Saturday, December 17, 2011

Pharmacological Slave Drugs Unnecessary

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”  Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World

The Egyptian salve mindset is still with us as it was with Israel in the wilderness. It is in the church as well as in the realm of secular man. After the exodus Israel ‘s dependence upon Egypt’s welfare became a stark reality. In order to assure Egyptian welfare Israel desired a trade off. They wanted to trade the liberty that they had procured by the Sovereign intervention of God for the fish, leeks and onions they had in Egypt.

In return for Egyptian welfare they sought to relinquish their freedom to a wickedly perverse and horribly tyrannical regime. The bitterness of slavery and the oppression of the evil taskmasters was eclipsed by the need to be taken care of. Even after tasting freedom, they could not bear the responsibility that came with it. Israel’s slavery was psychological. Her slavery was carnally induced and was perpetuated by a lack of faith. As they thought in their minds, so they desired for their lives. But Israel’s slavery was also a willful rebellion against the God of Scripture Who had given them their freedom so as to serve Him and be Covenantaly accountable to Him for all their needs. They had been promised God’s care, yet, they did not believe Him.

"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them [i.e. Israel in the wilderness], not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Heb 4:2

It is really no surprise that secular America has bought into the Egyptian slavery mindset. Huxley is wrong. It will not be necessary for a “pharmacological” method of making people love their slavery. The slave mindset is natural to sinful man. Natural man is already in bondage to sin and rebellion to God and therefore desires human bondage. This is to be expected. This is natural to carnal man. It is not natural to the church and yet, this is the reality of the situation in most American churches. The church has fallen into the same mindset as Israel while in the wilderness; psychological slavery.
Pharmacological methods will not be necessary to induce people to love slavery. The only thing needed is a strategy. Drugs will not be necessary. Slavery will be brought about by the strategy of seemingly giving something for nothing. It is the welfare promise of Marxist socialism. In reality the welfare system does not give anything away for free. Noting is free. Someone must pays. There is no free lunch. There must be a trade off. Like Israel of old, America and her churches have given away both their freedom and their honor. They are once again slaves to Egypt. They have traded their liberty to a cup of blood red pottage. They have traded their honor for a piece of moldy bread.

The dynamic of slavery is systemic. It is comprehensive. Slavery is not compartmentalized to one or two areas of the mind. Once the mind is infected with slave mentality it humbles itself and gives everything over to anyone who promises the best security and most care. Entirely dependent upon the slave mind to achieve their goals, political tyrants play upon the slavish psychology. In order to be master of every area of the culture the tyrant must convince the salve mind that his plan is substantially better than any other considered. Since the slave mind is already poised to give away every area of life over to the tyrant, the job of the tyrant is easy. As long as the tyrant can convince the salve mind that he can provide everything needful for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, his promises are believed.  A slave mindset is the best friend of the wicked tyrant.

Slavery is closely related to fear. Those who are afraid seek safety from others. Carnal man seeks refuge in man. Usually this refuge is found in political man, economic man, ecological, scientific or intellectual man. Carnal man looks to the state and its institutions; they do not look to God. In fact, refuge is never sought in God unless that individual has been called of God. Then, and only then, can that individual shun the false security and care offered by tyrannical man. The spiritual man is not a slavish man. His mind is free from the psychological slavery that infects his carnal counterpart. The spiritual man is dominion man. He is liberated man. His is responsible man. He is a man of action in advancing the Kingdom of God. The spiritual man is a danger to the tyrant and the only remedy to the enslaved man.

Until tyranny and slavery have reached their desired levels of domination, as water must reach its mark, they will not cease to progress.  

This is where the church must take her stand. I do not talk here of the carnal church, or the slavish church, or the church who willfully remains under the statist program of fear and welfare-ism. That is not the church of the Lord Christ and thus, she can never be a victorious liberating church. Nor can she preach the gospel with power since she has traded her freedom for the fish, leeks and onions of the Egyptian taskmasters.

The True Church must begin to refine her understanding of Biblical strategies and logistics of dominion. From the pulpit and the podium She needs to be equipped with real solutions for everyday problems. She needs to actively pursue that which is required of her. She must build for the future by teaching and applying Biblical doctrines and principles to her local community in order to restructure the local community according to Scriptures mandates.

New Geneva is such a place where these issues are discussed and where action takes place. For more information contact the College at or log onto our site at: Become part of the solution.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Occupy America and Friendly Fascism: Life in the Corporate Police State

The following article, by legal scholar John Whitehead, was sent to me via email. Its contents is important, and thus needs to be read and considered carefully and prayerfully. If the people of the United States, especially those in the Churches, do not wake to this situation, we will loose whatever liberty is left, bringing upon us the wrath of man and his diabolical inventions of tyranny.
"Law is no longer what it was intended to be - a set of rules equally binding everyone to ensure that outcome inequalities are at least legitimate - and instead has become the opposite: a tool used by the politically and financially powerful to entrench their own power and control the society. That's how and why the law now destroys equality and protects the powerful.
What we see with the protests demonstrates exactly how that works. The police force—the instrument of law enforcement—is being used to protect powerful criminals who have suffered no consequences for their crimes. It is simultaneously used to coerce and punish the powerless: those who are protesting and who have done nothing wrong, yet are subjected to an array of punishment ranging from arrest to pepper spray and other forms of abuse.
That's what the two-tiered justice system is: elites are immunized for egregious crimes while ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless punishment for trivial transgressions."—Glenn Greenwald, author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful
While the Occupy protests are an encouraging sign that Americans are not completely oblivious to the creeping despotism that is overtaking the nation, time alone will tell whether the Occupy Wall Street movement and its companion protests throughout the country amount to anything more than an expression of discontent on the part of the 99% with the so-called 1%. What has been made clear, however, by the naked aggression of the corporate-state against these protesters is that the 1% is protected by its own security force—the police—funded ironically enough by the very 99% against whom they are waging war with pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas and other instruments of compliance.

