The Biblical Examiner
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand

Winter, 2005
February 9, 2005

Sanctity of Life, Abortion
A mother's view, Planned Parenthood
A Frank Talk to Women

WW II Color Archives
Online Bible
E mail
Movie review, The Incredibles (PG)
Debt, Financial

Kitten in a tree
Translation and Subversion
Next stop, Rome, Sandlin
How low can we go? Preaching by Committee
Next Event on the Prophetic Calendar? Temple in Jerusalem With Animal Sacrifices
Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder.
Homeschooler - Review of John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education
Is she in your church?

Sanctity of Life


I must admit that I am like the vast majority of people. We become like those whom we are around. I am now around those who feel that children are God's blessings upon a family. They also believe that home education is a key element in keeping the children in the ways of the Lord.

In the past, I knew these things to be true, for I knew what the Scripture taught, particularly about home education. (While I was still a pastor, I was saying that home education is the first choice, Christian Schools second choice, and locking up in the garage was the third choice.) However, I was not vocal in these things because of my surroundings. I felt many times like a lone voice in the wilderness. However, I did deal with the Scriptures in these areas through the Examiner. But I was not near as firm nor vocal in my stand as I have become. Being around those committed in the Biblical areas of the family and education, I have become more vocal. Being in a fellowship with other believers who also see these things gives boldness to speak out.


I am going to deal with the abortion issue from a different perspective than you have probably heard. I enjoy developing overlooked implications of Scripture passages.

Though we all know the facts about abortion, let me give a short overview. A study released in 1996 found "ABORTION COMMON AMONG ALL WOMEN EVEN THOSE THOUGHT TO OPPOSE ABORTION", and that "one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians"... (

Furthermore, Joyce Arthur wrote in her 1998 article, Why the Christian Right Wages War Against Abortion, "Planned Parenthood of America has estimated that at least 15% of all abortions are performed on conservative Christian women, many of them anti-choice. I've heard first-hand reports from clinics about anti-choice women sneaking into back doors to get abortions, anti-abortion parents making an "exception" for their own teenage daughter, and even anti-choice women screaming things like "You murderers!" while they're on the table having the abortion they demanded. (

Thus we see that back in 1995, at least 20% of abortions are on Christian women. Not only is abortion a scourge among the unsaved, it is also far too common among Evangelical Christians. (Doug Philips, "Women's Role in the Church", points out that adultery, fornication and divorce rates among professing Christians are almost identical as with the world.)

Let us look a little at the cause of abortions. I believe God's word is clear that the abortion problem starts in the church:

First, the reason for a corrupt society is because of Christian corruption.

Second, in the context of Sanctity of Life Sunday, the Christian attitude toward children is acted out in the abortion mills.

First, the reason for a corrupt society is because of a corrupt Christian society. An overused passage is:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14.)

We hear of all kinds of excuses to dismiss this passage for our day. But when it is ignored, we must also ignore:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7.)

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. (Romans 2:6.)

Moreover, Isaiah 24:2 and Jeremiah 5:31 tell us that God gives leaders after the hearts of his people.

There is no way around the fact that the Christian's attitude toward every area of life must be reflected in the general society. When the salt loses its savour and the light goes out, the world fills the void.

Second, in the context of Sanctity of Life Sunday, the Christian's attitude toward children will be acted out in the general society — that is, in the abortion mills.

To a great extent, even Christians see children as an inconvenience, or we would see many large families with many children, 8 or more. The Christian's view of children is reflected in the world's view of children, and the world now sees children as a curse.

Psalms 127

This Psalm is commonly attributed to Solomon, the wisest man to ever live. Psalms 128 is so closely connected with this one that it was also probably written by Solomon.


1) three of the five verses of this psalm deal with the joys of having a lot of children. So we can conclude that the basic teaching of this psalm deals with the glories of a large family. It also deals with the necessity of the Lord building and keeping the family.

2) Solomon's psalm here ends with Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

The Book of Ecclesiastes, also written by Solomon, sums up both from personal experience and careful observation, that there is nothing but vanity in the life and labours of man. Solomon comes to the conclusion that there is nothing better for a man in this life than that he should become less extreme or intense in his cares and labours, enjoy what he has, fear God and keep his commandments – to this end he directs all that is debated in Ecclesiastes (12:13).

Psalms 128:1 continues the theme of 127, opening with the whole duty of man is to fear god and keep his commandments. 128 goes on to tell us that the blessings of God result in many children, and being able to see grandchildren, v. 6.

A logical conclusion we can make here is that Solomon himself said that a house full of children is better than a house full of gold and silver. How many Christians see children as an inconvenience. They see children as a hindrance to their being able to obtain the good things of life.

Logically, we must conclude that because Christians see children as an inconvenience, the world sees them as a curse to be killed at a rate of 1.3 million a year.

3) Psalms 127:2, He giveth his beloved sleep is understood by Thomas Brooks (1608-1680) to mean, "It is a peculiar rest, it is a rest peculiar to sons, to saints, to heirs, to beloved ones. ‘So he gives his beloved rest', or as the Hebrew hath it, dearling, or dear beloved, quiet rest, without care or sorrow. ..." (Online Bible.)

Keeping the verse within the context of the chapter, which deals with the blessings of many children, it implies that many godly children will bring rest to the parents in their old age.


My first wife's aunt had 9 children. The main thing I remember about her was that when it came time, all of her grandchildren got together and built her a debt free house where she could live on her own, as they took turns looking in on her.

On the other end, my first wife's mother only had one child, so when it came time when her mother could not live on her own, she became dependent upon those who are not even related to her. She certainly has no rest in her children in her old age.

Thus, it was the many children, not the state nor insurance policy, that gave the aunt rest in her old age. God's welfare system for a Christian's old age is to have many children.

Carol's father also had a brother who never married, so he had no children. He made preparation for his old age, but he had no family around him when he could no longer care for himself.

4) Psalms 127:3, how is the house of v. 1 built up? By leaving many descendents to keep our name and family alive upon the earth. Without the many descendents, what is the purpose of accumulating wealth? Why build a house if there is no one to keep the house after we are gone?

Spurgeon tells us that,

The great Napoleon, with all his sinful care on this point, could not create a dynasty. Hundreds of wealthy persons would give half their estates if they could hear the cry of a babe born of their own bodies. Children are a heritage which Jehovah himself must give, or a man will die childless, and thus his house will be unbuilt. (Treasury of David.)

5) And the fruit of the womb is his reward, or a reward from God. We could read it, is his – the Lord's – reward. Despite the prevalent thought of our day, even among Christians, God gives children not as a penalty nor as a burden, but as a favor.

I must admit that one of the happiest moments for my wife since we have been married was to have all of her 14 grandchildren together. Yes, it was close to chaos, but they were basically well-behaved for young children. She does not see them as old age security, but she certainly does see them as God's blessings upon her and her first marriage. She sees her grandchildren as the fruit of her womb, and praises God for them.

Again, quoting Spurgeon:

They are a token for good if men know how to receive them, and educate them. They are "doubtful blessings" only because we are doubtful persons. Where society is rightly ordered children are regarded, not as an incumbrance, but as an inheritance; and they are received, not with regret, but as a reward. If we are over crowded in England, and so seem to be embarrassed with too large an increase, we must remember that the Lord does not order us to remain in this narrow island, but would have us fill those boundless regions which wait for the axe and the plough. Yet even here, with all the straits of limited incomes, our best possessions are our own dear offspring, for whom we bless God every day.

When expecting their fifth child, Bettie's oldest child, Jennie Chancey, was in Sharp Shopper or Wal-Mart, I believe, with her children. A Mexican lady came up to her and seeing her expecting another child with already with a group of children, asked if they were all hers. When Jennie said yes, the lady patted Jennie's stomach and said, "You are a very blessed lady".

Catholics see children as a blessing from God. Why cannot we who claim to believe Scriptures far more than do Catholics see children as a blessing from God?

It is sad that American Christians see it just the opposite, as they say, "Don't you know where babies come from?"

Christians see a large family as an inconvenience that prevents them from pursuing the lusts of their own hearts, rather than a blessing from God to be trained up in the ways of the Lord. The result is that the pagans see children as a curse to be killed before they are born.

I saw in a magazine a picture of a family taken in the early 1900s. It was a super large family with parents, children, grand children and great grand children. I did not take time to count all who were in it, but if there were less than 150 in the picture, I would be surprised.

Yes, Americans of the past, particularly farm families, had large families. Look at the old farm houses as you drive through the country.

But what happened to the Christian large family mentality? Where did we lose our large families of children to the world? Public education made pagans out of the children, indoctrinated them with the world's philosophy and myth of overpopulation and made them consumer oriented. Being consumer oriented, they want nothing to hinder their consumption of various things that provide the good life, and children hinder the "good life". (See Jennie Chancey's review of John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education, in this issue.)

Maybe moms did not have to work outside of the home, but the parents were convinced by the enemy that statist education was best for their children. (Gatto, The Underground History of American Education) tells us that when the public education system was first introduced, the National Guard had to be called out to force the parents to let their children go to the state's schools. The children were taken at gun point. My, how far we have come.) The result was the removal of Christianity from society, indoctrination about a population explosion and over population, and a society based upon the consumer mentality.

The only way our society can be reclaimed is through Christians again seeing the blessing of children, and giving a truly Christian education in their homes.

6) v. 3, children are an heritage of the Lord implies that children are an heritage belonging to the Lord, given to parents in trust, to be trained in the ways of the Lord.

We must stand against the world's view of children. We must encourage those who can to have large families, and to trust God to supply their needs. If children are an heritage of the Lord, then there is no reason to be worried about God's supply for our needs. Adam Clarke said, "He who gave them will feed them."

I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. (Psalms 37:25.)

Note that children are an heritage of the Lord. Our materialistic society, even among Christians, believes that gold, silver, houses and land are the true heritage to be passed down from generation to generation.

We must rejoice and joyfully welcome new babies into our families, into the families of Christian friends and into our gospel churches. We must make parents know they have the entire church behind them as they carry out God's purpose of marriage, procreation and populating the earth with many godly generations.

Do the math. Within three generations, Christians can take over our nation simply with the sheer numbers of large families, say 8 children per Christian family. However, those children must be faithfully trained in the ways of the Lord. Here is where Christian home education plays such an important role.

I speak from experience: The church I started pastoring in 1983 had a Christian school when I went there. Less than half the children were our church children, and the church considered the school an outreach into the community. The situation was terrible. The second year I was there, we changed the requirements to children of faithful church members, not necessarily our own church, and over half the children were then our church children.

But that still did not solve the problem. The wrong kids were getting evangelized, so we shut it down completely, and encouraged them to go to a Christian school about 20 miles away. There are exceptions, but a vast majority of Christian School kids go the same route as the public school children – the way of the pagan world.

Certainly, not every Christian couple will be blessed by God with a quiver full, but every Christian family can encourage, pray for, support and help those couples who are blessed by God with many children. New babies must be accepted and treated for what they are — GIFTS FROM GOD.

A real problem, however, is that Christian women are working outside the home, so they do not have time to fulfill their Biblical duties of helping other Christian women with many children in their hours of need.

7) V. 4. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

I have a pastor friend with 8 children. He sends his older girls out into the community to help families in need. He shoots forth his arrows into the heart of the world.

Note: children of the youth. God commonly encourages early marriages.

8) Ver. 5. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them

Obviously, a large number of children means a large number of trials, and very hard work, but it also means a large number of joys.

9) They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Who wants to have a conflict with one who can gather many committed brave brothers, cousins and sons around him? The picture I saw with a multitude of family members in it: who would want to cross even one of those family members of the early 1900s, if the family is close knit? Of course, our mobile society has split the families. My brother and all his children live in California, my sister in Virginia Beach, and my brother in Indianapolis.

A lady in our church in Linden was from a family of 12 children, and almost all of them settled in the Crawfordsville area. (She is now 85.) So there are cousins by the dozens, all with good reputations. Thus, the family is very will known in the community. One of the nephews became upset with the political climate, so he ran for State Representative from his district. He was totally politically unknown and, to everyone's surprise, came in third in the race with very minimum expenditure. He then ran for local County Council, and won it hands down.

Why? Because he came from a large family, well known in the gates, and now he helps control the gates of the enemy.

And we must also apply this psalm to a large number of spiritual children. Converts are also the heritage of the Lord, and the Lord's reward for the preacher's hard work and travail.

Just three generations of Christians with large families – families who will train the children in the ways of the Lord – can take over a community and the nation itself.

Is it any wonder that the enemy must work to keep Christian families small by whatever means possible? He not only uses pressure from expected sources, the world, flesh and the devil, but he uses pressure from the very source that should be encouraging and supporting large families, the Christian community. "Don't you know how many children are enough?" "You need a rest." "Enough is enough."

However, even as Christians might have large families, they many times turn them over to the state to be raised as you would raise a bunch of hogs. The result is that the children turn out to be a curse, for they have been raised by the Greek pagans. Thus, if the children are going to be left to the State to be trained in Greek paganism, then the fewer children the better.

It is interesting that the next Psalm, 128, follows with the same idea: the blessing of a large family.

Sanctity of Life Sunday is a day to remember the Roe v. Wade decision that permitted the murder of unborn babies in the US. The US has exported its murdering ways throughout the world by financing Family Planning.

Yes, we as Christians must stand against murder of the unborn. However, Abortion is the logical implication of the Christian's attitude toward children. Many Christians see children as an inconvenience preventing their pursuit of money and/or personal happiness, so they frown on large families. There can be no change in the world's view of Children, resulting in abortion, until there is a change in the Christian's view of children.

What can we do?

First, repent for our not seeing children as God sees them, a blessing.

Second, recognize that children are a blessing only God can give. And the more children in a family, the more that family is blessed by God.

Third, though not every Christian couple will be blessed by God with children, every Christian couple can encourage, pray for, support and help those couples who are blessed by God with many children. That includes helping the mother with many children in her home. Offer your services so the moms can have a break, even if it is a simple break so mom can go grocery shopping without all the children.

Do you know a family with a good group of young children who is trying to train them properly? Then offer your help, so the mother can have a break.

Fourth, new babies must be joyfully accepted and treated for what they are — GIFTS FROM GOD.

