An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand |
|
Those who teach that the Ten Commandments are not for us today simply do not understand the implications of God's Ten Words, which are given for our good. Deuteronomy 10:12. Or the fallen nature may gladly hear, agree to and even submit to the simple Ten Words, yet get offended, resist or outright reject the many Biblical implications built upon those Ten basic Words. Antinomian teachers have cut their followers off from the blessings covered in the Ten Words.
In Louisiana, the man in charge of our large Christian School saw an entire stand-up tool box of Snap On tools fall from a pickup when the pickup turned a corner too fast. He said that it looked like the man was moving from one job to another, and had all of his tools with him. Obviously, our man stopped and picked them up. I urged him to at the very least run an ad in the paper that he had found the tools, which he refused to do. He said that the insurance company would probably replace the tools for the man, so the man would not lose anything. However, he would never have dreamed of removing the tools from the pickup. He would fight for "Thou shalt not steal," but refused to even consider the implications of that Commandment. According to Deuteronomy 22, that man was a thief, for the implications of the commandments are as binding as are the commandments themselves. And really, there is no worse theft than stealing the tools of one's trade, except stealing his wife.
The Family, and a few implications found in the Fifth Commandment.
The New York Times reported last October, "It's Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered." Also, "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse." NYT, 1/16/07,
So we now ask, "Why are married couples now a minority?"
As we look at a little from the Fifth Commandment, we will see why "To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered."
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Exodus 20:12
This commandment is the basis for all the laws dealing with proper authority throughout Scripture. Fallen man's dream from the very first has been to replace God's authority with his own.
Four of the Ten Commandments deal with the family, and three of them directly: * Honour thy father and thy mother. *Thou shalt not commit adultery. * Thou shalt not steal. * Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife... Furthermore, two of them deal with property, showing that the theft laws are family-oriented. In fact, God's word is built around the family under God.
R.J. Rushdoony reminds us that the family is the most important and powerful unit of society, for it controls not only the key areas of life, but God has given to it the control of the future. To name a few areas of the family's power over the future: children, education, property, inheritance, as well as control of welfare. All of these things have been given by the family to the state, whereby the state replaces the family as the power in society, and in controlling the future. Clearly, God gave the control of the future and of society to the family; he gave more power to the family than to any other institution. The Home Education movement is reclaiming that God-given power.
A) The death penalty is given for treason against the family, e.g., adultery, cursing parents, incorrigible child. The death penalty is also given for treason against the Lord, e.g., Lord's name in vain, serving other gods, influencing others away from the Lord God. Deuteronomy 13. However, there is no crime against the state identified by Scripture, let alone one that merits the death penalty.
Deuteronomy 13 has an interesting implication. There are those who teach unlimited submission to the state, and that our children should be sacrificed to the state's education system. Thus, they see the state as god on earth, and are urging others to serve another god other than Jehovah God. 13:5, [these people promoting unlimited state authority] shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
B) God, in showing his love for his people, identifies himself as their Father, not as their president, king, pastor, &c.
C) God gave the dominion mandate to the family, not to the state nor to the church. The church has the command to equip the family to exercise that dominion by instructing in God's word. Matthew 28:19, 20, Ephesians 4:12ff. The state is to provide conducive conditions for the family to exercise that dominion. Romans 13.
D) The power to control history is given to the family.
We complain about out-of-control big government, but the fault lies with the out-of-control family. When the family yields up its power in the areas mentioned above, e.g., education of its children, the state assumes that power, and thus assumes the control of history. Then as the family is destroyed, the state gains the power given by God to the family. Let us not think for a moment that the wicked do not understand that their increase in power goes hand in hand with the decrease of the family.
God works in society from the bottom up. We are warned against despising the small things, for the small things (families) are the basic building block of society. Zechariah 4:10. Many times, our problem is that if we cannot do something big, such as elect a good Christian to an important political office, we see no hope of reforming society. Yet we totally ignore the area from where true reformation must come, the family. The 16th century Reformation emphasized the family unit, and reformed the family.
The vast majority of churches that go by the name reformed only emphasize reformed doctrine; that is, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone and Christ Alone. These areas of Biblical doctrine are very important, but these same churches fail to take these areas of sound doctrine into the family to reform the family. God ordained the godly family to control history for his glory and for his kingdom's sake.
Until the family reclaims its God given powers and place in God's plan, we cannot see any kind of return to a sound, Biblical civil government, for civil government is simply doing what the godly family should be doing. The family is looking outside of itself, to the state, to fulfill its God-given responsibilities. The state then becomes "big brother" to everyone, requiring unlimited funds to fulfill what the family should be doing. See 1 Samuel 8.
1 Kings 10:9 tells us that a righteous ruler is a sign of God's blessings on a people. Therefore, when God exalts unrighteous rulers, it is a sign of God's judgment upon a people—upon the family for not fulfilling its God-ordained responsibilities.
Though Christians refuse to acknowledge the fact, the wicked fully understand that they must destroy the family in order to build and maintain the all-powerful state they have dreamed of since Nimrod. So the state makes it very convenient for the family to yield its responsibility to the state.
In a recent poll commissioned by AiG, we discovered some eye-opening information about why so many young people are leaving the church today. Many said they left church because it was "irrelevant"' and that the issue of "millions of years" caused them to doubt the accuracy of the Bible.
One thing was crystal clear in the poll: these young adults were not given answers to the questions of a skeptical world that would have enabled them to understand that the Bible really is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. ... (Answers in Genesis news letter, 12/13/06.)
Evolution is doing the job it was designed to do; that is, undermine the Christian faith. And "Christians" allow their children to be taught the Evolution faith when they send them to the government schools.
Evolution holds that there are no permanently established facts nor laws; accordingly, facts change as time progresses.
There are only two ways to view history: blind chance or predestination of all things by an unseen hand. As Christians, we must say that God's unseen hand directs all things, seen and unseen. Evolution says history is a result of blind chance, and the facts of history are unrelated to each other, i.e., brute facts.
We must, therefore, follow the logical implications of chance or God's predestination. If history is predestination, then history is working God's will and plan. On the other hand, if history is chance, i.e., evolution, then history must be controlled by someone. Evolution thus requires the state to control history—socialism, or centralized power; evolution requires that the state must be the guiding god on earth.
As mentioned above, the basic power of control in history is in the hands of the family. We see in Genesis that God's plan is to work through the godly family. Thus, the godly family will control the future for the glory of God and the advancement of his kingdom on earth. But the state wants to control the future for its own glory.
So in order for the state, made up of fallen men seeking their own power, to control history, the family must be destroyed.
8 And Cush begat Nimrod, who began to be 1mighty in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Wherefore it is said, As Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. (Genesis 10. 1599 Geneva Bible.)
1 Meaning, a cruel oppressor and tyrant.
2 His tyranny came into a proverb as hated both by God and man: for he did not cease to commit cruelty even in God's presence.
[Parenthesis:
The above verses and notes are from the Geneva Bible. Note the different reading for v. 8 than is found in the KJV. KJV, v. 8, to be a mighty one in the earth. Geneva, to be mighty in the earth. And the Geneva notes tell us that Nimrod, in his rebellion against God, was a cruel oppressor and tyrant, and thus spoke against all rulers who would turn from God's law. Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva. An example is found in Matthew 2:6. KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ, was removed from the KJV. The spelling has been updated, leaving the wording the same, and republished. There is now no excuse not to have the Word of God as carried by the Pilgrims when they landed here in Jamestown. As I have followed the reading of the KJV in the Geneva, it appears that the KJV "translators" did little more than edit the Geneva to change the words to allow another "sovereign" on this earth, rather than the Lord God. I should be able to offer the 1599 at a good prince after it is reprinted. The first printing sold out quickly. Contact us if you are interested. See Gary DeMar's statement at the end.]
Genesis 10 makes it clear that the goal of fallen man is to exercise total control of everything, even nature itself. ("We must control ‘global warming'." Nature has no laws. All laws are God's laws as seen through nature. Mother nature is a false god.)