For example, in a September 2011 incident, the New York police responded to Occupy Wall Street protestors by throwing people to the ground and using pepper spray on nonviolent protesters trapped behind a barricade. One protestor, Kelly Brannon, described the scene, "They put up orange nets and tried to kettle us and we started running and they started tackling random people and handcuffing them. They were herding us like cattle."  Another protestor was arrested because he had been chanting "let them go" as people were handcuffed. According to news reports, journalist Luke Rudowski was rammed in the stomach with a club and thrown to the ground, despite repeatedly making it clear that he was with the media, while two Fox News reporters were hit with pepper spray and at least one police club. The NYPD have since become savvier. Rather than using brute force to discourage the protests, they have resorted to freezing out the protesters by confiscating their electric generators and the fuel that runs them.

Police in Oakland used tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, sound cannons and flash bang grenades to disperse the Occupy Oakland protest. An Iraq War veteran, 24-year-old Scott Olsen, who was taking part in the protest, was struck in the head with a police projectile. His skull was fractured and he was listed in critical condition due to his brain swelling. When protestors came to his aid, they were driven back by a flash bang grenade.
Police in Atlanta rounded up more than 50 protesters who had been camped out in a city park as part of Occupy Atlanta, while police in Philadelphia arrested 15 individuals engaged in a sit-in in protest of police brutality as part of Occupy Philadelphia. San Diego Police arrested 44 protesters at Occupy San Diego, confiscating all personal belongings and all supplies and food that had been donated.

These police tactics bring to mind something journalist Daniel Kurtzman asked years ago. "When the government...begins to stamp out the freedom of dissent that is the hallmark of a democratic society," he wrote, "can there be any turning back?" Indeed, these attempts by police to stifle the various Occupy protests serve only to reinforce what Bertram Gross warned against in his 1980 book, Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America:
Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and, more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion. On a world scale, all of this is producing a heating up of the cold war and enlarged stock piles of nuclear and non-nuclear death machines.
Although the message of the Occupy protests is somewhat muddled at times, they do underscore the fact that the state of the nation has not improved in the 30 years since Gross penned those words. In fact, it has grown worse, from economic concerns to threats to our civil liberties, an increasing military presence in our daily lives, and the rise of a police state enhanced by a surveillance complex that invades virtually every aspect of our lives.
Gross, a presidential adviser who had a role in the expansion of government during the New Deal era, warned that the rise of friendly fascism would be a subtle progression. As Gross noted, "Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism... In America, it would be super modern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It will be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic fa├žade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal."

Indeed, added Gross, "the subversion of constitutional democracy is more likely to occur not through violent and sudden usurpation but rather through the gradual and silent encroachments that would accustom the American people to the destruction of their freedoms." The elite will use "triplespeak" to keep the public in line, feeding the people myth and jargon to divert them from the truth.  The apathy and naivety, or possibly the cynicism and hopelessness, of the American citizen would contribute to his own oppression.

At a time when most Americans are feeling the pain of an economy continuing to plummet, the Occupy movement's motto has a universal appeal:
We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.
However, what the Occupy movement's "We are the 99%" motto fails to recognize is that the problems we face have to do with much more than economic inequality between the haves and the have nots. Similarly, the Tea Party, which started off with similar zeal, failed to recognize that the problem was not merely Big Government but, rather, the merger of Big Government with Big Business. Inflation, unemployment, job insecurity, career anxieties and conditional benefactions are all, as Gross points out, forms of terror deliberately perpetrated upon a populace in order to control them. Thus, until we can gain some consensus about the true culprits behind our problems, any movement to change the status quo is destined to fail or be co-opted by political forces.

Lest we forget, most police states have come about through the democratic process, and their leaders come into power citing platitudes of religion, morality and order, asking the citizenry to put blind faith in the government. As Gross reminds us, "Big Business—Big Government partnerships, backed up by other elements, were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese empire builders." Our present crisis is no exception. In fact, William L. Shirer, author of the monumental The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, once predicted that America may be the first country in which fascism comes to power through democratic elections.

"As I look at America today," Gross remarked in 1980, "I am not afraid to say that I am afraid." More than 30 years later, I fear that we have even more reason to be afraid.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Biblical Tithing: The Key To Establishing a Christian Nation

My dear friend and co-laborer, Daniel Ritchie, in his recent Face Book post quoted John Owen on the importance of the tithe.
“If all who reside in a godly nation must attend the preaching of the word (2 Chronicles 15:13), then all who reside in a Christian commonwealth must be liable to pay the tithe in order to financially support those who preach the word Since the hearers of the word are to share with those who teach them (Galatians 6:6), then no man can be exempt from paying the tithe as all men are commanded to hear the word. Wherever, or in what nation soever, there hath been a removal of the maintenance provided in the providence of God for the necessary supportment of the public dispensers of the word, the issue hath been a fatal and irrecoverable disadvantage to the gospel and interest of Christ in those nations." Daniel Ritchie
 "[T]o take away the public maintenance provided in the good providence of God for the public dispensers of the gospel, upon pretences of present inconvience or promise of future provision, is a contempt of the care and faithfulness of God towards his church, and, in plain terms, downright robbery.” John Owen
I post this as a result of a recent interaction I had with someone who claimed that the Biblical Tithe was no longer a New Testament obligation. That notion seemed to be spawned from dispensational thinking yet, when questioned, the individual claimed he was not a dispensationalist, instead, as he put it, “he was far from it”.

