The Army of Joshua

We have a friend at church who always goes about wearing a shirt–golf, button-down, you name it–silk-screened with the Ten Commandments on the back. (We really think he needs to embroider his better shirts.) He isn’t a marginal type of fellow, really; he is a successful businessman and his family is very prominent and successful in our church. But his idea is that, until America “comes back to God,” he will wear the Ten Commandments. (He’s also trying to sell the shirts as well.)

One of the things that liberals used to teach in schools is to think rationally. Part of rational thinking is in defining terms properly. What do we mean when we post the Ten Commandments in public places, let alone on the backs of our shirts? What is our real objective? How we respond to such things depends on the real answer to such questions.

We have our own idea as to why it’s good to post the Ten Commandments. For everybody else, the answer depends on how you look at it.

For the Freemason, the Ten Commandments, like any other religious artifact, is strictly symbolic of some higher truth. That’s one reason why our country has taken such a casual attitude towards the display of religious items in a secular state. Many in leadership in the U.S. have traditionally been Masons, and in the Lodge the Bible, along with the Qu’ran or whatever other holy book or artifact they might like to put there, are pure symbols of the “religion beyond religions” that Masonry claims (and then obscures its claim) they have, a religion which in itself may be purely symbolic. So setting up the Ten Commandments on public property isn’t a big deal.

For the liberal, the Ten Commandments represent a patriarchic, homophobic and theistic way that they are trying to rid the country of. Moreover like the Islamicist, liberals see setting up such things as a power challenge to them, to be eradicated at the earliest possible opportunity. One evening I expressed a similar opinion to a Christian, a Ten Commandments activist, and his reply was, “It’s (control) the issue for them.” But it’s ultimately the control issue for everybody, at least in a secular sense.

For the Christian, things have been a little more fuzzy.

Most Christians say that they want to see the U.S. come back to God, but most are not adept enough (a good Masonic term) at politics to understand the road one must take to get at that conclusion. They feel that things have been better for Christians in the past, that the society in general more perfectly reflected their values, and they long for a return to such a state. At one time Christians were content with the force of shared values in a country without an established church, but the growth of government and the agressive attack of the liberals have dislodged a great deal of that content, and we have seen a decidedly theonomic bent in Christian thinking coming to the surface in this decade.

So what does the Bible say about this? Last year we wrote a piece entitled If You’re Going to Take the Land Take It, where we contrasted the decidedly mild idea of “taking the land” current amongst Christians and modern Israelis with the brutal, complete destruction of the enemy that that ancient Israelis were commanded to do and that modern jihadis are attempting today. Although the Ten Commandments are an important document for our conduct–if nothing else, even Karl Marx admits that capitalism started with “Thou shalt not steal”–the fact is that the Commandments are simply the cornerstone of the entire Jewish law enumerated in the rest of Exodus, continued in Leviticus, completed in Numbers, and reiterated in Deuteronomy. Once this law giving was complete, the command was given to take the land, and that conquest was a military one.

This leads us to but one conclusion: if you want to impose the law of Moses, you’ll need the army of Joshua, and that army isn’t a spiritual one either.

Liberals will immediately jump on this and say that Christians are a threat to the state. (Caught in Dzerzhinskii’s Dilemma, their response may not be as definite as their rhetoric.) But before we let liberals jump off the cliff on this one (maybe we should let them jump off the cliff!) we need to make two statements on why a violent solution to this problem is unacceptable.

The first is that our Founder, Jesus Christ, made it unacceptable to take this course of action. This is what separates Christianity from Islam and, in reality, Judaism as well. Jesus Christ came to change the human heart at a time when Judaism was looking for a political solution to their problem. This is why most Christians’ thinking is “fuzzy” on this issue. Christianity–and evangelical Christianity in particular–has not gone far enough down the road of becoming a form of Monarchic Judaism to shake the memory of a Founder who forstalled his disciples’ questions about the re-establishment of the Jewish state and ultimately allowed himself to be nailed to a cross by the collusion of the secular and religious authorities of the day. Perhaps, in this regard, the thinking of American Christians is more Biblical than some of its leadership.