(Isaiah 53:4, Seurly, he hath born our grief... KJV. Surely, he hath born our infirmities... Geneva.)
Darwin, with his theory of evolution, gave the ungodly a new and effective tool to use against the family.
R.J. Rushdoony points out that evolution holds that the family is a primitive institution which must be done away with if society is to evolve into something better. The wicked hold that the origins of the family is in man's primitive past, not in God's creative purpose. Accordingly, the family is seen entirely as an evolutionary product of man's culture. (Institutes, p. 159)
Implications:
1) to the evolutionists, the deterioration of the family proves their faith right. (Do not dispensationalists see the deterioration of society as proof their faith is right, and thus lose motivation to stop the disintegration?)
2) as man advances up the evolutionary ladder, the family must be destroyed and relegated to the past.
3) evolutionists see no problem with, in fact, may even rejoice and help with, the destruction of the family.
Furthermore, Rushdoony points out:
Religion, thus, is seen as a projection of the family, and the family must therefore be destroyed in order that religion may also be destroyed. But this is not all. Private property is similarly seen as an outgrowth of the family, and the abolition of private property requires the destruction of the family as a prerequisite. (Ibid., 161.)
Let us follow RJR's line of thought, expanding it further.
In order to do away with religion and private property, the family must first be destroyed. Evolution says that the destruction of the family is the next logical step for mankind. Accordingly, if the state will destroy religion and private property in order to gain and retain its power, it must support sodomy, immorality and same sex "marriages," which is why we see such a hatred against the family, and the wagons circle in defense of evolution.
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion By GEORGE JOHNSON. NYT. November 21, 2006
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that "the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief," or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for "progress in spiritual discoveries" to an atheist - Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book "The God Delusion" is a national best-seller. (<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th>)
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: ‘Uphold Free Speech or Resign'
Breitbart.com – Just the news. 12/18/06
In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller [D-WV] and Snowe [R-Maine] released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary [Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley] has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media. ...
ExxonMobil funds climate-skeptic scientists, which greatly upsets those promoting climate-change. These skeptics function without taxpayer money and "despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions..." They are vilified by "ignorant environmentalists; and [threatened with] loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom.."
Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call ‘disastrous' and ‘calamitous' consequences."
(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/18/prnw.20061218.DCM029.html)
Notice the call to arrest "deniers" of "global-warming," as well as withhold tax moneys from institutions who retain those "deniers." (I saw an interview with a NORAD weather man on an evening news program. Three times, he said that this strange, warm winter on the East Coast is not "global warming," but El Nino. Note the record cold in CA.)
How close are we to the arrest of those who deny evolution? How close are we to seeing tax moneys withheld from institutions (particularly education institutions that receive any kind of state aid) who retain "deniers" of evolution? The stakes in the Creation debate are much higher than in the "global-warming" debate; at stake is the life of the modern tyrannical state.
Christians, get your heads out of the sand, or clouds, and face the reality of the war for the hearts and minds of your children.
Thus, Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" is dealing with evolution, the root of many of our social ills today. We can help destroy that root of Evolution by getting and passing on any of the many DVD videos that are available that show the foolishness of evolution.
In order for the family to be destroyed, the manliness of men must be destroyed – MEN MUST BE FEMINIZED, and WOMEN MUST BE MASCULINIZED. An old term for this change of roles is that the wife now wears the pants in the family, where the wife is the real power in the family. We must say also, that the church has been feminized, and the women now wear the pants there. That is, they control the church. (In the second church where I was a staff member, it was common knowledge that it was controlled by the pastor's wife. Thus, that pastor was disqualified to be the pastor. 1 Timothy 3:2, 5.) Moreover, everything possible is being done to feminize the work place and especially the military. Men are allowing their manhood to be stripped from them by society, led by the education system.
We cannot deny that men have been and are being demasculinized to the point where they think nothing of acting like, looking like — jewelry and all—working like, and even smelling like women, while women have been urged to take the place of men. In fact, active boys are medicated so they will act like girls, and girls are encouraged to act like boys, and even join the football team. Notice the average "sitcom:" The females have replaced the males in aggressively talking about and moving toward sex. The men have been turned into wimps, dumber than, fearful of or under the control of their wives (if they are married). The Biblical roles of male and female must be destroyed in order to destroy the family.
In his comments on Leviticus 19:29, Clement of Alexandria, ([A.D. c 153c - 215] "The Instructor") shows us that the warfare against men is not new. Masculine Christianity overthrew pagan Rome. Therefore, there is proven victory even in the midst of the most serious attacks against God and his Word if men can regain and retain their Christian masculinity. (See The Effeminate Male in the Examiner, June 1996, <http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/w199606.htm>)
The family is now defined as any two people living together: a mother and child, an unmarried man and woman or two people of the same sex. In fact, we are seeing that two sodomites have better access to adoption than do Christians. However, several states, in the 2006 election, overwhelmingly voted to ban "same sex marriage."
The Creation or Dominion Mandate reads:
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Thus, an essential function of the family and of the man under God is to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. This mandate is given to the man as the head of his family as he is defined by God's word. It is not given to the state. This mandate clearly involves "the Biblical perspective of private property."
The earth was created very good, and was to be subdued and developed in terms of God's word under the hand of man through his family.
Throughout history, private property has been a measure of not only a man's wealth, but also a measure of his power in society and his freedom under God—a family can be pretty well self-sufficient on property that is paid for, and with no tax bill. (Under the Hebrew economy, private property had to be returned to the family that owned it every 50 years, the year of the Jubilee. The property's value was based upon its use until the Jubilee. The Jubilee requirement prevented the power in society from gravitating to a few people who might end up owning all the property.)
Religion and private property are seen as products of the family. Those who desire unchallenged power and control of all things must do away with both the Biblical religion and private property, for private property represents power. But before religion and private property can be destroyed, the family must be destroyed.
God tells us what is taking place:
Psalms 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psalms 2 is clearly speaking about the ungodly who are seeking unrestrained civil authority. The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary says here that the "bands... and... cords—denote the restraints of government." (Psalms 2:3..)
Before those bands and cords, which represent God's law, can be broken, the family must be destroyed.
Albert Barnes makes this observation:
Psalm 2:3. Let us break their bands asunder The bands of Yahweh and of his Anointed. They who are engaged in this combination or conspiracy regard Yahweh and his Anointed as one, and as having one object — to set up a dominion over the world. Hence, they take counsel against both; and, with the same purpose and design, endeavor to cast off the authority of each. The word "bands" here refers to the restraints imposed by their authority. The figure is probably taken from fastening a yoke on oxen, or the bands or cords which were used in plowing — the bands of the yoke being significant of their subjection to the authority or will of another. The same figure is used by the Saviour in Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you." The idea here is, that it was the purpose of Yahweh and his Anointed to establish a dominion over men, and that it was equally the purpose of the kings and rulers here referred to that it should not be done.
Mr. Barnes goes on to say that cords speak of binding the ox to the plow. "...Together, the expressions refer to the purpose among men to cast off the government of God, and especially that part of his [God's] administration which refers to his purpose to establish a kingdom under the Messiah. It thus indicates a prevalent state of the human mind as being impatient of the restraints and authority of God, and especially of the dominion of his Son, anointed as King.
W.S. Plumer, on Psalms 2.