If a person wishes to rob God of His “Tax” that is their business. They will have to bear the burden of their own iniquity. To make a doctrinal assertion, is another matter altogether.

The repudiation of the command to tithe is exactly the kind of warped thinking that has placed the church into bondage as a servant to the state, since without the necessary monetary means to function she can no longer accomplish the work that God has called her to. If the church is not funded by the tithe to carry on her duties in missions of mercy, the state will surely rush to the vacuum created by her poverty and subvert the church’s calling.

The apostle Paul chided the Corinthians for this very same think. In 1 Corinthians 9 we read that they were hedging on their promise to give their “poor tithe” in a timely manner. Not only was she to give her tithe to the poor, which was to be collected every other year, but she was to give it at once since the time of the tithe was due.
While the churches of Macedonia remained faithful in the giving of the poor tithe the Corinthian did not. In fact, the Macedonian churches had to make up the difference for the Corinthian’s sloth.
(1 Corinthians 9)

It was through the Biblical tithe that the church was enabled to fulfill her commission without which she could not. Paul clearly spells out the use of the poor tithe in verse 12 and 13.
2Co 9:12-3 For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men…
2 Corinthians 9 speaks distinctly about the continuance of the poor tithe during the New Testament age. The poor tithe was only one of three commanded tithes that God had given to Israel in order to maintain their strength and independence form the state.

Of the three tithes, the Levitical tithe, the rejoicing tithe and the poor tithe, today’s church usually only practices the tithe taken each Lord’s Day being the Levitical tithe. This is only one of the reasons why the state has been able to claim dominion over the poor bringing upon the nations a welfare system without any Biblical accountability.

To say that the tithe is no longer in force and no longer required by Scripture in the New Testament is a clear misunderstanding of the Word of God and the use of the tithe.

Paul is hopeful of the Corinthians when he say gives them the benefit of the doubt for their sloth in tithing.
2Co 9:5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they [The Macedonian Churches] would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty [the tithe you promised by did not actually give] , whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.

He had hoped that their lack of tithing in a timely manner was because they had not the necessary funds to give a substantial gift, otherwise he might have deemed their sloth an act of covetousness.
If Paul is commanding the church to practice the poor tithe in the New Testament, then it is safe to say that the Levitical tithe as well as the rejoicing tithe are also both still in effect.

The tithe is God’s tax. It is calculated as 10% of a person’s total income by virtue of the word’s etymology.
  • The poor tithe may be viewed today as the Deacon’s fund. It is to be a voluntary offering according to the abundance of what God has blessed an individual with for the care of those who are less fortunate or in need of relief during a family or individual crisis.
  • The rejoicing tithe is to be taken every other year opposite of the poor tithe. This might be seen as the fellowship fund for the saints during festivals and holy days.
  • The Levitical tithe is for the support of the faithful pastors and their families who labor   selflessly in behalf of God for the people of God.
    These tithe commands are in effect today and are ignored only at the peril of Christendom and Christ’s Kingdom advancement.
    Resource: John Owen, Two questions concerning the power of the supreme magistrate about religion and the worship of God, with one about tithes, proposed and resolved (Oxford, 1659) in The works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Goold (16 vols, Edinburgh, 1967), xiii, 515-16.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Tyranny, Independence, or Liberty Under God

And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.  2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.  And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 1Samuel  8:1-3

In this passage of Scripture, we see that the writing was already on the wall, and the future of Israel was in the balance. Rather than walking in the ways of God, Samuel’s sons were worldly and profane, and wickedness punctuated their leadership. They had the outward show of religion and perhaps even the outward testimony of their father, but their own testimony was void of legitimacy. They were covetous men who were perverse and lacked judgment.

The magisterial rule of Samuel’s sons was a direct violation of the commandment David the King articulated in 2 Samuel 23, 
“He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”

It seems likely that by the spirit of God, David was reflecting on the sons of Samuel, as well as the wickedness of Saul, when he penned these words. Nevertheless, Samuel, to his discredit, made his reprobate sons judges. Perhaps he hoped they would receive the office with sobriety and sense.  But he failed to realize that a leopard is unable to change his spots even when thrust into a situation which requires Godly sobriety and holy obedience to the Law of God.

Herein is the first transgression. It was prototypical of what was to follow.

Like Eli’s sons, Samuel’s sons were reprobate men. Nothing could change that.
We might view Eli’s Sons as representing the apostasy of the priests, while Samuel’s sons as representing the apostasy of the civil rulers.

Both of these apostate groups were setting the stage for a great judgment upon Israel. It is a fact of Scripture that the judgment of God must come upon every nation that refuses to follow His Lawful precepts, especially when it concerns leadership, statesmanship, and government. If God judged His own people Israel, how much more will He judge other nations that rebel against His Holy Law?

Perhaps Samuel’s offense cannot be laid upon Samuel alone. Surely he misjudged his sons. Perhaps he was too tenderhearted as a father, and thus his eyes were blinded and his heart hopeful that his seed would be great in the earth God-ward.  Although he was wrong, Samuel needn’t bear the guilt alone. The people were equally to blame, and perhaps more so.