Fifth, recognize those parents of many children as being specially blessed by God.

The world sees children as a curse, many times to be killed. Yet Christians see children as an inconvenience that prevents their pursuit of the good life that can be purchased with two incomes.

How can we expect the world's view of children to change when we are unable to see the blessings of God in large families, particularly when the children are being trained in the ways of the Lord?

Abortionist's view: "Fatrice Martel Gaiter, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, was strongly critical of what she called ‘ill-informed' protesters.

‘These are people who love fetuses but hate babies and children,' she said, arguing the antiabortion demonstrators ‘do nothing' to aid adoption, foster care or other programs designed to help women cope with unwanted pregnancies." (Washington Post, 1/23/05, p. c12.) How right she is in this area!!

mother's view

Planned Parenthood

Planned many people's eyes this organization has the appearance of being a benevolent institution. Is Planned Parenthood truly a docile and good organization as it so desperately tries to portray itself , or is it in fact a harmful and deceitful organization? After studying the facts about Planned Parenthood, I think you will find that the latter is true...

One of the most shocking of Planned Parenthood's offenses is that they protect the privacy of pedophiles and sexual predators. By law, Planned Parenthood is required to report suspected sexual abuse and statutory rape even if the child or teenager is willing. A recent report stated that California Planned Parenthood's own statistics showed that Planned Parenthood had seen over 30,000 children, many of whom were six years old and under and tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases. Not one instance of reporting to law enforcement, as required by the law, was found ( ID=40703). Similar findings are being uncovered in Texas. I don't know any six year olds who are having consensual sex, do you?

Another irksome trait of Planned Parenthood is that this organization turns children against their parents by usurping parental authority. Planned Parenthood was recently lobbying against the Parental Notification Amendment that was just adopted in the state of Florida in our current election. They don't want parents to get in the way of their agenda, and that is why they work so hard to do away with or work around these laws. Did you know that your 13 year-old daughter could go into a Planned Parenthood clinic and get a five-year "Norplant" birth-control injection and you would never have to know about it? Clinicians aren't allowed to give her an aspirin without your written consent, but they can give her five years worth of birth-control that could potentially harm her much more significantly than one aspirin could. Planned Parenthood's undermining of parental authority is outrageous!

Documented research has shown that Planned Parenthood clinics across the country consistently coach children to lie to their parents, falsify signatures and give bogus addresses for Planned Parenthood to use when sending the obligatory consent notification to the minor's parents. If they don't hear back from the parent then they say, "Oh, well. We tried to contact the parents," even though Planned Parenthood knows that it might have been a bogus address. Planned Parenthood also coaches children how to get around parental notification by teaching them the process of judicial bypass, which is going before a judge to get the consent (http://www.childpredators.comlReadReport.cfin). Read about the consent for abortion from a judge for yourself in a book that Planned Parenthood distributes to children called "It's Perfectly Normal".

I'll bet you did not know that Planned Parenthood also promotes and condones pornography for children along with masturbation and many other sexual perversions. Planned Parenthood distributes "It's Perfectly Normal" to children as young as ten years old. The book contains detailed drawings of teenagers having intercourse, multitudinous drawings of naked people performing all sorts of vulgar acts, and information on homosexuality and abortion to name a few. That is not the only way Planned Parenthood endorses pornography; on their web site for teens,, Planned Parenthood tells a young boy that it is fine to look at pornography. Similar things of that nature are stated in the book as well.

As you can see, Planned Parenthood destroys the Biblical concept of marriage by wholeheartedly promoting illicit promiscuity among children, teenagers and unmarried adults alike. A letter from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, to her fifteen year old granddaughter, encouraged her granddaughter to start having sex. Sanger suggested three times a day as the right amount for illicit intercourse. The letter containing these comments was found in her private writings available to the public at Smith College. An organization founded on these principles is not only immoral but also unhealthy for promiscuous individuals in light of the increased risk of acquiring an STD in our society whether "protection" is used or not. Planned Parenthood is glad to hand condoms out to children in schools. A 100% "safer" option would be promoting abstinence until marriage...a sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and deadly diseases.

Planned Parenthood is also the largest abortion provider in the country. In 2002 their clinics performed 227,375 abortions ( annreport03.pdf). Currently our Lufkin clinic does not perform abortions; however, they DO refer girls to their abortion clinic in Houston instead of referring them to our Lufkin Pregnancy H.E.L.P. Medical Center that can provide other alternatives. Nationwide Planned Parenthood refers less than one adoption case for every 100 abortion referrals ( I learned recently at the Pregnancy Center's 20th anniversary banquet that they are planning to add to their current services to include women's healthcare services, STD testing and additional counseling and treatment. Services offered by Planned Parenthood can also be found at the Angelina County and Cities Health District at a low to no cost alternative and in many cases cheaper than Planned Parenthood for women in need.

We—yes, you and I as taxpayers—are paying for the "services" provided by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives $250,000,000 of our tax dollars per year to run their "benevolent" clinics. We are paying to have our children turned against us! We are paying to have our children exploited through pornography! We are paying to have our world become overrun with people carrying sexually transmitted diseases, and we are paying to have our babies murdered! No matter what people say about all of the "good" this organization supposedly provides, Planned Parenthood is definitely a foe, not a friend.

Kristen Hay, Joshua Flournoy's (Bettie's son-in-law) sister. She and her husband, Kyle, live in have two children, Caleb and Morgan.

Planned Parenthood has prospered under the Bush administration. Ed.

A Frank Talk to Women

By Bettie Need

Our family believes in the power of prayer. My mother and father prayed for us each day. As a child, I saw my parents on their knees daily in their room, praying for me, for my siblings, for the church, and for the world. It is good to pray for our children– this we should do. In a passage about praying for others, the Bible says in James 5:13-20: The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

A good example of a father praying for his children is found in the book of Job, chapter 1:1-5: Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

It is our privilege to pray. But does God always hear our prayers? I John 5:14-21: And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

But in Psalm 66:18, David says, If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. This is also the Word of God!

When we pray, we pray in vain if we regard iniquity or sin in our hearts. God will not hear us. Perhaps you will say, "But we are all sinners!" Psalm 66:18 does not say, If I have sin... David himself was a man who sinned many times, but he did not hide his sin. He repented, confessed his sin, and God forgave him. David states: If I regard iniquity...

The dictionary defines: "regard: v. 1 consider in a particular way. 2 gaze at in a specified fashion. 3 archaic pay attention to. n. 1 heed or concern: she rescued him without regard for herself. 2 high opinion; esteem. - (regards) best wishes (used especially at the end of letters). 3 a steady look."

Spurgeon comments on Verse 18:

If I regard iniquity in my heart. If, having seen it to be there, I continue to gaze upon it without aversion; if I cherish it, have a side glance of love toward it, excuse it, and palliate it;

The Lord will not hear me. How can he? Can I desire him to connive at my sin, and accept me while I wilfully cling to any evil way? Nothing hinders prayer like iniquity harboured in the breast; as with Cain, so with us, sin lieth at the door, and blocks the passage. If thou listen to the devil, God will not listen to thee. If you refuse to hear God's commands, he will surely refuse to hear thy prayers. An imperfect petition God will hear for Christ's sake, but not one which is wilfully miswritten by a traitor's hand. For God to accept our devotions, while we are delighting in sin, would be to make himself the God of hypocrites, which is a fitter name for Satan than for the Holy One of Israel.

How do we regard something? Do we put it in a special place of honor? Do we hide it so no one will see it? Do we refuse to let it go? What is that secret sin we cherish so dearly? Is there an area of disobedience that is hindering our prayers? What idols do we excuse in our lives?

There are many areas of disobedience in all of us, but I would like to point out one particular area that seems insignificant– childbearing. God's first command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. How many times have we heard even Christians saying this about their children: "Oh, that one was not planned; that one was a mistake." How do our children feel when they hear that? They were not wanted. Their parents did not plan to have them. Oh, they were not aborted, but they are nevertheless an inconvenience.

Because our hearts are idolatrous, we are not obedient to God's commands. We prefer to obey God partly: have one or two children, but plan when it is convenient, and stop when it is convenient to us. (In Brazil, even the newspapers point out the overwhelming number of Caesarian births, due to a woman's desire to have a baby when she wants it, without the labor pains! And it was also reported that women limited the number of babies because they were concerned about their figures being ruined by pregnancy.)

Brazil is not the only country where women are afraid of having babies– a young mother I overheard told her friend she would never have another baby because she could not stand to go through labor again. Others have used inadequate finances to justify limiting children. Many limit their children because they want more time to do things without the encumbrances of children– "It's so hard to find a decent babysitter!" Basically, we are selfish to the core!

Many Christians speak out against abortion, many pray that God would put a stop to it; yet Christians are setting examples of disobedience in limiting their families. The world is watching to see if they can find an honest person, a person who lives what he speaks. Our own children do not hear what we say because they know, more than others, that we live a lie: our God is not the God of creation, but the god of our own desires. We know God's commands, but we do not obey them, because to obey would cost us things we cherish and regard. Will God answer our prayers for our nation to stop abortion, if we regard the sin of selfishness and lack of trust in God's provision for families?

The Lord himself tells us:

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. (Psalms 127:3.)

Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD. The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel. (Psalms 128:6.)

Let us believe and obey God, that we may see godly offspring in our land and our prayers be heard.


We trust you all had a good holiday season, and remembered what both Thanksgiving and Christmas were all about.

I went to the emergency room at the end of October. (We are about an hour from a good VA hospital in Martinsburg WV.) It seems like I have "sympathy" pains on each anniversary of my heart problems. I think two years ago was the only year I did not go in to have it checked. I went several times while still in Indiana, and the doctor told me that my body would remember the yearly anniversary of the experience. I should know by now that though the pains are severe, it is only a reminder of what happened in October of 1999. The hospital gave me a clean bill of health for my heart, but did tell me I needed to have a stress test. It is scheduled for February 3. It will be the first one I have had even with my heart problems.

Then in November, Bettie acquired 197/103 blood pressure and pain in her left arm and neck, so we called 911. The hospital kept her overnight, and did a stress test on the tread mill two days later, which she passed. It turned out that the problem was basically from anxiety and stress.

We took a week out to help two of our children. Joshua and Julie Flournoy (Joshua's web sites are & Joshua and Jullie moved from East Texas to about 60 miles south of Colombus OH. Though they lived close to Joshua's parents, they wanted their children (5 thus far) to be someplace where there was more seasons than two – hot and hotter, along with wet and an abundance of mosquitoes.

So the day after Thanksgiving, Bettie flew down to help care for the children while she and Jullie followed Joshua, who drove the truck (two full days on the road). The Saturday after Thanksgiving, Christina and I went to Christina's sister's house south of Dayton, and, for 2 days, helped put down a wood floor. The Flournoy's now live in the "Hocking Hills" area of Ohio, which is about 90 minutes East of where Jessica and Corey live. So after we finished with the floor, we went to the Flournoy's to help unload the truck, and then help organize the house to make it liveable. Then we drove back on Friday.

It was a full week, and I left my desk full of unanswered corespondents. And then Christmas came.

We listen to NPR a lot, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, when we get a chance. I noticed while returning from taking Bettie to Dullis Air Port the morning of the 26th, that Morning Edition interviewed many "shoppers". The ones they interviewed told what a good time they were having shopping (i.e., spending money). It is sad that people find their happiness in shopping. The education system has done its job well, training consumers so industry will have "shoppers".


Josh and Julie then came out here for Christmas. It was the first time all of Bettie's 14 grandchildren have been together. Each of Bettie's three children had a new baby to show off this Christmas. Christina went back with them to Ohio. Jessica came over and got her sister, and she stayed in Franklin Ohio, for a week. Bettie, Masie Love (Jessica's and Christina's 95 year old grandmother) and I then drove out to get her, stopping at Josh and Julie's for a Sunday, on our way to Franklin. We then went to Fort Wayne by way of a couple hour stop in Tipton Indiana, to check with a man who offered to scan the slide collection. We drove back home for 10 hours in a tremendous rain storm, Tuesday, January the 11th. It was about a 1500 mile trip in 4 days.

I am sure the holiday season was plenty busy for everyone. Our experience here was rushed, as usual. It was supposed that when I resigned the church, I would have more time to pursue writing, which has not been the case. I suppose I would rather wear out than rust out.

WW II Color Archives

I have been spending a lot of time with the web site, "WWII Color Archives". It is starting to produce some interest as well as some income, which is our goal with it. A publisher from England wants some particular WWII victory pictures, which took two days of searching to find. (We put the pictures up on the web for the publishers' review, and leave them there. We want to have them all up over a period of time. You can see the new ones in Galley 5.) I got the pictures up, with maybe 18,000 to go. If you are interested in "vintage" aircraft at all or even events in the WW II era, you need to check We have the largest 1940s color collection in the world. We make available prints of everything we have. There are now over 2,000 pictures on the web, with a data base telling what they are, as far as we can find. Check it out.


You know I could not let the past election go by without making some kind of statement. Sadly, we got what we deserve, though better than Kerry.

It may surprise some, but Bush is not the messiah. He is a wicked man who will do what ever necessary to retain power.

I am distressed concerning the "Christian" vote of the election. My problem is not that Bush won, for that was totally expected. My distress is over the fact of the Christian vote. They proved that the major parties can do whatever they please. A man with clearly a Christian life-style was ignored in favor of a man with a proven agenda for evil.

American Christians' eyes are obviously blinded by what they wish were taking place, so much so that they cannot see the true reality around them. As long as they tack a few Christian phrase to their agenda, the Christians will follow them over the cliff to their own destruction. I can imagine the ridicule of Christians that took place behind closed doors of the Republican party after the election.

The news media made it sound as though there was a major difference between Bush and Kerry. They presented a lot of smoke, making it look like people actually had a choice. Well there was a choice: The Bush version of the sodomite agenda, war for oil, huge debt that must bring a financial collapse, the largest financial package for Family Planning in history, promotion of a one world government, and the continued destruction of freedom under the guise of the Patriot Act. The other choice was the Kerry version of the sodomite agenda, war for oil, huge debt that must bring a financial collapse, the largest financial package for Family Planning in history, promotion of a one world government, and the continued destruction of freedom under the guise of the Patriot Act.

