festival of Purim in March 2009, we remember the story of Esther known by her Hebrew name Hadassah. Esther, a young Jewish woman, became Queen of Persia in 479 B.C. during a time where the Jewish people were in exile living under King Ahasuerus. As instructed by Mordecai, Esther did not reveal the identity of her family’s history and Jewish nationality. The significance in this story is both Esther and her cousin Mordecai chose to obediently act in a kairos moment that required their absolute faith and trust in G-d. The Greek term kairos is defined as “a time when conditions are right for the accomplishment of a crucial action: the opportune and decisive moment.” The preparation in the lives of Esther and Mordecai for this moment was directed by G-d as they submitted their wills unconditionally to Him. Esther found favor in the eyes of Ahasuerus, as would Mordecai when he uncovered a plot by two eunuchs to assassinate Ahasuerus. Soon Mordecai found himself in a situation where his obedience to G-d was directly challenged by Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite, who received an appointment from King Ahasuerus to rule over all the nobles of Persia. Haman was livid with Mordecai, who refused to bow down and show respect to Haman in accordance with the king’s command. In this moment, Mordecai chose to place his full faith in G-d, unwilling to compromise, which subjected him to the wrath of Haman. As the story progresses in Esther, Haman uncovered Mordecai’s Jewish identity and formulated an odious plot to not only destroy Mordecai, but the entire Jewish population under the reign of the Persian Empire. After consultation with Ahasuerus and a promise of 375 tons of silver to the king, Haman’s plan to annihilate the Jewish people was affirmed with the issue of a decree in Susa by Ahasuerus and the king’s signet ring given to Haman. The racial hatred of Jews by Haman had an extensive history fueled by deep hatred existing between Jews and Haman’s ancestors, the Amalekites.

Upon discovery of this decree, Mordecai wept bitterly, tearing his clothes while wearing burlap and ashes. As the Jewish people throughout Persia’s 127 provinces learned of this decree, the mourning of the Jewish women, men and children reached the heavens. They fasted, wept and wailed with many joining Mordecai wearing burlap and ashes. Mordecai pleaded with Esther to intercede on behalf of the Jewish people and go before Ahasuerus without being invited to his inner court. In Esther 4:13-14 we read Mordecai’s words to Esther to act immediately despite imminent death to appear before the king without permission: Mordecai sent this reply to Esther: “Don’t think for a moment that because you’re in the palace you will escape when all Jews are killed. If you keep quiet at a time like this deliverance and relief for the Jews will arise from some other place, but you and your relatives will die. Who knows if perhaps you were made queen for just such a time as this?” Esther went into a period of prayer and fasting, requesting the same from the Jewish people. On the third day of fasting, Esther bravely entered the inner court of Ahasuerus to intercede upon behalf of the Jewish people where she requested Ahasuerus and Haman to attend a banquet she planned for the next day. Haman, second in command to Ahasuerus in the Persian Empire, sealed his own fate as the G-d of Israel was at work in ways that both Esther and Mordecai could not fully see at the time. Importantly, they acted in complete obedience by placing their full faith in G-d for His divine deliverance of the Jewish people. Ahasuerus, who was troubled in sleep the night prior to Esther’s banquet, read the account of Mordecai uncovering the plot of two eunuchs to assassinate the king. When Haman approached Ahasuerus, he was unaware the king planned to honor Mordecai. As Ahasuerus listened to Esther’s request during the banquet and learned of the sheer wickedness of Haman, Ahasuerus ordered the immediate execution of Haman, who was impaled on the sharpened pole intended for Mordecai.