On the one hand, the elders acknowledged that Samuel’s sons were apostate, and could not rule as judges representing God in matters of government. But on the other hand, they asked for an equally sinful solution. They asked for a king patterned after the nations around them.

They asked for a governor patterned after the pagan nations around them.

1Sa 8:4-5 ¶ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

This request defied logic as well as knowledge . It was a complete rejection of God and His Laws, and God would not suffer His chosen covenantally-bound people to reject Him without some retribution.

Notice the elders wanted to be JUDGED like the other nations were judged.

This desire led to all sorts of problems. Since the other nations were structured tyrannically, (and mostly still are), with totalitarian depots acting like God, legislating and judging according to personal whims and lusts, Israel was asking to become slaves of wicked men. They were asking to return to the vomit of Egyptian slavery.

It was common knowledge that the nations outside of the Covenant were despotic. Nevertheless, the people desired to be like the other nations.  Make no mistake about it. This request was not a request out of ignorance, but rather of defiance. What was transpiring was a complete repudiation of the covenant oath that Israel had made with God in the wilderness. It was a blatant violation of a promise sworn before God and to God.

In verse 7, God confirms this fact:  

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

Israel would have God’s covenant of redemption to call their own, but they refused to have His Covenant of political precept and expression. They would rather be patterned after the nations and ideologies of the heathen. They wanted God’s salvation but not His Lordship. They wanted a Savior but not a King.

This is impossible. Divine salvation is predicated upon God’s sovereign rule. There is no redemption without Lordship. There is no redemption without submission to Christ’s Crown and His Covenant.

Israel thought that salvation was a ticket to escape lawful obedience to the precepts of God. Today, this idea prevails in many churches, both Arminian and Reformed alike. Statements such as ”We are under Grace and not under law” is typical of those wanting God’s redemption but not His Lordship. Salvation is not an escape from obedience, but rather it emphasizes obedience, as well as sacrificial devotion and service.

This idea of salvation without obedience was born out of pagan rebellion. The pagan idea of salvation was one of safety and prosperity, not obedience to an ethical standard of holiness.  Pagan redemption had little to do with an obedient lifestyle since salvation was based upon ritual and ceremony, relegated to the individual alone. (A “me and my Savior” relationship without any infringement upon personal needs, desires, and actions)

Israel wanted the impossible: salvation while remaining rebellious and unlawful. They wanted liberation FROM God and not liberation TO God. They wanted heaven without fulfilling their covenant oath of obedience.

RJ Rushdoony puts it this way: 

”There can only be divine salvation where there is a sovereign and omnipotent God.”

Israel had rejected God as Lord. God was now going to reject them. But why was God so interested in Israel upholding His political Covenant Structure? In his book ‘Covenant and Polity in Biblical Israel’, Daniel Elazar observes:

 "Covenant can be studied in three dimensions: 1. As a form of political conceptualization and mode of politic expression; 2. as a source of political ideology; and 3. as a factor shaping culture, institutions and behavior.”

What Israel was embarking upon was a complete rejection of God’s Political expression, which included:

1. Divine Law, justice, and equity
2. God’s political ideology of righteousness, which has at root ethical purity
3. God’s commanded political structure, which was to shape the culture, its institutions, and regulate the behavior of the people

Israel rejected all of this. Their desire was to overthrow these principles and to come under the rulership of an earthly king with a system of government diametrically opposed to the divine civil and legal order of Jehovah.
Israel had broken their solemn oath and would face the ramifications of their rebellion.

What Israel had actually rejected was God’s declaration of His holiness, His covenant oath to them, and their oath to Him. God’s covenant agreement was an informed agreement – a pact or contract – with Israel, based upon their voluntary consent. God, a higher Authority, established this agreement, which made it a covenant with certain stipulations of Divine Law attached to it. These stipulations were sanctions of two kinds: curses blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience . It was also generational in scope. If obeyed, the blessings would continue throughout their generations, but if disobeyed, the nation would be destroyed with little trace left, if any.

Elazar defines covenant in this manner: 

“A covenant is a morally informed agreement or pact, based upon voluntary consent, established by mutual oaths or promises, involving or witnessed by some transcendent higher authority, between peoples or parties having independent status, equal in contribution with the purposes of the pact, that provides for joint action or obligation to achieve defined ends (limited or comprehensive) under conditions of mutual respect, which protect the individual integrities of all the parties to it.”

A covenant is a seal, or symbol of guarantee, between two parties sworn before a Divine Authority. Elazar notes that during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Swiss, Dutch, Scots and the English puritans conceived civil society in covenantal terms and actually wrote out national covenants to which all must subscribe. (Scotland’s Solemn League and Covenant is one of the most famous of these documents.) 

The American system is no stranger to covenantal oath  taking. The original American colonies were also structured along covenantal lines. In fact, covenantal thinking  and national covenanting  was commonplace when structuring political policy, and it continued throughout the period of the American War for Independence against the tyranny of King George III.

American Independence, according to some colonial thinkers, was to be liberation from tyranny so as to be servants of the living God in covenant. It was not to be independent from GOD, but from tyranny, dependent upon the Living God

William Penn noted that ”Men must choose to be governed by God or condemn themselves to be governed by tyrants.” 