We must make preparation for God's continuing and worsening hand of judgment, for it is obviously already here. His judgment has blinded eyes, just as much as Ahab's eyes were blinded, so he would go to war. The spirits of lies have been sent out by God to deceive Christians so God's righteous judgment can come upon us.

We are reminded again that our allegiance is first and primarily to the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 6:33.) May God give us wisdom as to how to be faithful to that Kingdom, and how to prepare for what is ahead in the kingdom of men. The major preparations we can make is to be sure our lives are according to the word of the Lord, and to continue sounding the alarm as we are inundated with false prophets. (Ezekiel 3 & 33.)


Job chapter 37-42, &c. God's judgment can be seen in the storms. I heard an interview on NPR of various clergy men, including John Piper. Piper said the storms are a call to individuals to examine themselves for sin in their lives. Another clergyman was a Muslim. He had a stronger view than Piper. He said that the Muslim religion forbids adultery, fornication, nakedness, drunkenness, &c. He pointed out that the wave struck areas known for their wickedness in these areas. It struck during the holiday season when many Muslims go there to participate in these things forbidden by their religion. He spoke very clearly that it was God's judgment against the wicked activity promoted in these areas. Obviously, the call is to examine for and confess found sin.

Speaking of storms! We have been taking Christina to Richmond to the University of Virginia Dental school for orthodontics work for the last year or so. We went down January 19th for her appointment. While we were there, they had a little over an inch of snow in about a two hour period. I have never seen an area so paralyzed in my life – I 95 and I 64 became impassable almost immediately. They had 100 accidents reported in the Richmond area that one afternoon, with many tractor - trailers jack-knifed on the interstates. The trucks were going so slow that they could not make it up the small grades on the interstate, so the interstates were backed up for many hours and at least 7 miles from one accident alone. (I wonder how many of those drivers were from Mexico, with I 95 being a key link to Mexico. I 95 is called the "Main Street of the East Coast".)

I am used to areas where if there is snow forecast, the road trucks are on the side of the road ready to put down something as soon as the snow starts. ("They" said the first of the snow melted, and then froze. The little snow on top of that created the problem.) By the time the road crews were ready to get on the roads, the roads were so jammed with accidents that they could do nothing. I remain in amazement at what 1 to 1 ½ inch of snow can do. Primarily, it can turn people into unthinking idiots. 1 inch of snow!!

Online Bible

V. 1.4.1 Download upgrade to ver. 1.99.01. (If you already have v. 1.4.1, download the upgrade. It will be worth the time and disk space.)

The download update ( will add a new format, as well as many notes from Thompson Chain Reference Bible, including the themes for every verse from the original printed version. 26 Commentaries, including Natthew Henery's complete commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Robertson's NT Notes, Scofield's 1917 Notes, Calvin's Commentary, Spurgeon, Pink and the Geneva Notes. It has about 20 English Bible versions plus unlockable versions and the 1769 and 1957 Apocrypha, two versions of the Koran and a topical index of the Bible by verses. Books: Morning and Evening by Spurgeon, Augustine's life and works, confessions, letters; Edersheim's The Temple. Sermons: John Gill, Philpot, &c. It also contains the 1689 London Baptist Confession, Josephus, 1650 Scotish Psalter, creation material, and more material than we can mention here. l

We have it for $35, post paid on one CD. If you do not find it the best Bible program on the market, regardless of cost, return it, and we will refund your money, minus postage.

How can it be offered for such a low price? Because Larry Pierce retired some years ago, so he could devote his time to developing this program. He and his wife, Marion, have dedicated the last several years to making this outstanding Bible research material available at minimal cost. While others have justly sought to make their living developing Biblical material, the Pierces' goal has been to equip the saints. Their livelihood does not depend upon this software. Furthermore, he does not have big advertisement expenses as do other programs with many advertisements.

Remember also that Death of the Church Victorious, by Bro Need is available. We trace the roots and implications of modern dispensationalism. 509 pgs, paper back. $25, post paid.

E mail

Please note: My in-box has locked up three times, losing everything I had in it. Evidently, a virus found in an e-mail caused a conflict between Norton and Netscape, and then Thunderbird e-mail. The first time, I had removed everything from the server, and I lost every letter I had on my computer, except what I had placed in various Sub Directories. After that, I left my mail on the server, so the next two times, I was able to download old letters still on the server. I have now learned to open everything while it is still on the server, and download only mail I recognize and that will open on the server. Many letters open there with nothing in the text part of the letter. Thus, if I do not recognize your name in an e-mail, I delete it. I have noticed a decrease in spam by doing that.


I have been using computers from DOS days, days when a huge hard drive was 20 Mgs. (I now have 1.5 gig RAM and 400 gig HDs to work with the slides that require 130 megs for each slide scanned. I try to scan at least 40 before I add them to the web.) However, we started after the time of the two floppy disk desktops. If you have not tried Firefox browser, do it now. It has no security holes, and is taking large chunks from Internet Explorer. Also, Thunderbird e-mail is so much better than any offered by Microsoft that there is no comparison. I am learning the hard way – avoid Norton. I hate to say that, because I have depended on Norton since Mr. Norton owned it. But after some research, I have found that if Norton tags an e-mail with a virus, it can lock up the whole in-box, and everything is gone. Moreover, Norton cannot be removed from your computer once it is installed, without a major effort that most of us care not to attempt. Norton will not uninstall itself, as do all other programs. So once it is there, it is there waiting to foul up your computer, which has been my experience.

I have also found that spammers will automatically add their return address to your address book, if you have given permission in your program to receive e-mail from those in your address book. Thus, if you have marked in your e-mail program that you will receive mail from those in your address book, the spammers' address may well be clogging up your address book. Keep your address book cleaned out.

Movie review

The Incredibles (PG)

One of the better movies we have viewed was The Incredibles. It is a fun movie, but probably inappropriate for smaller children, for it has some intense scenes. Those who control Pixar are very sharp in their perception of social conditions.

The movie revolves around a male and female "Super Hero", who married and had "Super" children. Mr. Incredible is sued for rescuing someone who did not want to be rescued. The government then forces all "Super Heros" out of their jobs. Out of gratefulness for past hero activity, the government provides them with undercover regular jobs, and requires them to use names other than their hero names. Our hero ends up in an insurance company where the goal is the bottom line, at the expense of those it insures. Our hero gets fed up with the indifference of the company, and goes into undercover hero work.

The super family was quite fragmented at the start, but in order to overcome the bad guy, husband, wife, daughter and son had to unite. As each family member does what he has the super ability to do, they overcome the common enemy. The compassion shown by Mr. Incredible to the bad guy's girl friend results in her action to save him from a very hopeless situation.

The movie is punctuated with very telling statements: Mrs. Incredible is pressuring Mr. Incredible to go to their son's glorious graduation ceremony, from the fifth to the sixth grade. Mr. Incredible's response was that he had no time for a celebration in mediocrity. Another scene has the boy feeling melancholy, and mom tells him that he should feel good because he is special. She then adds, "Everyone is special". The boy responds, "If everyone is special, then no one is special".

It is a heart warming story about how a fragmented family unites for a common goal, while it reveals the stupidity of many common statements we hear today.

Note: The evening NBC news each evening has a "fallen hero" section where they give a short rundown of a young man killed in action. (I notice they do not mention the women killed in action.) Thus, the "hero" designation is being commonly used for all military who happen to be killed by whatever means. It sure sounds like the old Communist line where all military personnel are called heros, even when they attack the civilian population. As Mr. Incredible would say, "If everyone is a hero, then no one is a hero." What a slap in the face of those who hold the Congressional Medal of Honour, e.g., Sg. York, &c.



As you have gathered, I believe modern debt is one of the very worse things that has happened over the past 75 years, other than the mass exodus of women from their homes and families, even to work in "Christian" ministries. Read the following, and heed the warning. I know that most of you do not read the Business Section in your local paper, but I have found dire warnings in that section of the Washington Post in every Sunday issue (we only take it on Sundays). Even the pagans are sounding the alarm.

By Brett Arends/ On State Street, Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Stephen Roach, the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley, has a public reputation for being bearish.

But you should hear what he's saying in private.

Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.

His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic ``armageddon.''

Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach's presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, ``it struck me how extreme he was - much more, it seemed to me, than in public.''

Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that "we'll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon."

The chance we'll get through OK: one in 10. Maybe.

In a nutshell, Roach's argument is that America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.

The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.

Less a case of "Armageddon," maybe, than of a "Perfect Storm."

Roach marshalled alarming facts to support his argument.

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day.

That is an amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings.

Sustainable? Hardly.

Meanwhile, he notes that household debt is at record levels.

Twenty years ago the total debt of U.S. households was equal to half the size of the economy.

Today the figure is 85 percent.

Nearly half of new mortgage borrowing is at flexible interest rates, leaving borrowers much more vulnerable to rate hikes.

Americans are already spending a record share of disposable income paying their interest bills. And interest rates haven't even risen much yet.

You don't have to ask a Wall Street economist to know this, of course. Watch people wielding their credit cards this Christmas.

Roach's analysis isn't entirely new. But recent events give it extra force.

The dollar is hitting fresh lows against currencies from the yen to the euro.

Its parachute failed to open over the weekend, when a meeting of the world's top finance ministers produced no promise of concerted intervention.

It has farther to fall, especially against Asian currencies, analysts agree.

The Fed chairman was drawn to warn on the dollar, and interest rates, on Friday.

Roach could not be reached for comment yesterday. A source who heard the presentation concluded that a "spectacular wave of bankruptcies" is possible.

Smart people downtown agree with much of the analysis. It is undeniable that America is living in a "debt bubble" of record proportions.

But they argue there may be an alternative scenario to Roach's. Greenspan might instead deliberately allow the dollar to slump and inflation to rise, whittling away at the value of today's consumer debts in real terms.

Inflation of 7 percent a year halves "real" values in a decade.

It may be the only way out of the trap.

Higher interest rates, or higher inflation: Either way, the biggest losers will be long-term lenders at fixed interest rates.

You wouldn't want to hold 30-year Treasuries, which today yield just 4.83 percent.

Also see Dollar's Steep Slide Adding to Tensions U.S. Faces Abroad, By DAVID E. SANGER. January 25, 2005. <>

Thursday January 20

Warren Buffett sees no way but down for US dollar

The dollar cannot avoid further declines against other major currencies unless the US trade and current account deficits improve, legendary investor and businessman Warren Buffett said.

"I think, over time, unless we have a major change in trade policies, I don't see how the dollar avoids going down," the world's second-richest individual told CNBC television.

"I don't know when it happens. I don't have any idea whether it will be this month or this year or next year, but we are force-feeding dollars on to the rest of the world at the rate of close to a couple billion dollars a day, and that's going to weigh on the dollar."

Buffett noted the record US deficit of 164.7 billion dollars in the third quarter of 2004 in the current account, which measures trade and investment flows.

Buffett, nicknamed the Oracle of Omaha for his investment acumen, has a net worth of some 41 billion dollars, second only to Microsoft chief Bill Gates, according to Forbes magazine. But he said he saw few opportunities in the near term.

"I'm having a hard time finding things to buy, if that says anything about the market," he said.

"If I find something ... tomorrow to buy, I don't give a thought as to whether the market is going up," he added. "I barrel in."



Bro Need

Please accept the enclosed gift for the work of the Biblical Examiner. It has been a blessing to our family, and provided much in the way of resources for finding "the truth". Your recent pre-election issue was will received by my wife and I.

How critical it is for God's elect to seek out Godly men for rulership in government. I plan on checking out the web site on aviation art, a passion of mine and my 8 year old son.

Many continued blessings,

Michael Peterson, Eri PA
Bro Need

Death of the Church Victorious is a wonderful book. Every deluded Christian–that's most–should read it. My own dear SS teacher brother wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole! As they say, there are none so blind as those who won't see.

Blessings to you and yours.

Joy Vann, Dothan AL

Dear Rev Need:

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading the copies of "The Biblical Examiner" you sent me. I would like to be placed on your mailing list for future copies of the Examiner. I also would like to receive 4 more copies of "the Other jesus - the Gospel perverted. Also a copy of your book, "The Death of the Church Victorious." Enclosed is a check to cover the cost of the book and "The Biblical Examiner". Thanks so much for your willingness to share God's truth.

By God's Grace,

Agnes Makara, Brick, NJ

From Russia with Love

(The below is left as I received it. Remember, this man speaks Russian. Thus, his English is very good.)

Praise to Jesus Christ!!!

Dear brother, on equal precious belief in Omnipotent, the Lord and the Saviour, Jesus Christ, Pastor Ovid Need, your family both loving (liking) and praising a Grace of the God, with you!!!

Mercy, Grace and Peace yes will on you Plentifully!!!

We praise the God for you and that you are true to True of the God, to the doctrine of Grace, and esteem the Sovereignty of the Master of the God, and do not trample on the Word of the God as it is done (made) by liberals, apostasies and all deforming the doctrine of the Bible about Rescue is extreme, only on a Grace, Jesus Christ!

I have taken your address from

I the pastor of baptist church, we profess as A.W. Pink, Spurgeon, Calvin, John Owen, Puritans, as Apostle Paul, as learned (taught) us the Lord ours and the Saviour, Jesus Christ! We as trust, as church in Historical Baptist: - Biblical, God-Centered, Historical, Practical! We have creed of baptists of 1689. In our church of 90 members, we actively distribute the doctrine about rescue only on a Grace. It causes the big counteraction of our church on the part of liberals, apostasies - arminians. We very much require your prayful support. We would like to have with you christian dialogue and the prayful petition, the friend for the friend.

We are in Russia, in Eastern Siberia, city of Irkutsk, it where lake Baikal.

I send you my home address and the phone:

Sergey Mochalov,

Street. Sevastopol 249 - 17.

City of Irkutsk, 664048, Russia.

The phone: 3952 55 - 23 - 01.

As I send you a photo of my family and prayful group of our church.

And as I send you our firm belief, about rescue only on a Grace! ... [His statement was firmly "Sovereign Grace".]

In Summary...