3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. The bands and cords are those of Jehovah and of his Anointed. To be bound and to feel bound to the Father and to his Son cannot but distress the ungodly. Calvin : " All the enemies of Christ, when compelled to be subject to his authority, reckon it not less degrading than if the utmost disgrace were put upon them ;" Alexander: "The form of the Hebrew verb in this verse may be expressive either of a proposition or of a fixed determination. We will break their bands, we are resolved to do it. . . And we will cast, or let us cast away from us their cords, twisted ropes, a stronger term than bands." The authority of Christ human wickedness greatly abhors. Had he taught the great principles of morality found in the Gospels, but done it as a pharisee or philosopher, merely proposing things, there had never been such an outcry against him. But he asserts his right to rule mankind, and so men rebel against him. The kingly office of our Saviour is cordially hated by the unrenewed. God says, "They will reverence my Son." They reply, " We will not have this man to reign over us." Horne : " Doctrines will be readily believed, if they involve in them no precepts ; and the church may be tolerated by the world, if she will only give up her discipline." If one of the propositions of Euclid, instead of proving what it does, did with equal clearness prove that men ought to be subject to Christ, the wicked would claim to have found a flaw in the argument. The enmity of the human heart rises higher against Christ, his authority, and his salvation than against anything else. ...
Jews, Infidels, Mahommedans, Pagans, and nominally Christian powers and people have all in their turn poured out their cruel scorn against the friends of Christ. So it always has been, and so it always shall be till "the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." Rev. ii.15. (Psalms. First published, 1867. First Banner of Truth Trust edition, 1975.)
Observe:
1) The ungodly are greatly distressed and feel degraded and disgraced by the laws of God upon them. That includes nominal Christians who seek to be out from under God's laws.
2) The ungodly welcome the morality found in the Gospels, as taught by the religious leaders of Christ's day. The problem is, by whose authority are those moral codes binding upon men? Man's authority or Christ's. Unrenewed men hate that total authority lies in Christ, and not men. (Gothard's "universal life principles" of morality are welcomed by the ungodly, for he leaves out Christ.)
3) The ungodly will embrace doctrines and the church, if the Gospel Church will give up its claim of exclusiveness with its control over men through Church Discipline.
4) The ungodly scorn the friends of Christ, and will do so until all is placed under Christ's feet, made his footstool. Psalms 110:1, Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:43, Acts 2:35, Hebrews 1:13, 10:13. Note the enemies: "Jews, Infidels, Mahommedans, Pagans, and nominally Christian powers and people..." Plumer refers to the modern "Jews." They are anti-Christ to the core, and are as hateful against God, his Son and his true people as are the Mahommedans. The difference is that many Christians send money to support the Jew's war against other Christians, but they do not send money to the Mahommedans, Pagans and Infidels, other than through their support of the pagan institutions of education.
Man will either be bound by the bands and cords of God's law, or he will be bound by the bands and cords of oppressive tyrants.
Those desiring to establish a "One World Government" are restricted by the bands and cords of the Lord's law, which holds them back as a yoke holds oxen to the plow. The bands establish the Lord's dominion over man, a fact hated by fallen man. Thus, their goal is to break the bands, so fallen man can be his own god, and so he can advance on up the evolutionary ladder.
But in order to do that, the family must first be destroyed.
The cry of fallen man, particularly in authority, is "We will not have this man to reign over us." (Luke 19:14.) That is to say, they refuse to submit to God's government as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. They rejected God's law, the Ten Commandments and their implications, with the dream of being a law unto themselves.
Fallen man's goal is to be his own god, able to determine for himself without God's word what is good and evil. Genesis 3:5, Psalms 2. The purpose of the war against the family is so the ungodly can cast off the bands and cords of the Biblical religion, and be the sovereign god over all things.
Note that Psalm 2:2 tells us that those desiring a "One World Government" take counsel together. That is, they literally "sit together," and deliberate. Their efforts are not made in foolish haste nor in the heat of rage. (Spurgeon.) Rather, they carefully deliberate and think through their plans of how to best remove the Christian religion that is holding back their world-dominating goal. The conspirators understand that the primary thing they must do is destroy the family.
Spurgeon says here: "Sinners have their wits about them, and yet saints are dull." The saints very seldom, if ever, deliberate and develop long range plans for the kingdom of God, and how to build up, strengthen and preserve the family.
I was on the staffs of two large churches that expected their people to build their lives around the church, so the church provided activities 6 days or nights a week. In one of them, we would discuss in staff meetings about how "dangerous" it was to allow too much time through the week for children to be on their own, for the parents would not properly use that free time. Thus, we had a youth pastor to keep the young people busy every night except maybe one. We felt that the church must provide something to consume all the families' time. Unknowing at the time, I see now that we were counseling together as to how to destroy the family.
Why did we not, and why do not churches today, counsel together on how to strengthen the family? how to strengthen the father's authority in the family? how to strengthen the tie between the father, parents, and the children? how to exalt the joys of a large family? how to train young men to be godly husbands and fathers? The young ladies are being trained to be godly homemakers, wives and mothers, but the young men are being ignored. Why do not churches counsel together on how to develop long range plans for the kingdom of God, of which the strong family is the foundation.
Adam Clarke points out that "the Church may be tolerated in the world if she will only give up her discipline." (Psalms 2.) That is, as long as the church does not challenge the sovereignty claimed by the state, the church will be tolerated. Hence we see the state not only permitting, but promoting those churches that are "Politically Correct".
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of St John, could have avoided martyrdom by simply saying the words, "Caesar is Lord," which he refused to do. In Polycarp, we see illustrated the continual conflict between the state (Rome in his case) that claims to be god, and the Church (Christians) who insist that the state is not the sovereign lord over all creation. How many Christians believe that Romans 13 is the final word, and all that is said by the state is law, making the state the sovereign lord?
But in order for the state to advance its claim of sovereignty, it must destroy the family, for the Biblical religion that challenges its claim of sovereignty is built upon the godly family. The Biblical idea of a family must be destroyed in order for the state to advance and maintain its "god on earth" claim.
Many on the "Christian Right" have confessed that the "State is Lord" for the money, e.g., Jerry Falwell. Now these "Christian" institutions do not have to depend on families to support their works. They look to and are now dependent upon the state. They have become watchmen blinded by state money, and dumb dogs that have been bought off with state aid, and can no longer bark against the hand that feeds them. (Isaiah 56:10.)
In order to retain and advance the state's power, every state institution must do all it can to undermine the family.
Weapons against the family:
* Feninizing boys and men
Soy is making kids ‘gay'
December 12, 2006 By Jim Rutz
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular. ... The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy [which is loaded with female hormones, estrogens. Even women are overloading their system = breast cancer]. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore. <http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327>
* Enforced teaching of evolution as a fact.
* Marriage penalty in the tax code.
*Pornography, emphasis on sex in the media, immodest clothing. (See article below.)
* Inflation. Decreased wages and increased cost of living has forced the wife to work outside the home, many times just to survive. (Operating engineer pay in 1967 was $14 an hour. Unless one is on a big government "prevailing wage" job, the pay is still $14.)
* Fiat money system: that is, money created out of nothing. That money can buy off criticism even from the Christian community, as well as undermine the Christian family work ethic through welfare. Welfare takes over what the family should be doing.
The multiplied millions of dollars given to "Faith-Based" institutions has effectively silenced any criticism from the "Christian Right" of an out-of-control, tyrannical civil government that is determined to establish a One-World Government, e.g., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Campus Crusade, Beverly LaHaye, Franklin Graham, Lou Sheldon, &c. (http://mattchancey.blogspot.com/2005/02/faith-based-in-big-government.html)
* Eminent Domain destroys private property.
* Sunday Schools and Children's Churches separate the family when they should be together. From the earliest, young people should be taught to sit still in church.
* The unBiblical (no mandate by God to educate) state education system. State education undermines the role of the Biblical family. The teachers become the parents, and the peers become the siblings. And those Christians who can and should be sounding the alarm have been bought off with state money. Hence the hatred against Home Education, for Home Education strengthens the family.
Public schools nationwide have embraced "What Makes a Family," a photographic exhibit and film that includes same-sex-parented families as part of one great big mosaic of "normal." Meanwhile, the mainstream press now rarely questions the social and clinical wisdom of same-sex parenting, preferring to explore its internal challenges instead... (World, December 9, 2006. Experimental Kids. P. 36. The article deals with Katrina Clark, now 18, who grew up with two "mothers" in a sodomite home. It tells of her hunger to find her real "father" who donated the sperm for her mother. "The issue is adults making life-altering decisions for their children that are in the adults' best interests as opposed to what's in the best interests of the child." — Katrina Clark.)