Penn’s statement was clearly made in the context of the charter of Pennsylvania:

"Whereas the glory of Almighty God, and ye good of mankind, is the reason and end of government, and therefore government itself is a venerable ordinance of God; forasmuch as it is principally desired and intended by the proprietary and governor, and the freedom of the province of Pennsylvania, and territories thereunto belonging, to make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in opposition to any unchristian, licentious and unjust practices whereby God may have His due, Caesar his due, and the people their due, and insolvency and licentiousness on the other, so that the best and firmest foundation may be laid for the present and future happiness both of the governor and people of this province and territories aforesaid and their posterity.”

This statement must be classified as both theonomic and theocratic, thereby forbidding any sanctioning of anti-biblical laws and behavior, including any attempt of tyranny or immoral practices among the citizenry. Note also the generational focus of Penn’s statement. This was a covenantal statement.

Divine covenants are important, because they shape the worldview and perspectives of the parties involved, and because they sustain those Divine ends whereby they cannot be altered without Divine sanctions.

Elazar confirms this:

"As a source of political ideology, covenant shapes the world views...of whole societies, defining their civil character and political relationships, and serving as a touchstone for testing the legitimacy and often even the efficiency of their political institutions and those who must make them work.”

Covenanting is a security measure, especially when it comes to political ideology, structure, and expression. As a result of the sinful rejection of God and His Laws, Israel’s culture would now be structured according to the apostate system of government under a king who was like the pagan kings of totalitarian rule.

Covenants are expressions of relationships. By violating their covenant with God, Israel severed the relationship between themselves and God, their Savior [not old English spelling, unless you want all your words to be consistent to old English spelling], Lord and Protector. [same paragraph] Once they rejected God, they were on their own, under the frowning providence and active judgment of the Almighty.

Elazar again notes that God’s original covenant with Israel actually established the Hebrew people and founded them as a body politic, while at the same time created a religious framework that gave that policy its reason, norm, and constitution.  It also gave them particular guidelines, or Laws, for the development of a political order based upon justice and equity, all of which were based upon a covenantal relationship.

God’s covenant made Israel’s moral commitment to one another and to God. It was a binding Law. All these covenantal blessings Israel rejected. Even after they had been warned time and time again, they continued to reject the counsel of God.

Observe the warning:

De 29:10 ¶ Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
 11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
 12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: {enter: Heb. pass}
 13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
 14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
 15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:
 16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt; and how we came through the nations which ye passed by;
 17 And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them:)
 18 Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;

This was a specific warning for Israel, and for us, not to be yoked to a nation that holds to a political policy that is not structured after the WORD of GOD.

The result: tyrannical rule under a totalitarian statist government, which God through direct intervention brings to pass, according to His declared sanction of retribution for rebellion. Israel was seeking a political platform that would free them from the covenantal obligations of God’s Law. They wanted desperately to decide for themselves right and wrong according to arbitrary human standards and thus sought independence apart from God’s LAW and from God’s BLESSINGS.

What they said in effect was “We the people of Israel will decide how we will be governed.” And they did this by seeking a legislator-king outside of the parameters God gave. They traded God for Saul, which was a terrible mistake. Israel’s rebellious cunning would quickly backfire, and they would become slaves once again, like in the days of Egypt.

 Notice what Samuel declares will happen if such a rejection is precipitated:

1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Even with this warning, the people were seared in their conscience, and they desired to live as slaves under the yoke of a tyrant statist system. As long as they could be like every other nation, as long as they could compete in the global area, and as long as they could do it the way they saw fit, they would be satisfied. Or so it seemed.

The parallels are astounding.

Like Israel, America  desires a president or a political party structured after the nations of the world to save them. When pagan rulers are placed into power, they have their ethical standards, their epistemological starting point, their economic ideologies, and their entire worldviews structured according to humanistic ideas. They refuse to follow God’s ethical standards of a community, state, or nation.

As Author Buddy Hanson rightly and boldly states:

”Any other view of civil government other than [God’s] view, will result in the citizens [including lawmakers who are elected from the citizenry] becoming a law unto themselves.”

During the Reformation, the idea of national covenanting was rejuvenated. It was the Reformation that sparked the Puritans, Covenanters, and early American colonists, to consider returning to the God of their fathers, so as to construct a body politic obedient to the law Structure of God and His infallible Word.  As a result, Biblical covenanting re-emerged as a central theme in political theology, political philosophy, and political polity.

Men like Theodore Beza and the German Born Calvinist Johannes Althusius were among the finest of juridical scholars. Althusius systematized Calvinistic teachings and stated the following:

“…a republic is formed by a covenant between the rulers and the people before God, that the foundation of this covenant is the Law of God…that the Decalogue is the best expression of this higher law, that the church and state are separate in form, but joined in function, that families, churches, and states alike, must protect the rights and liberties of the people, and that violations of these rights and liberties, or of the divine and natural rights that inform and empower them, are instances of tyranny that must trigger organized constitutional resistance.”

The Reformation was calling men to both an outer and an inner reformation, where men would be conformed outwardly as well as inwardly to the Word of God. This reformation concerned every area and institution of life, especially in the realm of government, since tyranny would be violently oppressive to the preaching of the Gospel and the health of the Christian cause.

Beza insisted that tyrants were rulers who violated the terms of the political covenant. ] John Witte in his book “The Reformation of Rights” notes,

“For Beza, tyrants were rulers who violated the terms of the political covenant – particularly its foundational requirements, that all must honor the rights of God to be worshipped, and the rights of God’s people to discharge their duties of the faith, in conformity with God’s Law.”