The second is that revolutions in the modern world inevitably start out to free people and end up enslaving them. The dreary succession of Marxist revolutions tops the list, but in every case revolutions turn tyrannical because their tightly organised vanguards become dictactorial. This is a central fact that the milita movement never got a hold of; it is why we cannot support it.

So where does this leave us? It depends which side of the issue you’re on.

Liberals need to realise that they’re dependent upon Christians and other conservatives to keep them out of the clutches of the jihadis. Liberals have a great deal more to lose than Christians with the triumph of radial Islam. As we noted before, people won’t die for the right to party, and that’s just about all that liberalism has to die for. Demoralising large portions of the population can also lead to the same result that the Roman Empire experienced when Islam made its early meteoric rise, i.e., the sour mood of the people as a result of the endless demands of Late Roman bureaucracy led to the welcoming of the Muslim conquerors. And the first ones were, in many ways, more enlightened than the group we’ve got today. (Roman Britain went through the same kind of “throw the bums out” mood, ultimately with disastrous results.)

Christians, more than anything else, need to grasp the simple fact that their exaltation of the state as an instrument of righteousness (which the New Testament doesn’t really support) only throws the focus of the church into an arena it was not created to operate in. Moreover doing this only legitimises the coercive activity of the state, which plays straight into the hands of liberals. Christians need to understand that, while we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the number one objective of the church is to make disciples. Any political activity needs to be geared to preserving the freedom of the church to do just that. Recent events have shown that the church’s mission has social value; if Christian people are properly oriented to live as Jesus Christ intends for them to, both the social and eternal missions of the church will be fulfilled and the world will know that God has sent us.

And, as Bossuet used to say, if the world knows that God has sent us, the world will be converted, which is the liberals’ worst nightmare.

We have reached the point where both sides have some hard choices to make. To be frank, knowing that triumphalistic Boomers dominate the leadership of both sides in the U.S., I am not optimistic that there will be a happy result for either side. But since this is a Christian blog, my message to my fellow believers is clear: Christians are going to have to decide that they are either real Christians or just latter day members of the tribe of Judah with an inside track to eternity. If they choose the latter, it would be a tragedy, because they will figure out sooner or later that the only road to theonomy is trod by the army of Joshua.

The Real Defence of Marriage

One of the more interesting outcomes of the 2006 election was the approval in all states but one of amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was interesting because it ostensibly bucked the leftward lurch of the rest of the election. (It also didn’t do much to prevent that either!) Those who propose such amendments define them as the “defence of marriage.” An act of that name was passed by Congress (now more than ever the opposite of progress) and signed into law by none other than President Bill Clinton in 1996. But courts in such places as Massachusetts and New Jersey have made electoral exercises such as these a necessity. The judiciary is the elites’ supermajority these days, and the loss of influence via judicial appointments at the Federal level is the greatest tragedy of this election. But, to be truthful, marriage has been under attack for a long time. Gay marriage is just one more step in a long term campaign to weaken civil marriage. Up until now we have the following attacks:

  • Allowing conjugal relations outside of marriage. According to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, conjugal relations are one reason for marrying. By allowing these relations outside of marriage, two things are accomplished. The first is that it enables people to skip marriage if they want to have sex. The second is that we have to backtrack and define some sexual relations as unlawful and some as not, which is why we have the mess with relations between young people and adults that we do. Once you breach the boundary of marriage, any boundary you set–and that includes sodomy–is strictly artificial and a function of the taste of the moment. We discussed this earlier in the context of the Mark Foley fiasco.
  • “No-fault” divorce. This was hailed as a great legal step forward when it was legalised, but easy exit marriage debased the institution in an enormous way. It was supposed to be liberating for everyone, but women have taken the hardest blow from it; it’s just too easy for a guy to skip out on his obligations. At this point the only meaningful impediments to divorce are the financial obligations imposed at dissolution such as alimony (which doesn’t exist everywhere,) child custody/support and the division of property.
  • Requiring equal status for illegitimate children. This is one of those things that looks great on paper but has some unintended consequences. It may not be fair to those who came into this world under a cloud not of their own making, but doing this simply opens the door for people to have children without a spouse (and more often than not without the means to raise them properly.) We have added injury to insult in this matter by wasting precious courtroom time on parental rights for those who didn’t bother to get married but suddenly want all of the rights of fatherhood or motherhood of a child they had little interest in before.