EAGLESWOOD TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) To students at Eagleswood Elementary School, she used to be Mr. McBeth. Now, after undergoing a sex change, 71-year-old Lily McBeth is ready to return to teaching as Miss McBeth.
Despite criticism from parents, the school board on Monday stood by its decision to allow McBeth to resume working as a substitute teacher. 02/28/06, http://www.modbee.com/24hour/nation/story/3204189p_11920556c.html
LEXINGTON, MA – APRIL 19 (Reported, Apl. 20) Parents angry and upset after second-grade teacher reads ‘modern fairy tale' to class on homosexual romance and marriage. No notice was given.
Teacher tells parents that theme of day was "weddings" and that gay marriage is legal – "I want to present all points of view." Principal tells parents they cannot opt out and "I will not guarantee that something like this will not happen again" and that there will be no notification, despite state law.
Web URL: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/article.php?id=403
The major change agent working against the Biblical family is the state through its education system. If it is sin to subject our children to the anti-christ state in its education system, what must be the verdict upon those who work in instructing in state mandated re-education of the children?
However, our eyes must be on our God who holds the future in his hands:
The clear and beneficent teaching of the passage [Psalms 2] is that there can be but one God, one sovereign power, one eternal righteousness, and that whatsoever sets itself against this one rulership must inevitably be broken and dashed in pieces. (Parker Parker, Preaching Through the Bible. Vol. 12, p. 29. Baker Book House.)
The sight of heathenism should not depress the soul into moods of despair; it should turn expectation and attention in the direction of heaven itself, because of its height shall come the King who shall rule all kings and the Saviour who shall taste death for every man. [Psalms 22:27] "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." (Ibid., p 32. See also Daniel 7:13, 14.)
Let me mention one more thing about evolution. Evolution holds that order comes out of chaos. It appears that a motive for bringing chaos to Iraq was that order would automatically develop. Did not Bush expect them to welcome us as liberators? No matter how many times that theory fails when put into practice, those with the evolution faith will continue their attempts to bring order out of their self-created chaos.
The Biblical Family must be destroyed if the "One-World Government" dream will be accomplished — the dream of man being above God's law. However, the tower of Babel shows us that that dream will never be fulfilled. God is still the Sovereign Ruler of all.
By Matthew Chancey
Although Christianity has taught us not to be obsessed with outward appearances, such a principle should in no way be used as an excuse for poor dress and appearance. Our clothing conveys a lot about us. The Bible is filled with examples of where clothing conveyed a certain rank, or message. Consider the symbolism of the robes worn by the Levitical priests, or Joseph's coat of many colors, or even the scarlet garb of the harlot that rides upon the Beast in Revelation.
In the same way, what we wear conveys a message about us. Baggy pants that don't fit (and would not look any better if they did), jewelry exhibited from practically every appendage of the body, and even the ever popular baseball cap (turned every way upon the head except the way it was designed) all convey a certain message.
America is the wealthiest nation on earth, yet we have boys walking around in rags—by choice. I was in Wal-Mart recently (yes, I know, forgive me) and I saw a pair of blue jeans that were stained and ripped in several places. They were on sale for $17. I just shook my head and felt sorry for the fool who would spend $17 for a perfectly ruined pair of pants.
In days before the minimum wage, people earning $4 a week looked and dressed much better than the scarecrows walking around our towns today.
Many older etiquette books spent relatively little time on a person's daily dress. You might find tips on what to wear at a morning wedding versus an evening wedding, but everyday dress was rarely discussed. Like the foundations of manners, dressing appropriately for everyday living was taken for granted.
To give you an idea of how important it is today for young men to dress decently, I will relate a story about a friend of mine named Eric. Eric was an 18-year-old black man. He worked as an intern in a law firm. He always dressed very sharply when he went to work. His shirts and trousers were neatly pressed, and his shoes were clean and shiny.
One day Eric went to his bank to make a deposit, and the manager saw him in the lobby. The man approached him and asked, "Do you dress like this every day?" Eric responded in the affirmative, to which the manager replied, "Any time you need a job, come talk to me. I will hire you on the spot."
Did the manager know anything about Eric's background? No. Did the manager know anything about Eric's education? No. Did the manager know anything about Eric other than that he knew how to make a good first impression? Eric could have failed basic math for all the manager knew. Yet, because Eric knew how to make himself presentable, he was offered a job at a successful bank based solely upon his appearance. The manager assumed the best because of Eric's first impression. Moreover, the fact that Eric was a sharply dressed black man worked even more to his favor. There is so much pressure on black young men these days to dress like gangsters, not like a responsible businessmen. Eric demonstrated that he knew how to make correct decisions even when under tremendous social pressure to act otherwise.
Appearances are very important. Our appearance to each other is all we get out of most of our acquaintances. The number of individuals of whom we actually get to share a close friendship is very limited. What we see of the world and what the world sees in us is mostly the outward appearance. This is the price we pay for being mortal. "Man looks at the outward appearances but the Lord looks at the heart" (I Samuel 16:7). This verse is not derogatory as much as it is stating fact.
Young men are told today that "it's not what's on the outside that matters. It's the inside that counts." There is much truth in this statement. There are also a lot of problems with this statement outside of the context in which it is given. Good manners are, by their nature, almost entirely focused on the exterior. Courteous speech, consideration of others, good dress and address are all exterior actions that reflect real virtue which is inside. Try telling my friend Eric that the outside does not matter.
If a young man dresses like a punk, it is a clear indication that he is a punk or would like to be associated with punks. If a young man dresses well and appears to be clean-cut, others will assume him to be a respectable person.
If you were lost in a strange city and approached two men, one of whom was wearing a business suit and the other wearing leather and a dog collar, from which man would you ask directions? The two men may be brothers as far as you know, but you would ask one and not the other, right? You would act on your first impression. Again, for most people with whom we come in contact throughout our lives, a first impression is all we get.
When I was in China with my good friend Howard Phillips, we wore business suits everyday. We climbed the great wall of China in coats and ties. This came in handy when we wanted to go places where a Westerner might have been prohibited. I remember one instance of visiting the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Armed soldiers with AK-47s stood everywhere. I wanted to go into several rooms to take pictures and asked Mr. Phillips what I should do. "Just act like you belong here," he replied. So, I did… and I got my pictures.
Young men have a great opportunity today by dressing well. Standards are so relaxed that any exception to the norm stands out like the proverbial fly in the punch bowl. If young men make an early habit of dressing well, doors of opportunity will open in ways that will surprise them.
When I say dress well, I don't mean dressing plain or uniformly. You can be very stylish and sharp but still modest and professional. Some fundamentalist Christian leaders are big on dress codes. Young men are limited to blue or white shirts, solid color ties and dark pants, etc. Heaven forbid they ever wear blue jeans in public. This pietistic view of clothing is almost as bad as the Christian young man who wears low-cut jeans and "I'm with stupid" t-shirts. In both cases, the view is that clothes don't matter; that clothes should not attract attention or be the focus.
But that is not what we read in Scripture. Clothes are meant to do more than cover nudity. Clothes are your resume' on a walking billboard. They communicate your worldview. If you dress like a stiff, the faith you communicate is a rigid and legalistic one. If you dress like a slob, the faith you communicate is Gnosticism of a different kind. It's a declaration of antinomianism (anti-law).
Some may sneer at my comments, but the proof is in the pudding. Go to a law office. What are the most successful lawyers wearing? Go to corporate America. What are the top execs wearing? People who are in regular contact with the public dress well to communicate confidence and reassure the customer that he made the right decision choosing this company or that firm to represent him. If you were accused of murder and needed a good defense attorney, would you choose one that dressed in blue jeans and a t-shirt at the office?