It was Beza, more than Calvin, who advanced the doctrine of interposition whereby the lesser magistrates could resist and overthrow the tyrant, if necessary. According to Beza, if the ruler exceeded his authority in violation of the political covenant, the people through their representatives  had both the right and the duty to resist him as a tyrant. During the late 1700s, the American Puritan colonists resorted to this doctrine of interposition (or the doctrine of the lesser magistrates), sparking the American War of Independence.

During the years of the Reformation, John Calvin admonished the people of Geneva in a stern warning, 

“And ye, O peoples to whom God gave the liberty to choose your own magistrates, see to it that ye do not forfeit this favor by electing to the positions of highest honor, rascals and enemies of God.”

This warning could have easily been given to the 21st century Evangelical Christian community. Sadly, however, warning has mostly fallen upon deaf ears. Today, we see very little real outcry from any quarter of Christendom today, and almost no outrage, concerning the apostasy of our civil majesty.

WHY? Why is the community of the church so complacent? Because the visible church has lost the vision of what it means to be at LIBERTY UNDER GOD.

Not only has the church lost the vision, she has become like Israel desiring a king (or a political party) to rule over them like the other nations have. Rather than rebuking and abstaining from the workers of iniquity, many Christians run to them for safety and the hope of prosperity. But America’s hope is neither in any king nor in any political party. Moreover, it is not in politics per se.

Christendom boasts of so many individuals and churches verbally stating that they want to reform the nation and bring it back to the morality of Scripture – but they only say, and don’t do. Many words are spoken, but little real action is implemented. If and when action is implemented, it is with the hope that Christ will emerge and rapture the church from the evils of the world. This two-kingdom heresy has stifled the church even when she is doing the work of the dominion mandate.

There are far too many professing Christians still eating at Jezebel’s statist table, wiping their mouth and saying that they have done no evil. Too may saints have bought into the lie that the government is here to help and to provide for cradle to grave assurances. American Christians have yoked themselves with the beast of Statism.

Like Israel, they desire Saul.

Without even knowing it (or wanting to know it,) the community of Christendom has forged an unholy alliance with God’s enemies, thinking that appeasing the oppressor will insure their survival, not realizing that appeasement of the beast only stirs its wrath. Too many American Christians seem to think that if they act according to the liking of the beast, believing its lies, getting involved in their programs, and refraining from antagonizing it, the beast will spare them. It will not. In the end, it will destroy them all the same.

Consider the story of the Turtle and the Scorpion.

The scorpion stands upon the bank of the stream desiring to cross to the other side. He spies a turtle and seeks to gain access upon the turtle’s back so as to cross. The turtle naturally refuses, saying that the scorpion will sting him, and he will die. The scorpion assures him that he will not sting him, because if he does, they both will drown.
For a moment the turtle ponders the logic, then agrees. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the turtle.

The turtle exclaims “But you said you wouldn’t kill me. Now we will both drown. Why did you do that?”

The scorpion explains: “I can’t help it - it is my nature.”

It is the nature of man, especially when given any kind of political power, to enslave, impoverish, humiliate, and eventually kill the very people it has sworn to protect. In doing so, it kills itself along with the people of its charge.

So what is American Christendom’s problem? To answer this, Buddy Hanson gives a wonderful illustration:

“It is said that it’s hard to read the label from the inside of the jar, but that is exactly where we are in the early years of the 21st century. The cultural jar into which we have allowed ourselves to be placed, and confined, is a result of a century and a half of preferring the world’s ways to God’s. This has so influenced the way we look at life, that when we decide to ‘do something’ about our culture, we act according to non-Christian tactics – and don’t even realize that we are doing so.”

In other words, reestablishing the position of godless rulers and acting according to the dictates of the culture avails no change to the culture. Rather, it exacerbates the problem, bringing the wrath of God down upon us more ferociously.

He continues:

”What is not understood is that by acting naturally, we are guaranteeing that the non Christian agenda will continue to influence the culture.”

The answer to our political, economic, militaristic, and cultural problems is not whether the Republicans or the Democrats gain control over the several branches of Government. Our problems will only be remedied when God’s people stop making excuses for their acquiescence to wickedness and tyranny, devoting themselves to an expressly Christian world and life view that seeks to advance the crown rights of Christ and not the kingdom of man.

The Honorable Howard Phillips coined the statement:

”Liberals are going over the cliff at 100 mph and conservatives are going over the cliff at 50 mph. Both are going to crash.”

As long as our approach is godless, we will continue to loose ground. As long as we continue to think like the world, the world will snare and enslave us. As long as we continue to forge alliances with the wicked of the world, we will loose God’s support, and His holy justice will fall upon us as individuals, our families, and possibly our nation as well.

Perhaps patriotism is defined best by Abigail Adams when she clearly stated:

”A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom has not moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will Toward men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society? The Scriptures tell us “Righteousness Exalteth a nation”.

Rev. Stephan Perks of the Kuyper institute warns:

 ”The Created order of God’s Sovereignty is vested totally in Christ. Nowhere else in the created order is such total sovereignty exercised. All other persons and spheres of authority are restricted. This means that all reductionist theories of mankind and human society are idolatrous. Totalitarianism, which reduces man to one function of human society namely the State, for which it claims total sovereignty, is idolatrous.

Patriarchalism, in which the whole of human society is subsumed under the family and all other spheres of subordinated to it, is idolatrous. Ecclesio-centrism, in which the whole of life of man and society is subordinated to the church, is equally idolatrous, as is libertarianism, in which the whole of human life is subordinated to the individual.