Not only did Ahasuerus issue a new decree nullifying the original decree to destroy the Jewish people throughout the Persian Empire, he gave Mordecai his signet ring which made Mordecai, Prime Minister, second in command of the Persian Empire. Mordecai established the Festival of Purim, as the casting of lots known as Purim by Haman the adversary of the Jews was foiled by the G-d of Israel. The obedience in the lives of Mordecai and Esther, who unconditionally submitted their wills to G-d to act in a crucial moment of time, was blessed by G-d. During Purim the Jewish people mark this annual festival of feasting and gladness by helping the poor and giving presents to one another, for sorrow became gladness and mourning became joy when the G-d of Israel delivered the Jewish people from the hands of their enemy Haman. The story of Esther and Mordecai and the Festival of Purim is not minor, as this story serves as a representation of a proxy for both our present and future. Hence, authentic Christian believers must advocate on behalf of the Jewish people and Israel in order to expose the satanic forces of hell in this world that seek the annihilation of G-d’s Chosen People in the 21st century.

While individuals examine current events in the media pertaining to Israel, authentic Christian believers face a crucial decision where they must make a deliberate choice to either obey a Biblical mandate to courageously support and stand with the Jewish people and Israel, or take sides with present day Hamans by remaining silent and failing to expose evil. Time is of the essence as the clock is ticking with events accelerating in the Middle East. As Mordecai’s words to Esther “For just such a time as this?” were a call to bold action nearly 2488 years ago, these same words resonate with meaning today for an immediate call to action since we are living in a kairos moment. During the Second World War two relatives in my family in The Netherlands placed their full faith in G-d to confront Haman, Adolph Hitler, as they refused to stand in silence regarding his plans to exterminate the Jewish people. This husband and wife risked their lives to save members of the Jewish community, for they knew their G-d given responsibility to act in that crucial moment. My relatives, Corrie ten Boom and other brave and courageous women and men saw Haman and recognized the warning in the words of Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” As a fourteen year old boy staying in Israel for part of a summer during the first intifada, I had a firsthand experience with terrorism in Hezekiah’s Water Tunnel in Jerusalem. I encountered a modern Haman, the murderous Yassir Arafat and the evil forces of his PLO, who directed some terrorist operatives to place a bomb in this antiquity. Praise G-d for the intervention of the IDF soldiers in this situation before the loss of innocent lives. My faith is fully in the G-d of Israel, as I stand with my Jewish brothers and sisters. In 2009, individuals have a conscious choice to make as they stand accountable to the G-d of Israel for all their actions.

For decades now, we have educated our children with a mandate for classes in history that they may be provided with the tools to prevent the repetition of the heinous acts of those such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Yasser Arafat. I pray that in this day and age we have succeeded, though I fear we have not. As we watch the disintegration of the Constitution our grand nation used to uphold, we descend down the slippery slope of bondage into the same murky abyss from which Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany. We look to our government to make all life decisions for us: what to eat, when and how to medicate, who can own a vehicle, land, firearms. How long will it be before our government decides for us which god to serve, which people are acceptable, which people are unfit for life? How long is it until simple disagreement with our leader lands us in prison, as it has in so many other countries before the dissolution of their great empires? Our days are numbered. We must stand against the tactics of the adversary. We must join with the people of Israel and say, "Never again!" We must be Esthers and Mordecais in this day of Hamans. The existence of G-d's Chosen People depends upon it. The prevalence of all that is just and right and true depends upon it. The blessing of G-d to continue as a great nation depends upon it. NOW is the hour to devote yourself in fervent prayer to G-d for His direction of your steps He wants you to courageously take in His mighty power while standing with the Jewish people and Eretz Yisrael.

By Eric Voogd and Tikvah with gratitude for her prayers, encouragement and discerning contributions

Festival of Purim/Monday, 14 Adar 5769/Monday, 9 March 2009

Eric Voogd is Director of Broadcast Media Relations for the US Bureau of Israel Independent News. For questions regarding Israel Independent News and free access to confidential intelligence reports, please contact Eric by e-mail at iitvMediaRelations@att.net.

Distribution of this article is authorized only for publication in its entirety with attribution to its authors as indicated in Esther’s Legacy. ©2009