One last thing to consider is that just because a young man dresses sharply, it does not give him license to look down on people who don't. Many people dress up to feel superior or to show off. I got news for you: clothes don't cover character, they only magnify it. If you're an arrogant snob, your fancy clothes will magnify that fact.
Perfume and jewelry never enhanced a pig's reputation.
by Dinesh D'Souza, World, 1/13/02. pp. 26, 27.
"Though some Muslims complain about U.S. activities in the Middle East or support for Israel, but an even more widespread concern is culture..." Muslims see America descend into moral chaos with family breakup, sodomite marriages and nudity.
Many in traditional cultures see America as materially prosperous but culturally decadent, technologically sophisticated but morally depraved. Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto noted a Muslim "reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture." An Iranian from Neishapour told journalist Afshin Molavi, "People say we want freedom. You know what these foreign-inspired people want? They want the freedom to gamble and drink and bring vice to our Muslim land. This is the kind of freedom they want."
It's in this respect that the term "Great Satan," so commonly used to denounce America in the Muslim world, doesn't seem so zany. Muslims share with Jews and Christians the under-standing that Satan is primarily a tempter, not a conqueror; the Quran describes Satan as "the insidious one who whispers into the hearts of men." Osama bin Laden said in one of his videos that Islam faces the greatest threat it has faced since Muhammad—and that's not because U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia but because he feared American values and mores grabbing the hearts of Muslims.... [Rushdoony, c. 1970: "Islam is the most debased "religion" in existence."]
The following addresses the theological issues of American Christians' not only permitting but many times even promoting nudity. Note: Women should dress and look like women. But women should not dress in a manner that draws attention to their sensual parts. "If you got it, flaunt it," is wicked.
…in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel. I Timothy 2:9
By Larry White
Of all the cultural changes that are evident in the last generation, few are as drastic as the change in our views regarding appropriate female dress. This seismic shift, so evident amongst non-Christians, is equally obvious among professing Christians. This fact alone is worthy of note, for it demonstrates a conformity to the world by those who ought rather to be transformed by the renewing of their minds.1
It would seem to any discerning observer that the church, rather than being a light to the world in the area of modesty and sexual purity, has for the most part, followed the world into debauchery. Even those who have not whole-heartedly followed the world have, nevertheless, been desensitized to the carnality of our contemporary culture.
Many who read the following treatise may assume the topic to be irrelevant to the contemporary Christian. This, of course is not so, for the Christian does not have the freedom to judge such a topic irrelevant or extraneous, for we who follow Christ, are commanded to examine everything,2 fleeing the evil, and clinging to the good.3 Christians are also instructed to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.4 This would include thoughts regarding modesty.
It is the intention of the author to assist those who are interested in fleeing the sinful immodesty of our day.5 It is hoped that this treatise will bring a degree of illumination to the topic that has been generally missing in our generation. We will keep the focus of our attention, for the most part, on the topic of female dress. The author recognizes present day sins regarding male dress, but time constraints necessitate that such issues be left for another day.
Who's to say what is modest and what is not? Who's to say what is immoral in the area of clothing? These words have been spoken, or silently contemplated, a myriad of times across our land in the last generation. The question was most assuredly asked regarding the baring of Barbara Eden's midriff on the 60's sitcom I Dream of Jeannie. It has more recently been asked with reference to a female CCM6 star who adorns herself in a form-fitting leather outfit. In both cases the question "Who's to say?" begs an answer. Who has the authority and the wisdom to state with any sort of certainty that such dress is modest or immodest? Who has the right to legitimately declare that Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl Half Time Show was immodest? Or to argue that it wasn't? Again, who's to say that the yearly Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition promotes immodesty, but the average evangelical youth-group pool party doesn't?
The answer to these queries is profoundly simple. The regenerate and sanctified man who possesses the God-breathed Scriptures is "thoroughly equipped for every good work."7 God's Word is sufficient to equip us for the good work of discerning what is, and what is not, modest.
As we consider this aspect of our topic, we will refrain from embarking on a thorough treatment of the sufficiency of Scripture. This has already been done in recent years by a number of able expositors. Therefore we will merely consider the necessity of holding the doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency.8
When Christians engage their cultural opposition in debate, whether on Sodomite marriage/rights, abortion, education, or women in the military, we fight as fools unless, armed with Scripture, we confidently charge with the cry, "Thus saith the Lord!"Who's to say that Sodomy (euphemistically called homosexuality) is a perversion? Who's to say that abortion is murder? Who's to say that a child's education is to be parent-controlled and Theocentric? And who's to say that women have no business in the military? Who's to say? WHO? God! That's who! God in His word has spoken so that all men might have a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path,9 that they may keep their way pure,10 and be equipped for every good work.11
By and large, many Christians who are vocal on cultural issues seem to put more trust in arguments based on temporal concerns rather than on divine authority. Arguments based on tradition are used: "Our society was founded on…" or "Two-hundred (or two-thousand) years of history have shown us…" Arguments based on consensus are also employed: "Most Americans favor…" or "The last election shows…" Such argumentation belies a practical disdain for God's word. This contempt for the Scripture's authority and sufficiency permeates much of church life today, even to the seemingly less significant issues such as modesty. Many Christians fear being labeled a fundamentalist, extremist, or religious zealot if they assert a position and claim the authority of God in their defense. Thus they erect arguments based on common consensus and various traditions, and consequently our standard of right and wrong (modest or immodest) is constantly changing.
Such an argumentation is sinful because it is nothing more than trusting in man.12 How do we know right from wrong, or modesty from immodesty? Shall we ask men of the present? Shall we ask men of the past? Shall we ask men rather than God? No, no, no. Christians are to look for life's answers in God's word.13 If we would assert that the Scriptures sufficiently equip us for every good work,14 that they give us everything necessary for life and godliness,15 and that they are the means by which we cleanse our way,16 then consistency demands that we assert that the Scriptures sufficiently explain what is and is not modest. If the Bible does not explain what is and is not modest, then it does not equip us for every good work, does not give us all we need for life and godliness, and does not comprehensively enable us to cleanse our way. Such a conclusion is contrary to the express testimony of Scripture.
Experience has shown the author that at this juncture in the conversation, the average evangelical opines, "But God's word has not spoken on the topic of feminine modesty for the 21st Century. Nowhere does the Bible speak of shorts, one- or two-piece bathing suits, Lycra®, tank tops, or halters. The Bible does not speak of such things, thus we have freedom to do as we feel led." Consequently, we are left with an insufficient word from God, and the command that women adorn themselves in modest apparel is made purely subjective, each person being left to do what is right in her own eyes.17
To reason that the Scriptures lack clarity on an issue (in this case, modesty) because they do not speak with point-by-point specificity is poor reasoning indeed. Such a rationale would relegate the bulk of Biblical commands to the category of religious platitude. Most Christians are not willing to do this with the majority of God's word. They assume that the general, or broad category commands are defined by other relevant scriptures. For example, when God commands us to abhor evil (Rom. 12:9), it is undoubtedly assumed by the majority of Christians that God's word necessarily gives us sufficient guidance so as to discern what is evil and what is not. It can hardly be supposed that God has left us to discern what is evil and what is not by means of tradition, common consensus, or personal opinion. To respond to this command with, "Who's to say what is evil and what is not?" makes it meaningless. Historically, evangelicals have not so openly disdained God's word. Again we offer another example; when Scripture commands us to do all to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31) we necessarily assume that God's word gives us sufficient guidance so as to be able to know what glorifies Him and what does not. To query, "Who's to say what glorifies God?" suggests that the Scriptures are ambiguous on this point, and thus makes the command meaningless. Ambiguous, and consequently meaningless, commands are ultimately worthless. If a clear and authoritative exposition cannot be found for the broad commands of Scripture (i.e. abhor evil, glorify God, dress modestly) we are left without direction.