We believe that Christ is both the subject and purpose of the Gospel. The entire Bible is about Him. Every child of God's sure and only hope is in Him. Every aspect of salvation from beginning (election) to end (glorification) is all of God's grace. Men cannot and should not ascribe salvation to any part of their will, work or worth. By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8-9

If you divide (share) with us this Precious Belief in Sovereign, Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, a the Master of the God, in a the Lord and the Saviour, Jesus Christ Who through an effective Calling, the Holy Spirit results us in alive belief in the Christ as a the Lord of our all life, and the Saviour ours. That we ask you for the sake of Jesus Christ to support us your prays and dialogue with us.

We plentifully ask the God to render and bless to you you in service to the God!

Romans 1 : 8-12.

God Bless You!!!

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Sergey Mochalov

[I answered the above, and here is his return letter.]

Praise to Jesus Christ!!!

Peace and Grace to you brother Ovid Need!

I thank you for the kind letter, for your prays, today we had the Blessed Dialogue in churches and a the Lord in hearts of children Divine, restores a Peace! A Praise to Jesus!

We live in Eastern Siberia, it there where lake Baikal. The city of Irkutsk is capital of Irkutsk area. In Irkutsk about 700 000 inhabitants, and in all area of 2 800 000 inhabitants. In the field of 640 settlements (cities, settlements, villages) and only in 40 from them there are churches. Baptist churches on all area - 30, and from them 10 churches profess doctrines of a Grace. At us it is a lot of work, still it is a lot of places in area where the Gospel was not preached at all. We in the powerlessness, are kneeling to a throne of a Grace and we ask the God, if there is on that His a will what to reach (achieve) each settlement, with the sermon of the Gospel!

Physically and financially, we can not carry out it, we beggars. We intimately Thank the Lord, for all that He makes in our life! Apostle Paul wrote about itself the Corinthians the believer and it practically is written about us: 2 Corinth. 6 : 3 - 10; 4 : 5 - 10; 1 Corinth. 4 : 10 - 13. It is all about us is written, and we Praise the God for such part. It is better to be the derelict in this world, but the christian, the child of the God than to have all riches and charm of this sinful world, but thus to be the child of a hell.

I thank you for your prayful support of our service to the God! Yes will render to you a the Lord a Grace Plentifully! We ask the God to bless your worship the Christ in this Sunday!

By His Grace,

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Sergey Mochalov

[Another letter, Jan 7, 05. I have told him I no longer pastor, but write.]

"The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him: He also will hear their cry, and will save them." Ps. 145 : 18 - 19. ".... The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5: 16b.

Beloved by the God, dear Ovid, your family and church, a Grace and a Peace to you yes will be increased!!! We today had prayful service and brought all of you in our petitions before a throne of a Grace! We asked the Sovereign God if His it is necessary let the Lord of you Plentifully will bless in your church for will, and will send to you spiritual awakening!

We have favour of the God of ours to us this new year. We continue business of a Reformation, and we distribute the Fragrance of Glory of the Great God and the Saviour of ours, Jesus Christ!

January, 9, in 1 baptist church of city of Angarsk, there will be an assembly of members where will solve the problem on the new pastor. Brother Litavrin Sergey, as well as we, adheres to doctrines of a Grace. It(he) can help to accept this church the Bible doctrine. We ask you, is amplified(strengthened) pray for this church and this brother, what and there the the Lord was sent with fire of spiritual awakening. Arminians baptists, categorically against brother Litavrina. We ask you to bring the petition before a throne of a Grace!

January, 11, we shall have again a meeting of presbyters of churches of Irkutsk Region where we (believers in a Grace), shall have an opportunity to influence pastors who yet has not obeyed the Bible doctrine. A number(line) of attendants, desperately resist to the doctrine about a Grace. They try to do(make) division in church of city of Nizhneudinska. We protect this church and we help to obey the believer of that church to doctrines of the Bible, both our prays, and kind sermons according to the God. Pray for the pastor of church of city of Nizhneudinska, that it(he) would be valid from the God to solve all complex(difficult) questions on discipline in church concerning resisting to the doctrine of the Christ! There is 8 person who strongly go against the Word of the God, but they have some influence on other members. The Divine help is very necessary for them. January, 16, all questions will be solved there. For the sake of the Christ, I ask you to support their your prays!

As also our church requires spiritual awakening, that a the Lord would bless all brothers and sisters to submit to the Word of the God!

"Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching there unto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make know the mystery of the gospel," Ephesians 6 : 18 - 19.

Yes Will bless you a the Lord and yes will ratify love to Jesus Christ!

In His the Wonderful, Omnipotent and Amazing Grace,

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Sergey Mochalov


There are those who think I have gone off the deep end, being Legalistic and trying to rob others of their Christian liberty.

Modern Christianity has wrested these two terms completely from Scripture, and has given them a modern, non-Christian meaning that has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.


By Legalistic, I understand that what is meant is that I am trying to place others under the Ten Commandments as a rule of life, saying that Christians are still required to obey them. Actually, Legalistic means that one is looking to the law, including baptism, in addition to Christ for justification, but that is not how the word is perceived today.

By Christian Liberty, I understand that what is meant is that one is basically permitted by Scripture to do whatever does not violate the Christian's conscience, since the indwelling Holy Spirit will guide properly in various areas. (Of course, this is a very basic doctrine of Darbyism/Scofieldism, which I will not develop here. See Death of the Church Victorious.)

Some years ago, a Christian tabloid was republishing some of my articles, until one of the readers called the editor's attention to the fact that I was a Calvinist. The editor wrote a nasty letter to me, accusing me of deceiving him. However, I never asked him to publish my articles. I had simply added him to my mailing list since I was on his. From that time on, about every piece of material I have sent out, particularly on letterheads, I have made it clear that The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 is my "doctrinal statement" and stand. In fact, I reprinted it for the folks of my church in Linden, and taught through it in SS class.

Thus my stand has not changed over the years, except it might have become stronger. Maybe people just have not paid attention to where I have stood nor what I have been teaching since the middle ‘80s.

Regardless, let me deal with the Biblical teaching of Legalistic and Christian Liberty. The following is from the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, as found on the Online Bible. The "{#text}" are areas where one can click in the program, and the verses will come up. I will not reproduce the verses. (Order the OLB from us, $35, post paid, US. This program is better than Bible programs costing ten times as much. If after using it, you do not find it so, I will send your money back. )

Thus, I am not trying to press others into my mold with my stands in these areas, nor am I changing my position. My position is the historic Particular (Calvinistic) Baptist position, which has been held for centuries. Though there are several good confessions from the past, I use this one not only because it is closest to what Scripture teaches, but also because everyone can identify with Spurgeon. Most Baptists sing his praises, yet many who praise him would not let him preach one of his strong Calvinistic messages in their pulpits. He used the London Baptist Confession for his people.

I realize the social climate today has forced good men to depart from the old paths established by our godly forefathers. Sometimes the justification is that times have changed. However, the apparent reason for change is because the people demand a change from a strict understanding of God to a much looser and thus more socially acceptable understanding of God, or they will find a spiritual leader who will change with the times. The logical conclusion is that God and his standards change with the times, though he clearly tells that it is because of his unchangeableness that his mercy endures forever, and his people are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6.)

Apparently, some who profess to follow the 1689 Confession have not read it:


Chapter 19: Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; {#Ge 1:27; Ec 7:29} by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; {#Ro 10:5} promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. {#Ga 3:10,12}

Here we see that God initially wrote his law in Adam's heart. That law was passed down to Adam's posterity with its blessings and curses according to one's obedience or disobedience thereto. Adam had the power and the ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, {#Ro 2:14-15} and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man. {#De 10:4}

God did not change his standard of right and wrong after the fall. Western Christian civilization gets its authority for the death penalty for murder from Genesis 9:6. Thus, as Christians reject what God established with Adam at the start as lawful and unlawful, so does the modern judicial system. As the general Christian population rejects God's commandments, so the courts will stand against the commandments. (Isaiah 24:2, Jeremiah 5:31.)

The law, the ten commandments, continued to be the perfect rule of righteousness even after the fall. Those commandments, which were already written in the heart of all men, were later delivered to Moses in the ten commandments. God did not change his standards with the times. Man's fallen nature did not cause him to change his personality. The commandments continued to described the holiness of God and how man should think and act in order to be right with God. (Be ye holy; for I am holy. Leviticus 20:7, 1 Peter 1:15, 16.)

3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; {#Heb 10:1; Col 2:17} and partly holding forth divers [diverse] instructions of moral duties, {#1Co 5:7} all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. {#Col 2:14,16-17; Eph 2:14,16}

A common charge we hear from those who desire to be free from the bands and cords (Psalms 2) of God's law is that there is only one law, and because Christ became the sacrifice spoken of in the law, now all of the law is void. Again, though they may claim follow this old Baptist confession, they evidently have not read it.

These godly men of the past point out that there were several parts to the law. First, the moral law, or the ten commandments. Second, the ceremonial law which contained the ordinances prefiguring Christ. Those ceremonial laws were done away with in the work of Christ, for he fulfilled those laws which spoke of his work for his people.

The ceremonial laws also separated Old Testament Israel from the surrounding pagans. Christ did away with those laws, tearing down (literally ripping the separating curtain, Mark 15:38) the middle wall of partition that separated Jew from Gentile, and man from God, and uniting all nations in himself. Thus, since Christ, there is no longer a "Jewish" and a "Gentile" race of people. That distinction was spiritually removed in Christ, and physically removed in AD 70. The only distinction now is "Christian, or the New Israel" and "non-Christian". Any remaining "Jew-Gentile" distinction that is retained today is strictly man made, and has nothing to do with the "Jew-Gentile" distinction of the Old Testament.

We should mention that the ceremonial law was known in a limited way from the time of Adam, which was well before Moses – for Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, while Cain did not. At that early point in history, man knew what kind of sacrifice pleased God and what did not, for Cain's was rejected. Moreover, Noah offered a sacrifice upon leaving the Ark. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all offered sacrifices. From the time of Adam, it was known that these sacrifices spoke of the true Sacrifice to come to pay the price for sin. (Genesis 3:15.)

4. To them also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being for modern use. {#1Co 9:8-10}

The Law of God! First, he gave the moral law, known as the ten commandments. Second, he gave the ceremonial law which prefigured Christ, and were done away with when Christ came. Third, the Lord gave sundry judicial laws, which developed the second half of the ten commandments — that is, man's duty to man. Though they "expired together with the state of that people, ... their general equity" continues for modern use. Did not Paul apply the ox's pay to the care of the spiritual leaders? Moreover, who desires to do business with those who refuse to recognize the law's requirement for honest weights and measures? (Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 11:1, 16:11. Romans 13:8-10.)

Is a reason for the hatred of God's commandments the desire to violate the debt avoidance of Romans 13:8? (See "Economic ‘Armageddon' predicted"; this issue.)

God's word, though Old Testament, is certainly true: The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7.) This United States is now populated by people controlled by the slave mentality. Low interest rates have sucked multitudes into debt-servitude. Watching the news, we see that the US is now concerned about offending the foreign nations who have bought the debt produced by Washington as those in power seek to purchase votes. China now owns the US, including our technology, through the trade imbalance brought about by "outsourcing" American jobs in the never ending search for more profits and lower prices, the love of money.

5. The moral law doth [does] for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, {#Ro 13:8-10; Jas 2:8,10-12} and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; {#Jas 2:10-11} neither doth [does] Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. {#Mt 5:17-19; Ro 3:31}

Does Christian liberty free us from obedience to the moral law, the ten commandments? Is the only instruction I need under grace found in my "Christian" conscience, since I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

The historic, orthodox position, as defined in the 1689 Confession, has always been that the moral law, the ten commandments, binds all, both saved and unsaved, and it has bound all men from the time of the first man, Adam. The Confession defines why the moral law is binding: First, the authority of who gave it, "God the Creator" – we are the sheep of his pasture, owing our undivided obedience to our Creator. (Psalms 95:7, 100:3.) Second, Christ, "in the Gospel" does not in anyway dissolve it, "but much strengthen this obligation" to obey the moral law. Third, the holiness of God is revealed in the ten commandments, and we are commanded to be holy even as he is holy. (Leviticus 20:7, 1 Peter 1:15, 16.)

Psalms 2:3 is certainly true today as even Bible believing churches and Christians say, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, for we are no longer under Moses, but under Paul. However, the "Pauline" crowd fails to recognize Paul's words of Romans 13:8-10.

6. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, {#Ro 6:14; Ga 2:16; Ro 8:1; 10:4} yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; {#Ro 3:20; 7:7-25} together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of His obedience: it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatening of it serve to shew [show] what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. These promises of it likewise shew [show] them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth [encourages] to the one and deterreth [deters] from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace. {#Ro 6:12-14; 1Pe 3:8-13}

Legalism Defined

Adding the works of the law to Christ's work for justification is the true legalism.

The historic, orthodox position has been that the works of the law could never justify anyone. In fact, the works of the law will only lead to condemnation, if those works are looked to for any part of justification. It was ordained by God that Adam would fail according to the covenant of works, which would lead to Christ. (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8, 17:8.)

However, though there is no covenant of works, keeping the ten commandments, for justification, those commandments are of great use as a "rule of life". They inform us of the will of God; they inform us of our duty to God and to man; they direct and bind us to walk accordingly. They show the sinful pollution of our natures, our hearts and of our lives. They call us to examine ourselves accordingly; they convict of sin, humiliate us, showing us how sin has dominion, and our need of God's grace. They guide us in restraining corruption, show us the forbidden sins, show what our sins deserve, and what we can expect when we ignore God's commandments. On the other hand, they promise God's blessings upon obedience to them.

Note that God's requirement of obedience to the law and the justified man's obedience to the law "is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace."

Thus, no matter how much we might love the law, and work to keep it by God's grace, we receive God's blessings not according to a covenant of works, but according to the covenant of grace. Having done all, we are still unprofitable servants, worthy only of death. (Luke 17:10.)

7. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, {#Ga 3:21} the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done. {#Eze 36:27}

God's requirements upon man to keep the law does not go contrary to the grace of the Gospel. Rather, God's requirements comply with that grace. The Spirit of Christ working in us gives us the desire to freely and cheerfully do the will of God as required by the law. (Philippians 2:13.) However, whether we have that free and cheerful desire or not does not change God's requirements to keep his law.

Christian Liberty

Using the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, let us now examine the Bible definition of Christian Liberty, which is chapter 21. I am skipping over Chapter 20, Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof.