All of these things have weakened civil marriage as an institution. Today marriage is perceived as a burden by many, which is one reason why we see so much shacking up these days. Take the issue of children. It’s almost easier under our topsy-turvy legal system for a guy to have a child out of wedlock and then to assert parental rights than to marry someone only to lose them in a divorce. Anyone who gives some thought to an attempt to undo the weakening changes above will realise that such an effort is probably beaten from the start. Even most Christians would probably balk at such a campaign. That being the case, the current “defence of marriage” effort isn’t so much an effort to preserve marriage as a “last stand” effort to keep it from being wiped out.

So what is to be done? There are two things that Christian churches can do to address this situation. The first is to require Christian married couples to take a serious look at what they are doing when they get married. Pre-marital counselling is common in evangelical churches but its application is uneven. Christian churches also need to think seriously about what they tell couples after they are married. One thing that would help is for “marriage experts” to stop panderning to modernist self-actualisation expectations and to encourage couples to adopt realistic expectations of life in general and marriage in particular.

The second is to start making a distinction between Christian marriage and marriage in general. This exposes a key weakness in evangelical churches: they are too dependent upon the state to define what constitutes marriage. This is one reason why they are forced to fight the battles they do. For example, Christians may not be doing themselves a favour by opposing civil unions (in general.) If the state simply went to civil unions entirely, the churches could concentrate on building up relationships that really reflected the relationship between Christ and his church rather than had proper legal status, because the two would have a clear distinction.

Christians have forgotten that, when God himself married the first couple in the garden, he did not need to good offices of the state to formalise the relationship. The family predates the state, and Christian churches’ unthinking assent to civil marriage as the definition of this central divine institution is an abrogation of the purpose the church was put here to accomplish in the first place. Although Christians have been remarkably successful in “defending marriage,” the unacceptable divorce rate for Christians and the possibility that left-wing elitists will use their disproportionate influence in society to advance their idea should be a continuing warning that simply defending things the way they are may not insure their perpetuation in the future.

Why Bob Corker Won the Tennessee Senate Race

Probably the brightest spot for the Republicans of the 2006 election was Bob Corker’s victory for Tennessee’s Senate race. Being very familiar with this race and knowing many Republican candidates, officeholders and operatives, this is why I think that Bob Corker won this race:

  • Tennessee is a very conservative state. It is ironic that Tennessee, which contributes a disproportionate number of people to the war in Iraq, turns around and votes as the most “pro-war” state.
  • It is not a classically “Christian Coalition” state where the “religious right” did their usual “taking a stand” (and the party over.) Conservative Christian people are woven into the Republican establishment rather than forcibly grafted in, which is why the party came back together the way it did after two classically Christian candidates (Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant) lost in the primary. (This loss was avoidable; if one of them could have put his ego aside and dropped out, they would not have split the vote and money.)
  • Corker’s general election campaign started out as a fiasco, with poor ads and an unfocused effort. Corker had the wisdom to dump his campaign people and get people in who knew what they were doing and let them run his campaign properly. His ads improved along with everything else, including his poll numbers. His ability to change course for victory needs to be noted in the White House.
  • Corker did hammer at Ford’s voting record. The image that this campaign was strictly a series of negative personal attacks doesn’t tell the whole story. Corker had the advantage in that he could run against an opponent with ten years of votes in the House (when he bothered to show up, which he frequently didn’t) while Corker had been in executive positions, both in government and business. Ford’s voting record was atypically liberal for the state and Corker made the most of that.
  • Ford’s attempts to portray himself as an “ordinary Tennessean” couldn’t withstand the hammering of a competitive campaign. As Bob Novak hilariously pointed out, every time Ford mentioned the Lord he lost 1,000 votes. That’s part of Ford’s record problem. We took issue with that ourselves during the campaign.
  • Ford’s greatest gaffe was what I call the “parking lot debate” on 20 October when he crashed a Corker press conference in Memphis. That did not sit well with people here, especially independents. It was the beginning of his downward slide to defeat.