In conclusion, we must deduce from the very nature of the case, that broad or general commands in scripture are clarified by related and more specific passages of scripture, resulting in a clear, comprehensive, and sufficient standard for life. With Scripture we can discern what is good or evil, what glorifies God and what does not, and what is modest and what is immodest.
Legalism! Such is the cry often heard when a standard for modesty is proposed. This unfounded criticism ought not to dissuade us from our goal.
"Legalism" has both a technical and a popular definition. Technically, legalism is salvation by the law.18 In this sense, a standard of modesty would be legalistic if its proponents believe that adherence to the standard is a condition of salvation. Few are the voices that trumpet such a view, seeing that such a position is clearly contrary to scripture.19
The term legalism however is employed in a different manner in popular evangelical discourse. It is used to erroneously condemn the use of God's law as a standard for Christian conduct. In this sense, a standard of conduct (formulated from biblical texts), which its adherents claim as binding on all men, is legalism.
Are such standards for Christian conduct legalism? If a Christian were to search the Scriptures and assert a clear and comprehensive standard regarding the duties of citizenship would this be called legalism? Would a standard addressing honesty or the sanctity of life be called legalism? Few, if any, evangelicals would assert such. Clear and comprehensive standards are not legalism, but rather necessary aspects of sanctification. All of Scripture, and consequently all of God's law, is to be normative in our pursuit of personal holiness.20
It is rather telling that many of those who decry as legalism a standard of modesty that would indict their behavior are not totally opposed to all such standards. They denounce as immodest the dress with which contemporary models are adorned, whether in magazines at the local supermarket checkout, or on the commercials that air on television. They undoubtedly judge as immodest the scantily clad or unclad women on MTV, in X-rated movies, or on pornographic websites. They declare such women to be in clear violation of the standard of biblical modesty; yet, they are unwilling to entertain the thought that there may be a legitimate standard of biblical modesty that condemns their dress as well. One thing is certain; in their minds, a legitimate standard may at times condemn others, but never themselves. Such self serving standards, by which many Christians censure others and vindicate themselves in the area of modesty, are indicative of the self-righteousness whereby many unbelievers often rightly denounce Christians as hypocrites.
The common claim of legalism is merely self-serving carnality. Those who would employ the term legalism against a biblical standard of modesty do so merely as a supposed vindication of their autonomous21 lifestyles.
A Plethora of Descriptive Terms
Hopefully the material covered so far will prove helpful in preparing us to approach our text properly. In I Timothy 2, Paul declares his will for women within the church. Having expressed his desire that men everywhere lift up holy hands without wrath and doubting, he then turns his attention to the women: "In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety…" (KJV) Paul speaks of a God-fearing woman's adornment using three descriptive words. Whether we have one word, "modest," or three words, "modest, shamefacedness, and sobriety," we are obligated to search for some clarity as to their meaning. In consulting Greek dictionaries, Lexicons, and Bible commentaries,22 we find that there is no shortage of further descriptive words designed to help us understand Paul's command. The word modest is described as well ordered, decent, respectable, sensible, befitting, becoming, suitable, proper, and virtuous. The word shamefacedness (shamefastness) is defined as modesty, propriety, reverence, reserve, and quietness. The word sobriety is meant to convey the idea of chastity, moderation, modesty, good sense, sound judgment, reasonableness, rationality, purity, discretion, and self-control. Translators have not failed to utilize many of these terms in attempting to convey the Greek.
ASV I Timothy 2:9 in like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety;
ESV I Timothy 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control
NKJ I Timothy 2:9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation,
YLT I Timothy 2:9 in like manner also the women, in becoming apparel, with modesty and sobriety
Such a plethora of descriptive terms might at first seem to offer us invaluable assistance in reaching our goal. Yet upon further consideration it will become evident that we cannot so easily accomplish the task before us. If we are to formulate a Biblical standard for feminine modesty we need something more than these twenty-one descriptive terms. The reason for this ought to be obvious by now. When we declare our convictions that women ought to dress in modest, decent, sensible… apparel with modesty, reverence, good-sense etc., our hearers are left with one nagging question: "Who is to say what these terms mean in the context of feminine dress?" So whether we use one term, "modesty," or twenty terms to declare what Scripture requires in this area, we are still left with the task of giving practical definition to our terms.
Having engaged scores of Christians over the years on this topic it became apparent to the author that an important, in fact indispensable, piece of the puzzle was being left out. We will call this piece the "necessary prerequisite" to defining feminine modesty. By "necessary prerequisite" it is intended that there is a truth that must of necessity be recognized in order to understand what is meant by feminine modesty.
Imagine yourself being handed a rather complicated looking piece of equipment, a tool of some sort with which you are unfamiliar. If the person who handed the tool to you instructed you to use it in a fitting and suitable manner with propriety and good sense, you would surely inquire as to what he meant by these words. If in response to your query he further explained that it was to be used in a modest and reasonable manner, he would be adding little clarification to his first command. Being unfamiliar with the tool makes it difficult, actually impossible, to use it in a proper or sensible way. The necessary prerequisite with regard to this equipment has to do with a correct knowledge of its designed purpose. What was it designed to do? Moderate use of a tool designed to turn a screw would be quite different than moderate use of a tool designed to break cast iron. The ability to use the equipment sensibly, reasonably, and rationally is contingent upon understanding the tool's designed purpose.
This necessary prerequisite (a correct knowledge of its designed purpose) regarding an object's proper use would seem to be universal. In order to discern and declare what is appropriate or inappropriate use for any object, we must have a correct understanding of its purpose. An object may be said to be used improperly, unbecomingly, irreverently, unreasonably, and even immodestly when used contrary to the purpose for which it was designed. When this assertion is understood and assented to, the topic of feminine modesty becomes much less confusing and difficult, and a consistent standard much less elusive.
A correct understanding of the purpose for which the female body was designed is the necessary prerequisite in understanding Paul's words regarding a woman's adornment.Paul's command that women dress modestly (i.e. decently, virtuously, and discreetly) lacks clear and concise direction when it is divorced from Paul's (and Timothy's) understanding of God's designed purpose for the feminine physical form. But when the designed purpose of the female form is recognized, Paul's words are seen to offer clear instruction. It is admitted that the words "designed purpose" are not found in Scripture, yet it is not difficult to ascertain such. If we can find divine approval regarding a particular use of the female body, it is necessarily implied that we have found the purpose for which God designed it.23
The fact that the female body provides physical and visual pleasure for men would seem self-evident in our day. Billboards, television, and print ads are all adorned with multitudes of mostly unadorned female bodies. The fashion industry designs many of its products for the express purpose of providing visual pleasure for men. Bras are designed to lift and separate breasts. Pants are designed to give the buttocks that "perfect" look. Necklines and hemlines are designed to tease and please men with the exposure of flesh.
Many Christians recognize this sinful exploitation of the female form. Some criticize and rebuke such immodesty. A few seek to shield themselves and their children from it. While heartily condoning righteous indignation directed toward the sexual licentiousness of contemporary society, we must recognize that the satisfaction and delight provided by the female body is by divine design. The inappropriate use of the feminine form in marketing, music, entertainment, and recreation by unbelievers, and professing believers, should not be cause for God's people to fail to declare and extol its appropriate use.
"…Rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love." (Proverbs 5:18-19 KJV) These verses are rendered in the English Standard Version as, "Rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe, let her breasts fill you at all times with delight, be intoxicated always in her love." Such instruction leaves little room for confusion regarding God's intent in designing a woman's breasts as he has. A woman's breasts are designed to provide visual and physical satisfaction, and delight for her husband.24 This design is not limited to the breasts.25
God in His great goodness has given women physical/sexual parts that bring great delight to men. A woman's breasts, pubic area, midriff, buttocks, hips and thighs are innately attractive to men.26 The pleasure they provide is ultimately physical, yet is often visual.
A standard for sexual purity and modesty that can be sustained solely by using Scripture and sound reason should be viewed as unquestionably biblical and therefore authoritative in the life of believers.