Are those of us who say that a Christian is still required to honour and obey the ten commandments legalists and trying to rob Christians of their liberty in Christ? We answered the legalism charge from chapter 19 of the Confession. Now let us examine chapter 21:

Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, {#Ga 3:13} and in their being delivered from this present evil world, {#Ga 1:4} bondage to Satan, {#Ac 26:18} and dominion of sin, {#Ro 8:3} from the evil of afflictions, {#Ro 8:28} the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, {#1Co 15:54-57} and everlasting damnation: {#2Th 1:10} as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, {#Ro 8:15} but a child- like love and willing mind. {#Lu 1:73-75; 1Jn 4:18} All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them, {#Ga 3:9,14} but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. {#Joh 7:38-39; Heb 10:19-21}

Biblically, Christian Liberty which was purchased by Christ consists of freedom or liberty from:

1. The guilt of sin.

2. The condemning wrath of God.

3. The rigour and curse of the law. The key word in Galatians 3:13 is redeemed. Thus, Christ has rescued us from the consequences of transgression in the world of woe; he has saved the redeemed from the punishment so richly deserved for their sins, being made an atonement for our sins. (Barns' Notes, Adam Clarke.) In other words, the work of Christ does not free us from reaping what we sow here in this life, as the antinomians would have us believe. Christian liberty here consists of liberty and freedom for the redeemed from the eternal wrath of God against their sins.

4.The power of this present evil world.

5. The bondage of Satan, and from fear, we might add. (2 Timothy 1:7.)

6. The dominion and power of sin.

7. The evil of afflictions. That is, we now see God's hand in the afflictions that come our way, so we can rejoice in them, rather than be beaten down by them. We now know those afflictions form us into the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29.)

8. The fear and sting of death, and the victory of the grave.

9. Everlasting damnation.

10. Christian Liberty means we have free access to God; it means that we willingly yield obedience unto him (obey his law-word, the commandments).

11. Christian Liberty means we lovingly obey his commandments that are both written in our hearts and in his law-word. (Exodus 20:6, Proverbs 3:1, 4:4, 7:2, John 14:15, 15:10, &c.) We obey with child-like love and willingness, and without "slavish fear" – that is, fear of being beaten with many stripes if we do not obey his every word. However, we are required to obey every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God regardless of how we feel about it. (Matthew 4:44.)

The above points of liberty and freedom were common to the believers from the time of Adam, but Christian Liberty has been expanded in the New Testament. Christians now have "freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, ... with greater boldness of access to the throne of grace" with "fuller communications of the free Spirit of God," which believers before Christ did not "ordinarily partake of."

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, {#Jas 4:12; Ro 14:4} and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to His Word, or not contained in it. {#Ac 4:19,29; 1Co 7:23; Mt 15:9} So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience, {#Col 2:20,22-23} and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. {#1Co 3:5; 2Co 1:24}

Liberty of Conscience is defined as the conscience being free from the doctrines and commands of men that are contrary to God's Word, or are not contained in it. (Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13, 1 Peter 1:18.) Christian Liberty certainly does not release us from God's lawful requirements, such as modest apparel on both men and women, women avoiding careers outside of their homes, women not filling men's occupations (Deuteronomy 22:5), and other violations of the instructions found in his law-word.

Example: Several years ago when my oldest daughter was in a Christian school, her volleyball team went to a neighboring town for a game. Before they were permitted into the building where the game was being played, they were handed a list of about 25 conditions that had to be met before they could go into the building. I do not recall what Carol said was on the list, but I do remember that she said that very few of the points could be supported from Scripture. That Christian school was trying to be holier than God.

Christian Liberty frees one from trying to be more holy than required by his word.

My dad was a work-a-holic. (He was an excellent welding and fabricating contractor, and a lay pastor. He often said the hardest thing he had to get used to was a welder saying he had to go back and fix some leaks in his welds on a high pressure steam line. When my dad started welding in the early 40s, no one fixed their own leaks. If a weld leaked, you were fired, and someone else fixed your leak.) I can count on one hand the number of times I can remember he took time to really be with his family. However, he always had a work-shop at the house, and always had some kind of a project going. (My earliest memory was a hand cranked forge where he welded metal with a hammer on an anvil.) From that home environment I went into the service where we usually worked 5½ - 6½ days a week, 12 hour days. When I got out of the military, I united with the Mega-Church movement, 1965-1983. In this movement, we were taught that if we would spend all our time "serving God" (that is, building numbers for the local church), then God would take care of our families. That philosophy fit right in with the way I was raised, so I got caught in that trap.

Obviously, that is a great lie of the devil, and seeing families fall apart in that movement, the Lord opened my eyes. When I tried to shorten my days in the "ministry work" to maybe 10 to 12 hours, 6 days a week, and then to maybe 5 or 5½ days so I could spend time with my family, my conscience troubled me greatly.

Christian Liberty consists of being freed from the corrupted conscience that tries to place things upon us that are not in the word of God, or that dismisses the "general equity" of the laws found in his law-word. Christian Liberty consists of being freed from the doctrines and traditions of men – "any thing contrary to His Word, or not contained in it." Sadly, many consider areas they do not want to submit to the law-word of God as no more than the "commands of men". Thus freeing their conscience to do what seems best to them under the guise of Christian Liberty.

However, the Confession deals with the problem:

3. They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, {#Ro 6:1-2} so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives. {#Ga 5:13; 2Pe 2:18,21}

We are told here that those who, under the pretense of Christian liberty, pursue the fallen desires of the heart have actually perverted the design of grace to their own destruction. Actually, "they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty".

The purpose of Christian liberty is to free us from our enemies—that is, the world, the flesh and the devil. Its purpose is to enable us to serve the Lord by obeying his law-word without fear, and to live a righteous life according to that law-word all the days of our lives.

Legalism: God's requirements upon man to keep the law does not go contrary to the grace of the Gospel. Rather, God's requirements comply with that grace. The Spirit of Christ working in us gives us the desire to freely and cheerfully do the will of God as required by the law. (Philippians 2:13.) However, whether we have that free and cheerful desire or not does not change God's requirements to keep his law.

Christian Liberty: It is not New Testament Scriptural support to do whatever does not violate the Christian's conscience. Christian Liberty is the freedom from the power and control of sin that would hinder our doing those things pleasing in his sight – that would hinder our loving obedience to the ten commandments.

My, how far Christianity has departed from what is given in his holy word. Sadly, the "Reformed" community has falling victim to the same error as have the Antinomians — that is, let your Christian conscience be your guide. Many who claim Christian Liberty fail to consider that the conscience is corrupted by sin.

Kitten in a tree

Whoever said the Creator doesn't have a sense of humor? Dwight Nelson recently told a true story about the pastor of his church. He had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down. The pastor coaxed, offered warm milk, etc.

The kitty would not come down. The tree was not sturdy enough to climb, so the pastor decided that if he tied a rope to his car and drove away so that the tree bent down, he could then reach up and get the kitten.

That's what he did, all the while checking his progress in the car. He then figured if he went just a little bit further, the tree would be bent sufficiently for him to reach the kitten. But as he moved the car a little further forward, the rope broke.

The tree went "bong!" and the kitten instantly sailed through the air-out of sight.

The pastor felt terrible. He walked all over the neighborhood asking people if they'd seen a little kitten. No. Nobody had seen a stray kitten. So he prayed, "Lord, I just commit this kitten to your keeping," and went on about his business.

A few days later he was at the grocery store, and met one of his church members. He happened to look into her shopping cart and was amazed to see cat food. This woman was a cat hater and everyone knew it, so he asked

her, "Why are you buying cat food when you hate cats so much?"

She replied, "You won't believe this," and then told him how her little girl had been begging her for a cat, but she kept refusing. Then a few days before, the child had begged again, so the Mom finally told her little girl, "Well, if God gives you a cat, I'll let you keep it."

She told the pastor, "I watched my child go out in the yard, get on her knees, and ask God for a cat. And really, Pastor, you won't believe this, but I saw it with my own eyes. A kitten suddenly came flying out of the blue sky, with its paws outspread, and landed right in front of her."

Never underestimate the Power of God and His unique sense of humor.

Translation and Subversion

By R.J. Rushdoony

The publication of a new translation of the Bible should be an occasion for rejoicing. The availability of Scripture in a new language, or a fresh rendering in "modern dress" for people already possessing the Bible, can be of great importance in propagating the faith. The faith, this indeed is the central motive in many contemporary versions, but by no means all. At least two other motives are important factors on the contemporary scene: first, a financial motive and, second, an anti-Christian religious motive.

The Profit in Bibles

A profit motive is, in its place, a godly aspect of life, by no means to be condemned unless it transgresses the laws of God. Without faith, every aspect of life is under condemnation, all life then is out of focus, and things, in themselves pure, become impure in the hands of the ungodly.

As is well known, the Bible is the consistent best seller. The annual sale of millions of copies makes it therefore a phenomenal sales item. Its potentiality as a moneymaker is thus enormous, almost staggering to the economically minded imagination. But one very serious drawback exists: the Bible, in its most popular English form, the King James Version, is not subject to copy-right. Any publisher can print it and enter into a highly competitive field where the margin of profit must be kept very low for competitive reasons. The handicaps thus are very real, although several publishers have regularly counted on their Bible sales for assured profits. Is it any wonder, therefore, that publishers, among others, have come to recognize the tremendous potentialities of a copyrighted Bible? A copyrighted Bible is thus a major bonanza to publishers and a financial and prestigious asset to scholars participating as translators and editors. Not every new translation has been a moneymaking scheme, but many of them have clearly had this motive as among their central ones. It is no wonder that new versions are thus often front-page news; the advertising and promotion behind a major version makes it a financial asset to many media. Possession of a copyright is again a major affair and, in one recent case, was a subject of legal battle. Thus, the Revised Standard Version is copyrighted by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and first published by Thomas Nelson and Sons in New York, Toronto, and Edinburgh. Because many evangelicals regarded this version as "modernist" in character, in 1962, a "study" edition was put out by the A. J. Holman Company of Philadelphia, with 59 evangelical scholars giving their evangelical "imprimatur" to it by means of brief introductions and articles. The unstated fact is that, with every copy and every edition, the profit goes to the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. The National Council has thus a source of income now entirely apart from any donations by member churches. It has an invested interest in a particular Bible. The use of this Bible is thus promoted in a variety of circles. It is used for responsive readings in hymnals and in Sunday school lessons. The Holman Study Bible was given away as a subscription premium by Christianity Today, ostensibly a voice of evangelical Christianity. "New Bibles" are big money and their by-products are likewise profitable. They are used in newer commentaries by permission to further their popularity and concordances suggest their durability. With all the money at stake in new versions, is it any wonder that people are urged, to their confusion, to believe in the necessity for new versions?

Revision, Translation, or Paraphrase?

It might be well to note here a further area of confusion. The Revised Standard Version claims to be a revision of the King James Version, i.e., not a new translation but merely the King James corrected and modernized. Oswald T Allis, in Revision or New Translation (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948), has called attention to the fact that it is closer often to a new translation by unconservative scholars. In Recent Revised Versions, Dr. Allis extended his critique to the New English Bible.

New translations, moreover, tend to follow radical readings of erroneous or "wastebasket" texts in preference to standard readings. With each new version, the number of departures from the Received Text is steadily increasing.

The sales value of these new versions, judging by some promotional material, seems to depend on new and novel readings. There is, in the minds of some buyers at least, a premium on newness and on departures from the "old Bible." With some, there is almost a hopeful note that the newer Bibles might gradually convert "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to "Thou shalt commit adultery"! New versions, of various qualities of good and bad, are purchased by many persons almost as fetish objects and remain unread.

But many of the new versions are not translation. They are paraphrases. What is the difference? A translation is an exact and literal rendering of the original Greek or Hebrew into English. A paraphrase tries to put the original thought into modern thought forms. One of the most popular liberal paraphrasers today is J. B. Phillips. A paraphrase can be a very valuable help at times, but it can never substitute for a translation. Thus, Edgar J. Goodspeed renders Matthew 5:3, "Blessed are the poor in spirit," as "Blessed are those who feel their spiritual need." This is brilliant and telling; it gives us a vivid grasp of the meaning, but unfortunately Goodspeed, while giving us a few such gems, also neutralizes many of the basic theological terms of the New Testament with weak paraphrases.

The King James Version is not a paraphrase. It is both a revision of earlier translations in part and a new translation in its day.

Archaic Language

One of the charges consistently leveled against the King James Version is that its language is archaic and obsolete. The answer is a simple one: it is intended to be. In 1611 the King James Version was as "out of date" as it is today. Compare the writings of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, King James I, and John Lyly with the King James Version and this becomes quickly apparent. The translators avoided the speech of their day for a basic English which would be simple, timeless, and beautiful, and they succeeded. Their version spoke from outside their age and tradition with elemental simplicity. Their wisdom here exceeds that of their successors. Nothing seems more ridiculous than an outdated "modern" translation. Let us examine William Mace, 1729, as he rendered James 3:5-6:

The tongue is but a small part of the body yet how grand are its pretensions! A spark of fire! What quantities of timber will it blow into flame? The tongue is a brand that sets the world into a combustion; it is but one of the numerous organs of the body, yet it can blast whole assemblies. Tipped with infernal sulphur it sets the whole train of life in a blaze.

In 1768, Dr. Edward Harwood's Liberal Translation of the New Testament, i.e., a paraphrase, rendered Luke 15:11, "A certain man had two sons," as "A gentleman of splendid family opulent fortune had two sons." This is clearly an extreme instance, but it does illustrate a point: if we consider our age and its requirements as normative, we can involve ourselves in absurdities. And such absurdities are not missing from the various versions. The critic Dwight Macdonald has called attention to some of these in the Revised Standard Version in a New Yorker article, "The Bible in Modern Undress."1 Macdonald comments on the RSV by way of a conclusion, "Whether it will be any more successful in replacing the K.J.V. than the 1885 version was remains to be seen. If it is, what is now simply a blunder — a clerical error, so to speak — will become a catastrophe: Bland, favorless mediocrity will have replaced the pungency of genius."2

The issue is not that the Bible should speak our everyday language, for this involves debasement, but that it should be understandable and here, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the King James speaks a language which, while sometimes difficult because the matter itself is so, is more often simple, clear-cut, and beautiful. Some modern versions are very helpful, but none equal the King James in its clarity and memorable beauty. The greatest single demerit of the King James Version is simply this, it is not copyrighted and, hence, no organization and no scholar can profit thereby.