Christianity teaches, rather than any of these, including Ecclesio-centricism, that Christ is the center of creation, that only He is sovereign over the whole creation, and that all institutions and spheres, legitimate in their own right and independent of each other’s devolved authority structures, must subordinate themselves in all things to Him and to His Word.

Solomon’s profound truth rings true: “There is nothing new under the Sun.”

Christians must once again decide between Christ or Caesar, between God and Baal, between the table of the Lord or the table of idols, and between being bond servants under God’s Law or being salves of sin, the lusts of the flesh, serving corrupters and the promoters of wickedness.

We stand at a crossroads. Will Christians continue to be led like sheep to the slaughter, or will we be men of faith and resolve, relying upon GOD ALONE for our every blessing?
The future of our heritage depends upon our answer. While we may not avoid the destruction of our culture, we still may avoid the comprehensive totality of God’s wrath upon ourselves. May God have mercy upon our godless nation.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

False Prophets Must Be Held Accountable

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.1Co 15:24-25


The Apostle Paul's statement is clear concerning the end of the world. It will come only after Christ has put all enemies under His feet. This is the Postmillennial view of Christian victory.It happens in time and history. It is not apocalyptic but rather hopefully victorious when Righteousness envelops the entire Global community.

Predictions concerning the end of the world have come and gone. Most of them have gone unnoticed. Today, however, with the vast amount of communication technology at our fingertips, a prediction like May 21st goes world-wide. In its wake; fear, destruction, uncertainty, and for a 14 year old Russian teen, death.

Consider this report from RT, an Autonomous Nonprofit Organization Internet News Source:

"A 14-year-old girl from the Republic of Mari El in Central Russia has committed suicide, allegedly because she was afraid of the upcoming doomsday, predicted by the American radio preacher Harold Camping.

Nastya Zachinova believed the news that the world would end on May 21, her family told the tabloid LifeNews. The once lively teenager became angsty and withdrawn. On the Saturday in which the rapture had been predicted to start, she committed suicide after returning home from school.Her personal diary shows she was terrified of the perils of the apocalypse, which she believed humanity was about to endure.

Harold Camping and his supporters launched a world-wide campaign to inform humanity about the upcoming rapture, the date of which he predicted based on a series of convoluted calculations taken from the bible. A few ads promoting his message were put on billboards in Russia as well."


Camping makes a complete fool of himself,again.It was not enough to predict the end in September 1994, or on Christmas Day in 1994, or predicting dates in 1995 privately to his cult followers, or to maintain that the end of the church age happened in 1988 and no one else can now be converted, he had to predict another figment of his imagination, validated by bad exegesis, and a desire to be the 21st century Noah - his ark being "Family Stations Inc.".

This time, however, the man must be held accountable.

Camping's doctrine has gone from sober, to questionable to utterly outrageous and heretical. He has poorly stewarded the money donated to his radio ministry and traded sober Christian truths for horror stories about the coming wrath without any honest hermeneutic justification whatsoever. God's judgment will come upon the world, to be sure - but not the way Camping envisions it.


Why would God allow such wrong to blemish the Christian Church? I believe it is to expose the false Christians and distinguish the true. Camping has been addicted to finding out when the end of the world would come for decades. He began with his presupposition that there had to be a date that he could discover. He believed that he was the chosen one. With that initial premise, he conveniently made the Bible say whatever he wanted through mathematical gyrations and interpretive acrobatics. But why?

Why focus upon the end of the world? What sick mind wants to see so much fear and destruction? What saint sets his heart upon hopelessness? If no one is being saved any more since 1988, as Camping believes, why bother getting the word out that the end is near? That behavior is inconsistent with his doctrine.

Why not focus upon advancing the Crown Rights of King Jesus and reconstructing the societal order? Why not build true churches with he millions that were spent on falsely promoting doomsday? The questions of "Why" can go on and on. The real question is "Why did so many believe him?"


Ignorance can be very destructive, and pride can be deadly. Many who followed Camping, and are still following him in his delusion, are not deep thinkers, nor are they good exegetes. Many of them love to make themselves out to be something special. To think one knows when the end of the world will come, down to the hour; now that's special. It's all pride, and it must be condemned.


The purpose of each child of God is to 'build the old waste places'. We must preach the gospel and use God's Law to reconstruct the culture, and the societal order God-ward. There is no time to fuss with doomsday cults and false prophets. That is probably why God told Moses to stone them.

Time is of the essence. Not because the end is near, but because our time on earth is but for a moment. We must make the most from it. Soli Deo Gloria!

Thursday, May 5, 2011

The Evil Conquest of the Government Schools

In his most excellent work, “Is Public Education Necessary”, Samuel Blumenfeld wrote,

“Educational tyranny is the natural and inevitable result of a government school system controlled by monopoly-minded bureaucrats and edu-crats . The people of this country must soon decide what is more important to them: parents' rights or compulsory schooling; educational freedom or educational tyranny.”
In the early 80’s it was still unlawful to educate your own children at home. Children were being dragged off to detention facilities and parents were thrown into jail. Even though some of the greatest Americans, including most of America’s founding fathers, were home educated, this was now unlawful. Government education was mandated, and the children were given over to the state for their upbringing. In essence the state had kidnapped the children under their magisterial protection. In doing so, they violated their God given duty and headed down a path of perdition.
A carful historical study of the development of American Public Education quickly shows that its goal was never to educate children to become productive citizens of the American capitalistic republic, but rather to brainwash them into statist socialists.

The idea that education should come under the regulation of the state, rather than the parent or the clergy, was originally a Prussian model proposed by Harvard University socialist James G. Carter during the early 1800s.