In light of Song of Solomon 4:5, 4:12-5:1, 7:3, 7:7-8, 8:10, and Proverbs 7:10 let us apply sound reason to Proverbs 5:18-19: "…let her breasts satisfy you at all times…"(KJV)/ " Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight…"(ESV)
1."Let her breasts" must be understood as ‘her breasts only' OR as ‘her breasts along with other women's breasts.'The interpretation ‘her breasts only' is the necessary conclusion.
2."Her breasts" must be understood as ‘only her breasts' OR as ‘her breasts as representative of all her sexual parts.'We necessarily conclude the latter.28
3.When we refer to the "delight or satisfaction" that her breasts etc. are to provide, it must be understood as delight of any sort, physical, visual, mental, OR delight and satisfaction in a limited sense, such as physical only, visual only, etc. Given that the Scriptures do not in any place restrict the pleasure a man may derive from his wife's body to being only physical, or only mental, or only visual, we are forced to conclude that the delight to be enjoyed may be physical, visual, or mental.
1st Deduction: When a man derives any type of delight or satisfaction from any sexual part of a woman's body other than his own wife's, he acts contrary to Scripture and thus sins.
We further reason:
1."Let her breasts satisfy/delight," must be understood as either meaning that a woman is obligated to provide her husband with sexual satisfaction by means of her breasts, buttocks, thighs, hips, midriff, pubic area, etc. OR that she is free to withhold such at her discretion.The former we affirm, the latter we deny.
2."Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight."The "you" must be understood as either referring to a woman's husband only OR it refers to someone other than, or in addition to, her husband.The former we affirm, the latter we deny.
2nd Deduction: Scripture commands that a woman's body is to provide satisfaction/delight for her husband, and only for her husband. Hence a woman's body is possessed inappropriately and sinfully when it is adorned in a manner that allows satisfaction or delight to be obtained by someone other than her husband.
A woman uses her body appropriately when she seeks to delight her husband with it. Her breasts etc. are gifts from God to her husband, which she has been entrusted to care for. If a woman withholds them from her husband or if she offers them begrudgingly, she sins.29 As the steward of these delightful gifts, she is called by God to present them to her husband joyfully;30 to do otherwise is to defraud her husband.31 Such behavior is a type of theft, much like the Brinks® guard who keeps for himself the money intended for deposit at the bank.
Despite what feminists and/or the Supreme Court might say, women do not have the ultimate right over their own bodies. This right belongs to God, and Christian women must live with conscious and continual reference to this truth.
Those who belong to Christ are not their own. They have been bought with a price. Therefore, they must glorify God with their bodies.32 They must possess their bodies in a manner compatible with the purpose for which it has been designed and not contrary to it.
Our Thesis: A Biblical Standard of Modesty
Biblical modesty requires a woman to cover all sexual parts of her body. This must be done in such a manner so as to prevent anyone, other than her husband, from deriving visual delight from them. Hence, a woman adorns herself immodestly when she exposes, or covers in such a way as to leave evident the form of, any sexual part: breasts, buttocks, hips, thighs, midriff, or pubic area.33 Such immodesty is a sin against God. It is a sin against her husband (or future husband) as well, who has sole, God given rights to such displays. Also, sin is committed against any man who will be subject to this illegitimate display, in that it provokes him to find delight in one other than his own wife.34 Lastly, a sin is committed against other women, so far as such immodesty makes their job of satisfying their husbands more difficult.
Some Christians, in their desire to keep the culture's immorality out of the church, often establish dress codes; some of which are put in writing while others are disseminated verbally. By and large, these dress codes are arbitrary or patently inconsistent [i.e. One-piece bathing suits are allowed while two-piece suits are condemned as immodest. Swimsuits are permitted only in the pool area, otherwise they are deemed inappropriate. Shorts must be a given length ("no more than ‘one, two, three…' inches above the knee") or they are judged immodest.]
Though no one ever explains why a two-piece bathing suit is immodest and a one-piece is not, or how an inch of leg exposure crosses the line from modesty to immodesty, such standards salve consciences. When we are walking by the spirit we are willing to strive intellectually and emotionally in doing the difficult work of learning to distinguish good from evil in all situations. When we operate carnally, we are content with arbitrary and inconsistent dress codes. Such article-specific dress codes often indulge our flesh with a deluded sense of personal piety. Submitting to an "objective" standard recognized by those in our circle makes us feel righteous or spiritually mature. This carnal contentedness is a far cry from our duty, for our duty requires that we test everything and that we take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.35
A list of clothing articles that are supposedly appropriate or inappropriate at all times is insufficient at best, and misleading at worst. For example, to say that all pants/slacks are inappropriate wrongly condemns the pants worn by Indian women, as part of a Punjabi suit (baggy slacks covered to below the knee by a loose fitting top.) Equally insufficient is a standard that states that a woman is adorned modestly because she is in a dress, when in fact, many dresses and skirts are designed to give virtual anatomy lessons.
The task of discerning what can and cannot be worn is accomplished not by referring to an authoritative list of acceptable clothing articles, but rather by a consistent and comprehensive application of the biblical standard. With each piece of clothing, the question must be asked, "Does this item expose, or make evident the form of my breasts, my buttocks, my hips, my thighs, midriff, or my pubic area?" With this question answered, we can positively conclude if any particular item of clothing should be worn. To this standard we can add: if any article of clothing is questionable, then it is not to be worn in public.36 For whatever cannot be worn in faith is sin.
The standard of modesty thus proposed is antithetical to the fashion ethos of our day, as well as to the fashion habits of many, if not most, professing Christians. The majority of Christian women adorn themselves in fashions designed to reveal rather than conceal their form. They then seek to excuse their immodesty with fallacious reasoning. Many women consider their adornment to be modest because it is tame when compared to others. Gross immodesty, however, does not render lesser immodesty modest. The woman who wears a top that exposes the flesh of her breasts, and the woman who "merely" wears a clingy top that exposes the shape of her breasts are both dressed immodestly, albeit the former more so. In like manner, a woman who wears pants that fit like a glove, and a woman whose pants only partially outline her buttocks, and mildly showcase her pubic area, are both guilty of immodesty, though, admittedly, one more so than the other. In each of the cases above, the women are illegitimately presenting for public appreciation that which has been designed for their husband's eyes only.
A Christian woman may find herself dressed "modestly" when compared to the whorishly dressed ladies of our day. However, this should comfort her little, in that her "relative modesty" may nonetheless be immodest. The God-fearing woman's goal should be to adorn her body in a manner that honors God's designed purpose, irrespective of what others are wearing.
Another common response that supposedly excuses immodest dress is that of intention, or motives. Is a woman free from the charge of immodesty because she is not intending to display her body inappropriately? Admittedly, intentions or motives are important, for God judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.37 Presumptuous sin is judged more harshly in Scripture than non-presumptuous,38 though non-presumptuous sin is still sin. Even though motives are important, they are not all-important. All transgression of God's law is sin.39 Thus, a woman must concern herself with her heart as well as with her clothing.
Many women will shelter themselves, ostensibly, behind the authority of their husbands in order to continue to dress immodestly. "My husband is not persuaded of the position put forth in this pamphlet and is pleased with the way I presently dress." Such a statement ignores the God-ordained limits for all human authority. No earthly authority (i.e.: parent, husband, pastor, employer, government) can legitimately require us to go against God's word.40 When a husband expects, or requests, that his wife dress in a manner contrary to the biblical standard of modesty, he must be respectfully disobeyed.
It is also a common practice for Christians to argue for a standard of modesty that is conditioned by environment. Although our discussion thus far has been formed in such a way as to disallow environmental exceptions without comment, we will speak to it nonetheless because of its popularity. A standard that is "conditioned by environment" is one in which what is immodest in one environment may be perfectly modest in a different environment. Such a standard supposes that swimwear would be inappropriate for the supermarket, but not for the beach; or that adornment deemed immodest and provocative on a forty five-degree spring day could be appropriately donned on a hot summer afternoon. Such arguments are vain, given the divine design for the female body. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that we may deduce or infer from the aforementioned scriptures, that in certain circumstances a woman may present for public appreciation, the parts of her body meant for her husband's private delight.