A Trustworthy Translation

The question of a trustworthy translation is all-important, especially since novelty is increasingly characteristic of many new translations. Which translation is a trustworthy one?

At this point, it needs to be noted that all translations face certain perplexing problems. The meanings of certain Hebrew words are uncertain, and the exact identity of many plants and animals subject to debate. With these details, we are not concerned. The marginal readings of a good edition are helpful in clarifying meanings or giving alternate translations at difficult points.

The important question is in another area. What text of the Bible is being translated? In answering this question, let it be noted, we are departing from virtually all accepted scholarship. This however does not trouble us for, after all, the major break with "accepted" scholarship comes with acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, and the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God.

Since the days of Westcott and Hort, textual criticism has applied to Biblical textual criticism a rigorously alien category of thought and "an essentially naturalistic method."3 This scholarship assumes man to be autonomous and ultimate rather than God; and it requires all documents to meet the same naturalistic tests with respect to their nature and history. Nothing which is not true or possible of Homer's Iliad can be posited thus for the Bible and its books. Moreover, this method is applied to the Bible with a certainty and omniscience lacking in the determination, for example, of composite author-ship in Shakespeare's plays, where we often know he had collaborators.

As Hills has pointed out, the doctrine of the sacred origin and preservation of Scripture is a part of the "General doctrine of the Scriptures concerning the controlling providence of God." "He worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). This providential preservation of the text, Hills has maintained, as an expert in New Testament manuscripts, is to be seen in the standard text of the New Testament translated in the King James Version.

It is not our concern here to enter into the intricacies of textual criticism, nor are we qualified to do so. But we are qualified to assert that most current criticism, both "conservative" and "liberal" rest on a radically non-Christian philosophy which cannot bear other than implicity or explicity anti-Christian fruit.

Another Religion in New Translations

Are the variations in the new translations simply minor differences in wording or do they conceal a new religion? To answer this question, let us examine Genesis 1:1,2, first of all in three older translations: the King James (Protestant), the Douay (Roman Catholic), and the Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Publication Society (Old Testament, 1917, 1955, 1961); then let us examine The Torah, the Five Books of Moses (Jewish Publication Society, 1962) and the Doubleday Anchor translation, prepared by "more than 30 Catholic, Protestant and Jewish scholars":4

King James: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Douay: In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Approved Version, Jewish Publication Society, 1917: In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit God hovered over the face of the waters.

Torah, 1962: When God began to create the heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (v. 3 included)

Anchor. When God set about to create heaven and earth — the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water — God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (v. 3 included)

As Edward J. Young has noted in "The Interpretation of Genesis 1:2,"5 this passage has been used to try to introduce mythology into Moses' account.

The conservatism of the first three translations, especially the first two, is apparent. These are, of course, older translations. In the King James and the Douay, Genesis 1:1 and 2 are three separate sentences and the first sentence is a separate paragraph. Now paragraphing is a form of interpretations in itself, as is sentence formation. To set "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" in a separate form is to declare in effect that this sentence is either an introduction to the account of creation, or a summary statement of creation, or both. It declares God to be the Creator, and then the details of the acts of creation are given to us.

But in the Torah and Anchor versions, verse 1 is made into a subordinate clause, "When God began to create the heaven and the earth," and "When God set about to create heaven and earth." This now ceases to be a completed statement of fact. Instead, we are now told what the condition of the universe was "when God began to create," namely, that at least one segment of it was "a formless waste" and, as we learn subsequently, this "unformed and void" earth was not created but developed by God. As a result, instead of Biblical theism, we have the ancient pagan dualism, the co-eternity of God and matter. The great void of being, the unformed chaos of matter, always existed, in this philosophy, and God did not create it; He merely acted on it, with varying degrees of success. Thus, in the new "translations" of Genesis 1:1,3, we have substituted for Biblical theism an alien religion! We have a god very different from and sharply limited in contrast to the God of Scripture. Translation here has become the vehicle of a new religion, the instrument of the proclamation of "other gods," an instrument of idolatry.

The net result of this new "translation" is, to repeat, another god than the God of Scripture. It is a god similar to that of illuminist tradition and of Masonry. The Cardinal of Chile, in The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled, described this god aptly:

The god creator, or the god of Masonry, is not the God Creator of Christians. The Architect constructs the building with materials which he did not make, but which he finds already made; the Creator constructs the edifice of the world, not with foreign or ready made substance but with materials which he himself made from nothing.6

It should be noted that the Torah Version gives the older accepted readings as footnotes.

In the Torah Version, "the spirit of God" in v. 2 becomes "a wind from God" and in Anchor it becomes "an awesome wind." The Holy Spirit is thus eliminated from creation.

In the Torah Version, Genesis 1: 26 reads: "And God said, `I will make man in My image, after my likeness." The footnote adds that this is literally, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." This change is justified on the grounds that the Hebrew plural form here are simply "plurals of majesty" But the fact remains that the Hebrew text gives a plural form and that Elohim, a plural noun for God, literally Gods, takes, when used for Jehovah, a singular verb. Many Christian scholars have rightly seen in this an evidence of the plurality of the Godhead and of its unity, a definite witness to trinitarianism. Modern translators may disagree; but they have no right to mistranslate the text, which as admitted, reads, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Such novel and unwarranted renderings of words can be destructive of meaning and of doctrine. Thus Genesis 3:14 reads, respectfully, in Joseph Bryant Rotherham, in King James, and in the Torah version:

Rotherham, 1897: And enmity will I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed — He shall crush thy head, But thou shalt crush his heel.

King James: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Torah, 1962: I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.

In the Torah Version by changing the number of "seed" or "offspring" from singular to plural, the reference is radically changed in this prophecy. It can no longer mean Christ, who is singular, but refers to the plural off-spring of the woman, to the faithful, or to Israel. We are thus pointed to another Savior.

By such changes, often too slight for many readers to detect, new meanings are read into the Scripture, and another bible and other gods appear on the scene. And each new version, irrespective of its source, seems bent on surpassing the previous ones in its adoption of novelties.

An important consideration for Christians in evaluating new versions is this: consider the source. Can unbelievers, modernists, men with left-wing records, and men faithless to their ordination be expected to produce good fruit? Our Lord said it clearly:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Mt. 7:16-28)

1. Dwight Macdonald, New Yorker, Nov. 14, 1953, vol, XXIX, no. 39, 183-208.

2. Ibid., 208.

3. See Edward E Hills' introduction to John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark (Jenkinstown, PA, 1959), 40f. and 66; and Edward E Hills, The King James Version Defended, (Des Moines, Iowa, 1956).

4. Time, September 27, 1963, 48 and 50.

5. Edward J. Young, The Westminster Theological Journal, May 1961.

6. The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled, 72.

(Reprinted from the journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1989. Chalcedon [Faith for all of Life] PO Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251.)

Next stop, Rome

FYI gentlemen:

There is a letter from "Andrew P. Sandin" (misspelled, obviously) in the latest issue of the Catholic journal, First Things. The letter addresses an earlier article written by Peter Leithart ( I thought you might want to read the letter, since it confirms that Sandlin has rejected sola scriptura and systematic theology. The central point of the letter is very disturbing, because it basically rejects the centrality of Christ as the Living Word.

The Word speaks for itself. If we reject the Word, we are without hope in the world -- we have no anchor. This certainly seems to explain a lot of Sandlin's recent articles and speeches. Below is the letter in its entirety:

"I applaud Peter Leithart's case in 'Rhetoric and the Word' (May) for a revival of rhetoric in theological discourse. We should never suppose that Truth is conveyed most appropriately in arid Thomistic parlance. The Bible itself is anything but a textbook in systematic theology, and it never invites us to fashion one. In short, as Mr. Leithart indicates, if rhetoric is good enough for the Bible, it should be good enough for theologians.

"I have mixed feelings, however, about the evangelical preoccupation with 'textuality.' The problem is that preoccupation with the text can often lead (and has often led) to an underemphasis on the reality to which the text points. Christianity, after all, is not so much a text-religion as it is an event-religion--or, more accurately, it is an event-religion one of whose events was, and remains, a text. The Bible is not a stand-alone proposition that elicits fastidious attention to its literary dimension, but rather the enumeration, attestation, and interpretation of redemptive events centering on the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth. Text, though vital, is ancillary and instrumental.

"Andrew P. Sandin [sic]


Center for Cultural Leadership

LaGrange, California"

Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, was and is a key to the reformed faith. Can those who deny the sole authority of Scripture be identified with the reformed faith?

How low can we go?

Preaching by Committee

More Pastors Use Group Approach, Multimedia Presentation

By Lila Arzua, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page C01

Many worshipers see it as the loneliest part of a minister's job: crafting a sermon alone, in the wee hours, the only aids a Bible and some reference books before presenting the fully formed product to the congregation the next day.

But increasingly, that view of sermon-writing is outdated. At a growing number of churches, the pastor's message is the painstaking work of a committee -- a panel of church staff and congregants who meet weekly to suggest sermon topics, critique the minister's prose and examine how his or her preaching will mesh with other elements of the service.

One goal of these worship-planning teams is to ensure that the minister's words will resonate with all segments of a demographically diverse congregation. Often, the team's job is to turn the sermon into a multimedia experience, with specialists in music, drama and video technology making contributions that become just as important as the pastor's writing.

"It's happening more and more as they will all bring different gifts to the table," said Randel Everett, president of the John Leland Center for Theological Studies, a Baptist-affiliated seminary in Arlington.

Everett compares the trend to the way that TV programs built around a lead character gradually have been replaced by shows with ensemble casts. He said that he has noticed the movement toward collaborative sermons for more than a decade but that it has become prevalent in the last three years.

At Purcellville Baptist Church in Loudoun County, the Rev. David Janney meets with a worship committee for several hours every Wednesday afternoon to discuss his sermon. Janney typically shows them a draft 11 days before he plans to deliver it. The group of about eight people, which includes other clergy, administrators and one elder, also decides on sermon topics, selecting them several months in advance. ...

Membership coordinator Dania O'Connor recommended starting the sentence, "When we don't spend time with them," to acknowledge that everyone -- even the pastor -- sometimes fails to set aside enough time for family. Others agreed that that wording sounded less judgmental. ...

Richard Lischer, a professor of preaching at Duke Divinity School, thinks that pastors are more inclined to seek advice from people with expertise in other fields because of the demand among worshipers for a multimedia presentation.

But ministers who shift the responsibility for biblical reflection to unordained staff and church members are shirking their duties, he said. " ...

"What is lost is the complexity and the richness of the biblical message," he added. "The Bible portrays people who are struggling with the ambiguities of the faith." ...


My, how sad that the preacher must craft a sermon alone, from a Bible and a few study aids. If he cannot get a message from Scripture, nor if he does not believe that Scripture alone is sufficient for instruction in right living (2 Timothy 3:16), he has no business in the pulpit. And "she" should not be there anyway. I am sickened by the increasing number of spams offering pre-made sermons and multimedia presentations. Only God can return the hearts of men, especially pastors-teachers, back to the Scripture as the sole source of faith and practice. Certainly, the prospect of a large following is tempting for a preacher to depart from Scripture in order to attract that following. But we cannot expect any godly social change, e.g., abortion, until there is a change in the Christian's attitude, particularly the preacher's, toward God's Word.

Next Event on the Prophetic Calendar?

Temple in Jerusalem With Animal Sacrifices

By Thomas Williamson
3131 S. Archer Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60608

There is a lot of preoccupation in some Christian circles with the prospect of the construction of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, with animal sacrifices that would revive the ancient Old Testament rites of worship.

The main proof text for a future literal temple with animal sacrifices is Ezekiel 40-48, which is held to be a description of such a literal temple to be built during the Millennium. However, there is nothing definite in Ezekiel's account that would place this temple in the Millennium period.

Some interpreters have regarded Ezekiel's temple as a description of what the Jews could have constructed after their return from Babylon in 538 BC, had their sins not prevented the complete fulfillment of this prophecy (Ezekiel 43:10-11).

Others have found Ezekiel's prophecy to be a reference to the progress of the Gospel in the Church Age, with the spread of the Gospel predicted under the figure of waters flowing out from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 47, compare with John 7:38 and Revelation 22:1-2).

Even the literalist interpreters of Ezekiel's temple do not insist that everything will be fulfilled literally. Scofield describes the sin-offerings of Ezekiel 43:19 as non-literal, saying, "Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross."

The editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible have gone even further, proposing that "The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel's day."

Since it is permissible to take the reference to animal sacrifices as non-literal and symbolic, using terms which ancient Jews could understand, it is definitely permissible to go one logical step further and say that the Temple itself is non-literal as to its fulfillment, and that there will be no literal Temple on earth during the Millennium.

There are many persuasive Scriptural reasons for believing that Ezekiel's Temple prophecy will be fulfilled in a non-literal manner.

1. Ezekiel presents the priesthood of the temple as being conducted by Levite priests, Ezekiel 43:19, 44:10, 15, etc. However, we are told in Hebrews 7:11-18 that God has permanently set aside the priesthood of the descendants of Levi, in favor of the priesthood of Christ, a non-Levite.

2. The system of Temple, priests and animal sacrifices was part of the Old Covenant which, according to Hebrews 8:13 was about to vanish away (which took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD).

3. The priests of Ezekiel's temple must be circumcised, Ezekiel 44:9, but under the New Covenant, circumcision is not required, Galatians 5:6.

4. We are told in Hebrews 9:11 that Christ has become the high priest of a better tabernacle, non-literal, non-corporeal, not made with hands, located not on earth but in heaven (Hebrews 9:24). Christ now ministers for us in heaven, in "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man," Hebrews 8:2. Any temple built on earth would be phony, not the "true tabernacle" and therefore should be rejected by believers.