Important note to Anglicans: Corker is an Episcopalian.  But his former Rector actually appeared in Harold Ford campaign ads.  Nothing like gratitude.  The Episcopal Church is leaving you!  Maybe it’s time for the AmiA, Bob…

Leaving Our Fixed Positions

Election 2006 is finally over with. Sort of. There will be extended battles of many kinds; some in the courts of law and some in the courts of public opinion as people spin the results of the election.

As we noted in a previous post, our main concern is and always has been the legal status of Christianity–and Christian behaviour–in our country. We are not blind to the relationship between that and may other important issues–economic freedom, property rights, a straightforward rule of law, etc.. But we know all too well that the composition of the government–and in that respect it took a decided turn for the worse–can seriously affect people’s ability to choose their eternity unhindered by adverse pressure from the state.

But let’s look at another question: how did we get into this mess? The overriding issue is one that Christians don’t support with the enthusiasm that our opponents think we do, but it’s one that’s ended up hitting us hard: the Iraq war. There are many Vietnam-era excuses as to why this isn’t going well, such as the “quagmire” business, but the basic problem as far as we are concerned is that our President has taken a fixed, unrealistic position on this issue that doesn’t advance our long-term national security: his unbending insistence that we work and fight towards democracy in Iraq.

The Middle East hasn’t known democracy from the start; any realistic reading of the Bible will confirm that. But beyond that we have a President whose idea is that a fixed position is the way to victory. A lot of Christians look at world affairs–and life–in the same way. But a fixed position is like the Maginot Line in World War II: it only invites the enemy to go around it, as the Germans did the original and the jihadis are trying to do now.

There are only two really fixed things out there. The first is that heaven is our ultimate objective. The second is that Jesus Christ is the way to get there. Beyond that we have been given flexibility in how to acheive that objective for ourselves and facilitate it fo others, something Charles Finney pointed out a century and a half ago.

We need to ask ourselves some hard questions. What good does it do to spend so much effort defending life when we produce it only to turn it over to the world and the state to direct? Or put another way, if we cannot or will not evangelise people, is it better that they not be born? (There’s a New Testament answer to this, but we’ll leave it up to you to find it.) Is our desire to acheive success in our society part of the solution or part of the problem? Or are we supporting a system that will, in the long run, work against us?

We need to take a more realistic view out of what we can expect from the state. Part of our problem is that there are too many expectionations–from all sides–of what the state can do. Attempts to politicise Katrina have had varying degrees of success, but there’s no doubt that Katrina was the state’s lowest moment, and that low moment was a bi-partisan low moment. We can expect more like it. On the other hand, it was the church’s greatest one.

We as American Christians need to look at things from the standpoint of being Christians more than being Americans, and to not confuse the two. Although we need to recognise that what we do and what we are has social value, we must also recognise that social value isn’t the determining issue–it’s eternal value.

At this point in American history, the state has the power to drive Christianity underground. A church that is caught up in equating Christian life to secular success is very vulnerable to attack. Elections such as this only put such a kulturkampf closer to reality. But the party hung on what we call Dzerzhinskii’s Dilemma will soon find itself pressed by more deadly enemies than evangelical Christianity so, like the persecution spawned by Diocletian and his colleagues, the time of troubles may be shorter than somewhat.

Christians need to stop being afraid of innovation and do so serious “outside the box” thinking on how the church will progress in a hostile culture. Like the Republicans, we need to stop focusing on deals with only short-term gain and start looking at what really counts. Only then will we not only outlast our enemies, but what the Watchtower calls their “system of things” too.

Persecution is Closer to Home Than One Thinks

The release of Eritrean Gospel singer Helen Berhane after two years of imprisonment is a great relief, although being incarcerated in a shipping container–with its extremes of heat and cold–has broken her health. Such a stand puts to shame a lot of what passes for Christianity in the West.