Blumenfeld recounts,

“Thus, as early as 1825, educational statism, modeled on the Prussian design, was already a well-developed idea in the heads of the Harvard-Unitarian elite[s].”

In order to promote public education Carter, and his supporters, led a movement to discredit the private academies in favor of government funded schools by arguing that the poor were being disenfranchised.  

Blumenfeld comments,

“[This]…point was to become a favorite argument [by Carter] against the private academy: that it deprived the poor of equal educational opportunity. It never occurred to the "friends of education" to advocate state scholarships or tuition grants for poor youths so that they could attend the private academy in their town. Instead, they promoted the idea of free public schools for all-including all of those who could afford private schooling. The reason for this is obvious. Only in free public schools could the characters and minds of all be manipulated by the controlling few. The end result was to be a social utopia that would bring unparalleled happiness to the human race. “

The two forces perpetuating this movement were the Owenits (b. 1771 – Robert Owen, an Englishman known as the father of modern socialism),and the Unitarians.

Again Blumenfeld explains,

“Although both Owenites and Unitarians agreed that the government should take full control of education, the Owenite plan was far more radical in total concept than anything the Unitarians advocated. The Owenites wanted children to be separated from their parents as early as possible-age two was suggested-and placed in district boarding schools away from the influences of the prevailing system. Each school would house a different age group and be furnished with "instructors in every branch of knowledge, intellectual and operative, with all the apparata, land, and conveniences necessary for the best development of all knowledge.”

 The ideology behind their educational plan was articulated in the following manner.

“[T]he grand lever, which is to raise up the mighty mass of this community is education …The schools hold, in embryo, the future communities of this land . The schools are the pillars of the republic. To these, let the strong arm of government be stretched out .Over these, let the wisdom of our legislatures watch.” "Improvement of Common Schools," Article X, North American Review, January 1827, pp . 156-57 .

Today, Home Education is still frowned upon, although in most states it is no longer illegal. There are still some major restriction and regulations in certain jurisdictions, but at least home education is possible without fear of imprisonment.

Yet, the private citizen – whether they like it or not and whether they support Public Statist education or not – must pay for the Messianic schooling through taxation. These taxes are sometime quite burdensome and there is no way of opting out without certain infringing government caveats.

Even with funding through excessive taxation the schools are in deep trouble academically and morally. It seems as if the more money that is thrown at the system the less productive it becomes. Government education is in a grave-yard spiral – and the government knows it.

As early as 1980 a mass exodus was upon the horizon.

The unprecedented decline in academic quality has precipitated a veritable exodus of children from the government schools. More and more parents are choosing private, church and home schools .The phenomenal rise of homeschooling in recent years not only indicates a disenchantment with government schools but with formal schooling in general. The demand for greater educational freedom by parents is causing alarm within the educational establishment which has, for the last one hundred years, depended on the compulsory school attendance laws to supply it with a captive clientele no matter how poor the quality of their education .”

During the 1800s, wherever academies were established, Cater noticed that the common school declined because the most intelligent people in town were no longer interested in it.

For Carter there was a solution to the problem: "Abolish the academy…”

There is no guarantee that home education and private academies will continue to remain free. If more and more children are removed from statist control the system will begin to crack. This has already begun. If, as a result of this breakdown, the government becomes desperate, we may see either greater regulations and restrictions or a totalitarian crack-down upon all private and home education.


1. Read Sam’s book cover to cover. Buy it and share it with many. Know it inside and out. Digest it and then proclaim its historical and ideological tenants. Everyone must be aware of what is happening to our nation through the statist plan for total control through the Trojan horse of the Public Education system.

2. Every church should have a school. Encourage your pastor to start one if he hasn’t already. Religious education is still honored in the United States under the first amendment. Use the freedom.The Old Testament Levites were the principle educators of the people. This pattern must be re-established. The church can also act as an umbrella protection for those who want to home educate their children. The church’s power and influence should never be underestimated. She must protect her people. She must educate Christ-ward by promoting Christo-centric education.

3. Private Christian Schools should be established in the various states that are supportive of the private academies. Schools that are grandfathered in are more likely to remain strong against any assault by the state. The more Christian academies in operation the less likely they will be over-run.

4. Encourage your pastor to read Sam Blumenfeld’s “Is Public Education Necessary” and then preach against the Statist Messianic education system. This is especially important if there are many in his congregation who have their children in public schools or if there are many public school teachers in his congregation. This will be a life changing challenge so encourage and pray for him. The action he takes will show just who’s side he is on. Hope for the best, but expect disappointment.

5. Publish various quotes in your local newspaper about how the public school system is Marxist. Show how it is actually destroying the culture and bringing the nation into judgment. Use social media to share some potent quotes for others to use. Lead the pack. Shake the people out of their slumber.

6. Give a copy of Blumenfeld’s book to your state delegate and state senator. Make him promise to read it. Then call him weeks later to see if he read it. Do not let him rest till you are satisfied that he has read the book. Have others call him also. Be respectful but be persistent. The squeaky wheel always gets greased.

7. Give copies of the book to the local school board. Prepare for blowback. Be courageous. Go forward in the fear of the Lord and for the Crown Rights of King Jesus.

It has recently been my pleasure to spend an entire weekend with Sam discussing these issues and the future of the Christina Education movement. His sincerity and expertise is refreshing. Mr. Samuel Blumenfeld has just signed on with New Geneva as the Director Of Primary Education.  You can read Dr. Blumenfeld’s articles at The New American Online