5. The Old Testament sacrifices and temples were only shadows and figurative representations of the true heavenly Temple and once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, Hebrews 9:24, 10:1. Christ has taken away the old system of animal sacrifices, Hebrews 10:8-10. We are commanded to go forth from the camp of Judaism with its literal sacrifices, Hebrews 13:11-14, and to concentrate on the heavenly Jerusalem, not the literal one on earth, Hebrews 12:22, John 4:21, Galatians 4:25-26. To draw back to the old Temple and sacrificial system would be an act of apostasy, Hebrews 10:26-29, 38-39.

6. Here is the clincher: Revelation 21:22 teaches that there will be no Temple in the Millennium: "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

To escape the force of this statement, some Temple enthusiasts say that this portion of Revelation is about the eternal state, not the Millennium. To do that, they have to spiritualize the references to kings of the earth (21:23), nations of the saved (21:24), and the healing of the nations in 22:2 – how would anyone possibly need to be healed of anything during the eternal state?

Others say that there will be a Temple down on the earth during the Millennium but not up in the New Jerusalem suspended from heaven. This notion ignores the clear teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews, that the earthly temple has been permanently outmoded and set aside by Christ's high-priestly ministry. Since the time of Christ's death on the Cross, there has been no need for an earthly Temple (Matthew 27:51, Hebrews 10:11-12, 13:10).

The notion that a literal temple will operate in Jerusalem during the Millennium is based on pure speculation and does dishonor to the supreme value of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to work for the construction of such a Temple – our orders are to plant New Testament Christian churches, not Jewish temples, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8.

What About the "Tribulation Temple?"

Some expositors, while holding to the concept of Ezekiel's Temple being built as the "Fourth Temple" during the Millennium, also believe that there will be a "Third Temple" during the Great Tribulation period preceding the Millennium. Some go farther and say that Christians ought to be helping to get such a Temple built in Jerusalem, or even that Christ cannot return until such a Temple is built. Does the Bible teach any of this?

One supposed proof-text for a Tribulation Temple is Daniel 9:26-27, which describes the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in conjunction with the "cutting-off" of the Messiah. This was already fulfilled when the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD. Dispensationalist interpreters agree that 9:26 refers to Herod's Temple which was destroyed in 70 AD, but then they insert a 2000-year gap between 9:26 and 9:27 and postulate a "sanctuary" in 9:27 which would be the Third Temple.

To separate 9:26 and 9:27 in this manner, and have them to refer to 2 different temples 2000 years apart from each other, is a fanciful and nonsensical method of interpretation. Besides, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any sanctuary or Temple in 9:27. How can this be a proof-text for a future Third Temple when no Temple is even mentioned? Clearly, 9:27 is only a continuation and expansion of the events with regard to the Second Temple of 9:26.

To make Daniel 9:27 refer to the destruction of a Third Temple is to wrench this verse out of its context of events in the time of the Messiah's first advent. Nowhere in Daniel's prophecy is there any hint about a Third Temple - he is prophesying about the Second Temple which was still in the future when Daniel wrote. Some have claimed the "sanctuary" of Daniel 11:31 as a Third Temple, but almost all commentators, even Scofield (see Old Scofield Reference Bible, page 918) accept this as a reference to the profanation of the Second Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC.

How about Matthew 24:15, describing the "abomination of desolation" in the "holy place?" Does this refer to the Third Temple? This verse does not mention any temple at all. Since the Jews regarded all of Palestine, and especially the environs of Jerusalem, as holy, the approach of the Roman army near Jerusalem could have been regarded as a fulfillment of this predicted abomination. This would make more sense than to ask the disciples to watch for the abomination within the walls of the actual Temple, where it could not have been seen except by a few priests.

Even if the "holy place" does refer specifically to the Temple, then it refers to Herod's Temple - it was this Temple that the Apostles asked Christ about (Matthew 24:3), not some hypothetical future temple. Compare Matthew 24:15 with the parallel passage in Luke 21:20, and it is evident that this "abomination of desolation" took place during the Jewish War of 67-70 AD, and that the approach of the Roman army was the signal for all Christians in Jerusalem to flee the city. There is nothing about a futuristic "Third Temple" here.

Nowhere in Matthew 24, or anywhere else in the Bible, is there a hint that Herod's Temple, once destroyed, would be rebuilt or that Christians should expect or seek such a building program. So why do we make such a big deal about something that is not even in the Bible?

How about 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which describes a "Man of Sin" who will sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God? Some take this as a reference to a future Antichrist who will sit in a future literal temple in Jerusalem. But there is no mention of Jerusalem in this passage, and the identification of the "Man of Sin" with a future Antichrist is pure supposition.

Some regard the Man of Sin as a personage in the First Century AD, associated with the time when the Second Temple was destroyed. Many interpreters over the years have regarded this passage as a reference to the Pope and the institution of the Papacy, which has been enthroned in St. Peters in Rome over the centuries, pretending to be the vicar of Christ.

It is also important to realize that the reference to "temple" here may not be a literal building at all. The Greek word naos in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is the same word that appears in John 2:19, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 2:21, and in all of these cases the word naos or temple is clearly not a literal building. Naos is variously used to refer to Christ's own literal body, to the bodies of individual Christians, and to Christians as a corporate body, as in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and Ephesians 2:21. This being the case, it would be possible for the Man of Sin to fulfill the prophecy of sitting in the Temple of God by insinuating himself among God's people, without the necessity of constructing a literal temple for him to do his dastardly part.

The Temple in Revelation 11:1

The fourth "proof-text" for a Tribulation Temple is Revelation 11:1, which depicts John as measuring the temple of God and those who worship therein. The temple he measured is described in the present tense, as something that existed in John's time, with worshippers present. This would be a clear reference to the Second Temple which was still standing when John wrote, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD after a military campaign lasting 42 months (Revelation 11:2).

Alfred Edersheim, discussing John's familiarity with the Second Temple in Jerusalem, says, "These naturally suggest the twofold inference that the Book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel must have been written before the Temple services had actually ceased, and by one who had not merely been intimately acquainted with, but probably at one time an actor in them." Any of John's readers, at the time that he wrote Revelation 11, would have understood John as referring to Herod's Temple, not some unknown future temple.

Adam Clarke's commentary states, with regard to Revelation 11:1, that "This must refer to the temple of Jerusalem; and this is another presumptive evidence that it was yet standing. . . . The measuring of the temple probably refers to its approaching destruction, and the termination of the whole Levitical service; and this we find was to be done by the Gentiles, (Romans,) who were to tread it down 42 months; i.e., just 3 years and a half, or 1260 days."

Those who take the temple of Revelation 11:1 out of its historical context have come up with some strange and dubious notions. Some have said that the temple represents the "Gospel Church" (Matthew Henry) or the "True Inner Church" (Henry Halley). Historicists say that Revelation 11 was fulfilled by the events of the French Revolution in the late 18th Century.

Those who see this as a future "Third Temple" add a lot of fanciful and imaginative details that are not found at all in this "proof-text" or anywhere else in the Bible: the temple to be built exactly where the Mosque of Omar is now; Christians urged to support the construction of this temple; the temple to be consecrated with ashes of a red heifer; the Antichrist to disrupt temple services after 3 ½ years and kill 2/3 of all the Jews. There is no Scriptural basis for any of this.

Even those who insist that the Temple of Revelation 11 must be a future temple will have to admit that the exact location of this temple is not specified, and there is no hint that Christians are to seek the construction of such a temple. Why would we want to help construct a temple which clearly, throughout Revelation 11, is an object of God's displeasure and judgment? And even if we adopt the futurist view of Revelation 11, what evidence do we have that God wants that temple built right now, as opposed to 100 or 1000 years from now?

As we have seen, there are widely divergent conjectures on the meaning of Revelation 11:1. Obviously, we cannot build an entire doctrine on one such isolated and highly disputed text.

We can sum up the Scriptural evidence for a Third Temple by saying that there is no such evidence. Tommy Ice and Randall Price, in their book "Ready to Rebuild," admit that "There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.'" Their case for a Third Temple is built on tradition, supposition and pure speculation, not on any clear teaching from the Word of God.

Do We Have a Duty to Make Bible Prophecies Come to Pass?

Some, who have accepted the teaching with regard to the Third Temple to be built in Jerusalem, have concluded that Christians should be actively seeking to help build such a temple, in order to fulfill "Bible Prophecy." But is there any principle in the Bible that teaches that it is our duty to make sure that ancient Bible prophecies are fulfilled in our time?

This desire to make Bible prophecy come true is a very selective thing. Those who believe in a Russian invasion of Israel and a Revived Roman Empire are not lobbying for our government to send weapons and military assistance to Russia and Italy in order to make the prophecies come true. In these cases, they seem to believe that God is competent to make these things happen without any help from us mere mortals.

But when it comes to anything that is perceived as helping Israel or bashing the Arabs, then there are many Christians who are full of zeal to persuade our government to go all-out to fulfill "prophecy" in the Middle East, as if God really needed our help. (They are so zealous about this that they even want America to help re-fulfill prophecies that were already completely, literally fulfilled in ancient times. For example, God already gave to Israel all the land that was promised them from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates - see Joshua 11:23, 21:43-45, 2 Samuel 8:3, 1 Kings 4:21, 8:56, 2 Chronicles 9:26 and Nehemiah 9:7-8, 24. But the prophecy enthusiasts say that is not good enough, and that we must help Israel fulfill the prophecy again, even if we have to plunge the entire world into war to do it).

But when Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Luke 19:43-44, also Luke 24) did He command Christians to write letters to the Emperor and to their Senators and Centurions, lobbying for them to come and destroy Jerusalem? No, He did not. It was not the job of Christians to make prophecy happen back then, nor is it our job today.

We are not commanded to fulfill any supposed "prophecies" about building any Temple in Jerusalem, nor to help Israel to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from Palestine so that such a Temple can be built. Not only does the Bible not teach that we are to help build the Temple, but it is not clear that there will ever be such a Temple.

Those who want to help literally fulfill Ezekiel's temple prophecy do not take all of that prophecy literally. They have no desire to fulfill Ezekiel 47:22-23: "And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God."

The temple enthusiasts have no desire to help fulfill this prophecy, because that could mean recognizing the civil and property rights of the Palestinians, which they do not wish to do. Instead, they call for the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, and for their land to be stolen from them without compensation. They would rather express and fulfill their racial hatred for Arabs than see this portion of Ezekiel's prophecy literally fulfilled.

If someone talks to you about building the Temple and expelling the Palestinians so that "prophecy" can be fulfilled, read Ezekiel 47:22-23 to him, and ask him what he is doing to help divvy up Israeli real estate and deed it over to the Palestinians, in order to literally fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy. If it is really their duty to make the prophecies happen, ask them what they are doing to promote the national greatness of Egypt (Isaiah 19:25) and the Arab world (Genesis 21:18).

Must the Temple Be Built Before Christ Can Return?

Some prophecy teachers seem to think that Christ cannot return until the Temple is built. Consider, for instance:

"The Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before the return of Jesus Christ." - Jack Van Impe.

"The Temple is the last sign that needs to fall into place before events irreversibly speed toward the return of Christ." - Hal Lindsey

"Both the Old and the New Testaments say there is no possibility for Jesus to come except that there is a temple waiting for Him." - Jan Van Der Hoeven, founder, International Christian Embassy.

If what Van Impe, Van Der Hoeven and "Shallow Hal" Lindsey say is true, then the doctrine of the imminent, any-moment return of Christ has been a big mistake. Instead of an imminent return of Christ, we now have a Christ who cannot possibly return until the Temple has been built.

Instead of a Christ who has all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), we now have a poor, weak, helpless Arminian "christ" who is marooned in heaven, who wants to come back to earth but cannot because he is impatiently waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt.

Actually, the Bible does not say that a Temple must be built before Christ can return. Nor does the Bible teach that the building of the Temple, or talk and rumors about a Temple being built, are a sign of Christ's return. The Bible teaches that there are no signs of Christ's coming, Acts 1:7, Matthew 24:36-42, 1 Thessalonians 5:2.

Christians Who Support Temple Mount Terrorists

While Christians demand (and rightly so) that Muslims stop their financial support of terrorists, some Christians are giving generous financial support to Jewish terrorists who are plotting to blow up the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem so that a Jewish Temple can be built there, to "fulfill prophecy."

Christian Zionist leader Terry Reisenhoover of the Jerusalem Temple Foundation explained, in an interview with journalist Grace Halsell, that he was raising money from American Christians, to be used by Stanley Goldfoot to blow up the mosque in Jerusalem. "He's a very solid, legitimate terrorist," Reisenhoover said of Goldfoot. "He has the qualifications for clearing a site for the temple." Reisenhoover stated that Goldfoot does not believe in God, but this atheistic conviction did not hinder Goldfoot from making a fund-raising appearance at Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California.

Reverend James DeLoach of Second Baptist Church in Houston, Texas told Halsell that he was a good friend of Goldfoot, and that $100 million was being raised for Jewish terrorists, who he described as "doing God's will." According to DeLoach, some of the money was being used to provide legal defense for Jewish terrorists. These terrorists were being prosecuted by the Israeli government which has always strongly opposed the activities of the Temple Mount terrorists.

As we continue to insist that Muslims stop supporting their terrorists, maybe we can set a good example for them, as Christians, by cutting off support for our own Jewish terrorists, too. The support that some Christian fundamentalists are giving to these radical extremists is resented by Israeli officials and is ultimately harmful to the cause of Israel (as well as being an extremely bad testimony for evangelical Christianity).

David Brickner, executive director of Jews For Jesus, has summed up the Temple Mount question by saying, "When it comes to Jewish people and the rebuilding of the Temple, I can assure you that most Jews couldn't care less about that. It is only a small subset of Orthodox Jews who are interested in rebuilding the Temple and they are far off from accomplishing that. Ultimately, I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe that we can't hurry His agenda nor can we help Him fulfill prophecy. His word will be accomplished and in the meantime we should get on with being obedient to the Great Commission."

Conclusion: Forget Temple, Build New Testament Churches

A tremendous amount of time, money and attention is being devoted to the Jerusalem Temple by some modern-day evangelical Christians. Sermons are being preached, books and videos are being produced, money is being raised to help get the Temple built and to lobby our government for a foreign policy that is conducive toward that purpose.

There is a notion that the impending construction of the Temple will soon usher in Christ's return and bring an end to all our earthly problems and trials. Naturally, this type of escapist thinking is popular with the masses, but as we have seen, there is no Scriptural basis for it.