It’s also a reminder that such events could, in fact, “happen here,” contrary to what most people think. The Eritrean government equated Pentecostal Christianity with Islamicism as destabilising to the country. This is no different than the left’s idea that “all fundamentalism is the same.” Almost five years ago we wrote that, had Al Gore won the election in 2000, he would have unleashed an attack on evangelical Christianity in the U.S. after 9/11, in spite of the fact that it had nothing to do with the attack, based on this idea of the left.

That is the principal reason–beyond the economy, Iraq, and all the other problems we have these days–why I cannot bring myself to vote Democrat. Should you?

Ann Coulter Finds Voting in Palm Beach Tricker Than It Looks

We cannot resist saying something about the problems that Ann Coulter is having in establishing her proper precinct to vote in in Palm Beach.

First, I find the whole concept of voting at either St. Edward’s Catholic Church or Bethesda-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church–where I grew up–to be an entirely fascinating concept.

Second, I think that the whole business of working towards prosecuting Coulter is on par with the prosecution of Rush Limbaugh: a political effort of the "God-hating liberals" to get someone they don’t like. Palm Beach County election officials obviously had good reason to believe that something was amiss with her address and should have been more proactive. That’s their job. To sit around and let something like this happen–assuming it happened as they described–and then "call the dogs out" is somewhere between irresponsible and entrapment.

But the fact that both of these conservative stalwarts are in Palm Beach at all is something that I, personally, have a difficult time with. The U.S. was a country which was led by nationhood by an enlightened elite. But they could not have done that without a general population with a reasonable sense of personal responsibility. That fact was the cornerstone of "Jeffersonian democracy," and was one of the founding precepts of the Democrat Party. My own years in Palm Beach–with many drug and alcohol besotted classmates raised by the help–convinced me that "rich kid" raising would not result in people capable of leading any society through survival, let alone victory, something that was slipping out of our grasp in Vietnam. The subsequent course of history has led us to the dilemma that I described in my piece on 9/11 five years after.

But most modern conservatives are oblivious to the fact that, if we’re really serious about fixing our nations’s leadership problems, a solution is going to have to start by getting a new leadership class and system altogether. Both Coulter and Limbaugh, for all their stridency, are content with trying to "restaff" the system as it is with its elite places and–more significantly–its elite schools. That’s why I found Coulter’s insistence on an Ivy Leaguer at the Supreme Court hard to take.

The longer our system goes on as it is, the more divorced it will become from reality, and the less capable it will become to deal with the real problems the rest of the world presents it. Coulter and Limbaugh can live anywhere they like, but unless they tackle the "reality check" issue, we’re doomed to stumble from one disaster to another no matter which side is in power. Remember: Ronald Reagan, our last non-Ivy Leaguer President, suceeded by tapping the energies of "ordinary" people.

Gay Marriage is Still Bourgeois and Philistine

The situation in Colorado with Ted Haggard is an illustration that homosexuals–well, at least some of them–will stop at nothing to try to sway the public to allow gay marriage, even when others among them know they have blown it on the issue. First, a word about people like Ted Haggard from someone who actually does ministry work: the only way to persist in God’s work is to be focused on what one is doing for God and not dependent upon the performance of other people. Although the accuser at this point can’t back up his charges, our ultimate confidence must be in God, not in people.  (Unfortunately many in his church haven’t seen it this way, as is usually the case.)

Now to the matter at hand: I still have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why gay marriage is preferable to no civil marriage at all from those on the left. You liberals were supposed to be freeing us from such social conventions and your volte-face on this is appalling. Why should we believe you on anything else? We need to continue to vote for marriage as a union of one man and one woman until the left stops this silliness, which doesn’t look likely in the foreseeable future.

Election 2006: Some Things to Remember

As the U.S. heads into the last weekend of campaigning (and television ads) before the election, we’d like to remind everyone of some of the pieces you can see about this election:

Finally, we have some words for Harold Ford on who loves God and who doesn’t.