Time has proven that preparations for the construction of a Temple are not a sign of Christ's coming. Some time ago, Scottish preacher John Cumming published a book called "The End: Or, the Proximate Signs of the Close of This Dispensation" in which he cited ongoing fund-raising to rebuild a Jewish temple in Jerusalem as a sign of Christ's Second Coming within a decade. He published that book in 1855. Christ didn't come within that decade. What does that tell us?

We need to get off the "Temple Mount" kick and concentrate on the real work that our Lord has assigned for us in the Great Commission: preaching the Gospel, baptizing converts into New Testament churches, and discipling them. All of this current brainwashing and propaganda on behalf of a Jewish temple does not help to disciple Christians; rather, it only propagates "Jewish fables" of the type that Paul tells us to reject, Titus 1:14.

(From Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist, January, 2005)

Animal Sacrifice

Many Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians actively support the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Christians who agitate for this restoration do so because they believe it is God's will that sacrificial religion be restored. They see the resumption of Temple worship as a sure sign of the Second Coming of Christ. ... (

A. A. A. D. D.

Recently, I was diagnosed with A. A. A. D. D. - Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder.

This is how it manifests:

I decide to wash my car.

As I start toward the garage, I notice that there is mail on the hall table.

I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.

I lay my car keys down on the table, put the junk mail in the trash can under the table, and notice that the trash can is full.

So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the trash first.

But then I think, since I'm going to be near the mailbox when I take out the trash anyway, I may as well pay the bills first.

I take my checkbook off the table, and see that there is only one check left.

My extra checks are in my desk in the study, so I go to my desk where I find the can of Coke that I had been drinking.

I'm going to look for my checks, but first I need to push the Coke aside so that I don't accidentally knock it over.

I see that the Coke is getting warm, and I decide I should put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold.

As I head toward the kitchen with the coke a vase of flowers on the counter catches my eye--they need to be watered.

I set the Coke down on the counter, and I discover my reading glasses that I've been searching for all morning.

I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I'm going to water the flowers.

I set the glasses back down on the counter, fill a container with water and suddenly I spot the TV remote.

Someone left it on the kitchen table.

I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV, I will be looking for the remote, but I won't remember that it's on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs, but first I'll water the flowers.

I splash some water on the flowers, but most of it spills on the floor.

So, I set the remote back down on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill.

Then I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do

At the end of the day: the car isn't washed, the bills aren't paid, there is a warm can of Coke sitting on the counter, the flowers aren't watered, there is still only one check in my checkbook, I can't find the remote, I can't find my glasses, and I don't remember what I did with the car keys.

Then when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day long, and I'm really tired.

I realize this is a serious problem, and I'll try to get some help for it, but first I'll check my e-mail.

Do me a favor, will you? Forward this message to everyone you know, because I don't remember to whom it has been sent.





Review of John Taylor Gatto's

The Underground History of American Education

by Jennie Chancey

In the foreword he wrote to the 1946 edition of Brave New World, author Aldous Huxley noted with sadness that his grim vision of utopian statism was coming to pass faster than he had imagined it could. When he first wrote the book in 1931, he had depicted a future he believed would gradually come about within 600 years. In that far distant world, the government would genetically engineer babies in test tubes, condition them from birth to fit into a particular stratum of society, teach them to love entertainment and materialism above all else and to discount religion and sexual morality entirely. By 1946, Huxley believed this "brave new world" was already well on its way. I find one comment particularly striking:

"The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries [sic] into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call ‘the problem of happiness' – in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude." [emphasis mine]

What Aldous Huxley apparently did not realize was that government-sponsored inquiry into this "problem" had already been well underway for close to eighty years—and that only fifty years later, people would, indeed, "love their servitude" more than they prized their freedom. The engineers of public education in America (including, but not limited to, Horace Mann and John Dewey) had decided in the mid-nineteenth century that schooling was really about socializing people to accept an assigned lot in life and follow along quietly when the government told them their happiness depended upon it. And it wasn't done in a back room or under cover. It was all designed out in the open with public proclamations by "great men" like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller.

John Taylor Gatto served as a public school teacher for 30 years in New York. His experience led him to retire and begin writing about the social and evolutionary experiment that is the American education system. In his own words, Mr. Gatto declared that he had to quit teaching because he didn't want to "hurt kids to make a living." Since his retirement, Mr. Gatto has spoken all over the United States about his experiences with forced schooling and has shared what government education does to children—what it was designed to do.

The Underground History of American Education is no overnight read. With over 390 pages, it is an investment of time to read through this book. But it is an investment well worth making. Mr. Gatto calls this book a "long essay," but I'd describe it as a multi-faceted look into the inner workings of government schooling, spiced with personal recollections and dips into hundreds of historical sources. If you want to understand government schooling from just about every conceivable angle (social, historical, religious, economical, psychological, etc.), don't miss this book. Mr. Gatto breaks everything down into easily digested sections with subheadings to help you navigate. You could pick it up and dive in just about anywhere to read mini essays on "The Platonic Ideal," "The Demon of Overproduction," or "A New Collectivism," for starters. But I'd really encourage you to go for broke and read the entire volume from start to finish. You will find yourself fascinated, angered, frustrated, and intrigued as you study the many elements that went into the forced schooling revolution—for it was a revolution.

As we look around at our modern economy (built on both governmental and personal debt and massive spending habits), we may wonder how America progressed from the inventive, productive nation it was at its start (with a huge emphasis on personal responsibility and hard work) to the bloated, materialistic culture it now is (complete with advertisements so ubiquitous that it is nearly impossible to escape them). While forced schooling certainly isn't the only answer, it is a great part of it. Our declining literacy rate, our loss of regional history and identity, our obsession with "popular" culture, and our descent into sexual immorality have all been encouraged or directly influenced by government education. But perhaps most disturbing of all is how government schooling conditions children to see themselves as cogs in a wheel and to turn dutifully whenever told to.

Writes Mr. Gatto, "[T]his is indeed the will-o-the-wisp pursued throughout the twentieth century in forced schooling—not intellectual development, not character development, but the inculcation of a new synthetic culture in children, one designed to condition its subjects to a continual adjusting of their lives by unseen authorities." Piecing together speeches by early 20th-century businessmen, books by proponents of social reform, and talks given by progressives, Mr. Gatto demonstrates that this "continual adjusting" is necessary in order to prop up our current economy and social order. It is necessary to create more buyers than workers in order to keep everything running smoothly. In fact, one of Mr. Gatto's more intriguing insights is that all children in public schools are, essentially, government workers! They spend an average of eight hours a day following the ringing of bells, pushing paper, standing in line, and learning to do meaningless copywork—anything but thinking deeply, pondering the infinite, inventing, creating, or working.

In order to accomplish the goal of crafting its own citizenry, the government had to become the de facto parent of the majority of children. This was accomplished in 1847 with the "best interests of the child" test, a New York City Superior Court ruling that authorized the state to intervene in the family. With this ruling, "the American state assumed the parens patriae powers of old-time absolute kings, the notion of the political state as the primary father," writes Gatto. "And there were signs it intended to use those powers to synthesize the type of scientific family it wanted, for the society it wanted. To usher in the future it wanted." This sheds quite a lot of light on the current battle over same-sex "marriage" and "partners" crying out for adoption rights. With the power to redefine the family, the state takes ever more control away from good parents—all in the name of "the best interests of the child."

Conspiracy theorists need not apply, by the way. Some so-called education "reformers" have dismissed John Taylor Gatto's work as conspiratorial or overly imaginative. But a thorough reading simply does not lead the reader to such a conclusion. As Mr. Gatto so carefully demonstrates from historical documents, books, letters, and public speeches, government schooling was not engineered in the dark or by secret counsels of powerful men. Instead, it was the work of many different factions of society (including Marxists, communists, capitalists, state governments, etc.), all of whom worked toward a common goal: a stable social order. While many who invested their time and talents in public schooling did so for noble reasons, they nevertheless ended up working side-by-side with Darwinian social engineers and utopian socialists. The story of how such disparate factions ended up working together toward a common goal is merely one part of the whole tale, but it is utterly fascinating.

As we look into the behemoth of modern government schooling, we must be willing to face the fact that a lot of godly people have advocated it or helped it along. It was not the subversive invention of a small cadre of Prussian Marxists. It was not the brainchild of super-rich capitalists. It was not the final result of a century of social Darwinism. While all of those things did influence and shape the forced schooling revolution, the real finger should be pointed at parents. Why did we allow the wholesale adoption by the state of our children to happen?

Actually, there were violent riots against forced schooling when the experiment began in the 1840s. Mr. Gatto includes press stories of immigrant parents marching against what they saw as a return to the prison-schools they had fled when they moved to America. There are stories of children marched to school under armed guard to thwart parental protests. But those stories are few and far between. For the most part, American parents went right along with the new experiment and objected only faintly when literacy rates dropped. They allowed their hand-wringing to be calmed by promises of "study committees" and "educational reform." Those hollow promises have continued up to the present, with President George W. Bush's socialistic "no child left behind" nonsense.

The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as education reform, as Mr. Gatto so ably demonstrates. To truly reform the system would mean decentralization, total local (i.e. parental) control, no "standardized" curricula or tests, and, most importantly, no cookie-cutter end result. To put it plainly, this would be anathema to the proponents of government schooling. The end goal of state education is not intelligent, upright, inventive producers; it is, rather, semi-literate, pop-culture slaves who will buy when told to buy, discard when told something is no longer "cool," and produce nothing of significance (except a negative balance on a credit card). Except for the few bright, shining students who are singled out for leadership, the majority of government school graduates will be content to live in a "safe" world of consumption as long as they can have their three squares and plenty of entertainment. And the economy sails on...right? As Christians, we should know better.

"Here is the crux of the difference between education and schooling," writes Mr. Gatto. "The former turns on independence, knowledge, ability, comprehension, and integrity; the latter upon obedience." When it comes down to it, Christians prop up the system that eats away at their heritage and numbs them to their loss. 80% of children in public schools come from "evangelical" homes, according to recent Barna polls. We feed the hand that bites us.

God created the Christian home to be the foundation of society and culture. This is why God gave the primary responsibility for the education of children to their parents—not to the state or even to the Church (Deut. 6:6-9 & 12:28, Eph. 6:1-4, Col. 3:20, I Tim. 3:4). Within this framework, parents are to train children to love God's Word, to honor their elders, to work hard, to see money as a tool for dominion, to know their history, and to pass on "an inheritance to their children's children" (Prov. 13:22). This requires thought, inventiveness, creativity, and a huge amount of love and time. It cannot be done in a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all method. And government educrats recognize this! Patricia Lines, of the U.S. Department of Education, had this to say about parents who educate their own children:

"Homeschoolers are tremendously loyal as family members, they are suspicious of television and other less intimate influences. They eat as a family, they socialize as a family, they attend church as a family, they become members of an extended...homeschooling community." (Quoted by Mr. Gatto on page 50 of his book)

Now, lest I be accused of na vete, I do not believe for a moment that all homeschoolers are perfect and are never affected by the collectivism that animates government schooling. Nor do I believe that all homeschoolers have the noble goals of the Scriptures firmly in mind as they instruct their children. I feel that Mr. Gatto's warnings are every bit as applicable to homeschoolers as they are to those who believe in industrial schooling models. It is so very easy to fall into lockstep with a culture that thrives on sameness (all protests about "rugged individualism" aside) and promotes materialism at every turn. Insofar as we homeschoolers have embraced "standardized" outcomes or have begun to look upon education as salvific, we must repent and reform. Utopianism can creep into the mind of the staunchest "conservative." It only takes complacency and a willingness to discount clear scriptural commands to start us down the road of messianic statism. None of us are immune.

So what is the answer? Mr. Gatto doesn't offer any easy solutions at the end of his book, though he gives some practical first steps (and if you want the themes of his book in a nutshell, turn to page 383 and start with the subheading "I Would Prefer Not To"). We are living through the apex of the American empire—at the top of the economic rollercoaster. As the richest nation on earth (in comparative terms), we "have it all." It will not be easy to convince the average citizen that what we have isn't good in the long term. And that really brings us to the main point: ending the long experiment of forced schooling is going to take multi-generational faithfulness in bringing up children who will look to God for their worth, who will shun popular culture for the throwaway mess that it is, and who will work hard to provide for their own families as they live in community with other Christians in the local church. It is going to take families throwing out the "regularly scheduled programming" of television, actively building a culture of literacy and a love for history within their homes, sharing hospitality with others, scripturally providing for the needs of those in the local community, and thinking about the impact of their actions upon future generations. The lie of forced schooling is that all that matters is the here and now. The truth of God's Word is that our actions in the present will affect the future and impact our descendants for hundreds of years to come. Are we willing to make the sacrifices it will require in order to provide a vision for that world yet to come?

I've only touched upon a few points from An Underground History of American Education. There is really no way to neatly summarize such a work. Let me urge you to invest the time in reading it and thinking about how the history of American schooling applies to us as Christian parents. We cannot afford to ignore the past if we hope to change the future.

[An Underground History of American Education can be downloaded or read one chapter at a time from You can order a copy of The Underground History of American Education for $36.00 postpaid (priority mail) from John Taylor Gatto , 235 West 76th Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10023. His website is]

Jennie Chancey is Bettie's oldest child. Matt and Jennie have 5 children, the oldest being 7 years old. She is a columnist for Homeschooling Today, as she has time. Obviously, they home educate their children, as they press the crown rights of King Jesus in their family and in society. See TBE, Summer 04 for the interview with Mr. Gatto. It is posted at our web site.

Is she in your church?

Mildred, the church gossip, and self-appointed monitor of the church moral's, kept sticking her nose into other people's business.

Several members did not approve of her etxra-curricular activities but feared her enough to maintain their silence.

She made a mistake, however, when she accused George, a new member, of being an alcoholic after she saw his old pickup parked in front of the town's only bar one afternoon. She emphatically told George and several others that everyone seeing it there would know what he was doing.

George, a man of few words, stared at her for a moment and just turned and walked away He didn't explain, defend, or deny. He said nothing.

Late that evening, George quietly parked his pickup in front of Mildred's house........................and left it there all night.