The standard of modesty presented in this booklet brings directly into question a nearly universal contemporary medical practice: The practice of men providing obstetrical/gynecological care for women. This circumstance, wherein a man views or touches a woman's breasts, thighs, buttocks, pubic area, midriff, and vagina, even if ostensibly only for medical reasons, is a clear violation of the biblical standard, and is sinful.
This illegitimate practice in which a woman undresses and allows a man other than her husband to touch her most sexual areas, under the cloak of medical necessity, is deeply ingrained into our culture. This fact is due to the practice's near universal acceptance, rather than any longstanding historical precedence. Of course, neither historical precedence nor universal acceptance can legitimize a practice that contradicts the standard presented by God's word.
Why do millions of Christian women subject themselves to this sinful and unseemly practice? Why do an equal amount of Christian men permit the chastity of their wives and daughters to be violated in this way? Most of the present generation has been trained into this unbiblical behavior by their parents. Most young girls are brought for their first pelvic exam by their mothers, with the consent or indifference of their fathers. Whatever natural hesitancies a teenage girl may voice are calmly rebuffed with a mother's reassurance that, "This it the way such things are done." Thus, a life long process of desensitization is begun. Young girls who are undoubtedly trained to some degree to cover their bodies in the presence of men41 are contrariwise instructed to uncover them for this "medical professional."
Whether explicitly by word, or implicitly by action, it is conveyed to girls and women (and wimpishly assented to by husbands and fathers) that this particular man is different. His professional training enables him to examine a woman's breasts in the same detached manner in which he would examine the tires on her car. He is presumably able to view and handle the most sensual and sexual areas of her body in the same way he would handle her groceries at the supermarket.
The presumption that this man is able to do these things in a sanctified manner is based upon the false assumption that he is not like other men. Other men derive sexual satisfaction and delight from visual and physical contact with a woman's breasts, etc. This man, however, by virtue of his medical or secular ethics training, is supposedly delivered from the sexual impulses and desires with which God created him.42 It is doubtful that many men or women really believe this ruse, though it is quite certain that many insist on pretending to believe it. For proof of this assertion I offer a bit of anecdotal evidence:
Some time ago a young lady wrote to Ann Landers explaining that she and her sister, who were in their mid 20's, had an ob/gyn father who insisted that they utilize his services for their gynecological needs. They were both uncomfortable with this proposition and asked Ann for her advice. Ann was appalled and disgusted by the father's suggestion and advised the young ladies to do nothing of the sort.
Most assuredly Ann Lander's response was in keeping with the sentiments of the vast majority of people. How many women, when given the option, would utilize the gynecological services of their brother or son or father? Ann Landers certainly wouldn't. She didn't buy into the professional detachment theory in this case (nor, obviously, did the young ladies).43 It would seem that a woman's ability to believe the myth of "professional detachment" can only be carried so far before innate modesty overcomes it. By God's common grace, a law of modesty has been written on our hearts, a law to which we have been able, by and large, to desensitize ourselves.44
The general principle of modesty allowing only a woman's husband to derive satisfaction or delight from her body stands unmoved by this supposed exception.45 Hence, despite the widespread acceptance of men performing ob/gyn care, the practice ought to be judged sinful and unacceptable for the Christian.
Given the clear standard of modesty set forth in the Scriptures, how has a nation so permeated with the Gospel, and populated with professing believers degenerated as it has? The whorish woman of Proverbs 5-7 who was easily identifiable in past generations is now difficult to identify in public. Whorish adornment is common fare from the work place to the market and from the country fair to the church. Wherein ought the guilt for this licentious atmosphere be placed? Many Christians feign righteous indignation as they point the finger of blame at cable television, MTV, perverse fashion designers, and movie stars. Such a gross display of blame shifting ought to appear obnoxious to those who know their Bible. Where in Holy Writ does God place the responsibility for a culture's moral climate on unbelieving entertainers or marketers?
God has declared that the church is to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth.46 In being salt, Christians living faithfully retard the moral corruption that sin inevitably produces in the societies of this fallen world. As light, believers living faithfully will lead men out of the darkness of sin by declaring and demonstrating the will of God. The moral corruption (immodesty, sexual promiscuity, and subsequent perversions) of our society is the fault of the church, the God ordained instrument for preserving righteousness within a culture.
More specifically, the burden of guilt is to be laid at the feet of the Christian men of the last few generations. Men as pastors, and men as heads of households, are to lead God's people in the way of personal purity that they may in fact, be salt and light unto the world.47 This is a far cry from the situation in which we find ourselves. Today, the church may be likened to a stable of geldings paraded about by pastoral eunuchs who look expectantly to matriarchs, both young and old, for direction.
If this material has kept your attention up until now, then the author would like to keep you a few moments longer. As each reader must respond to what has been written, a few possible responses are offered for your consideration.
1. Throw this booklet away? Forget about it? This will allow you to avoid much potential conflict within your home and church and among your friends. You should have conflict in your conscience though, for, so far as the thesis presented here is biblical, you will be in sin for ignoring it.
2. Prove wrong the central assertions of this work! This would be done by using scripture and sound reason to prove that:
a. A woman's breasts, buttocks, hips, thighs, midriff, and pubic area are not items designed to provide sexual satisfaction, or
b. Though such items are designed to give sexual delight, scripture allows such delight to be provided to men other than a woman's own husband.
If you are able to prove a. or b. true please forward your work to the author so that he might turn from his error.
3. To husbands and fathers: The common emasculated-male response would be to permit your wife and daughters to read the booklet first, govern your decisions based on your wives' and daughters' responses, and lead your home "lovingly" by allowing others to lead in your stead. This response will likely produce short-term, superficial peace in the home with a guarantee of God's disfavor and chastisement.
The only appropriate response is this: Acknowledge the truth of the argument put forth, repent of past sins, and purpose to live rightly in this area from now on.
Men: Begin to lead, anticipate conflict, and endeavor, by God's grace, to please God rather than men, women, or girls.
Ladies and girls: Live to the glory of God and adorn your bodies modestly, in accord with the purpose for which God designed them.
Soli Deo Gloria!
[1] Rom. 12:2, Eph. 4:23-24 [2] I Thess. 5:21 [3] Rom. 12:9 [4] II Cor. 10:5 [5] This treatise is not intended to persuade non-Christians, or the legion of professing Christians who obstinately refuse to have their behavior corrected in this area.Both of which refuse to submit to the Bible as their final authority. This paper should be read in a slow and contemplative manner, since the author's style may not allow the content to be easily apprehended by a fast or superficial skimming. [6] Contemporary Christian Music [7] II Tim. 3:16-17 [8] By the term "Sufficiency of Scripture" is meant that "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture…"(London Baptist Confession of Faith 1.6) [9] Ps. 119:105 [10] Ps. 119:9 [11] II. Tim. 3:16-17 [12] Jer. 17:5 [13] Ps. 1, Ps. 119, and Ps. 19:7-11, make this point abundantly clear [14] II. Tim. 3:16-17 [15] II Peter 1:3 [16] Ps. 119:9 [17] Judg. 17:6 [18] See "legalism," Dictionary of Theological Terms, Alan Cairns, Ambassador Emerald International [19] Rom. 3:24-28, Eph 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5These scriptures testify to the truth that salvation is of God's free Grace, and is not contingent on our works. [20] "Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it 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…" (Ps. 1, Ps. 19:7-10, Ps 119, II Tim. 3:16-17); L.B.C.F 19.6 [21] Autonomous: Self governing [22] The works consulted: Vine's Expository Dictionary, UBS Greek Dictionary, Strong's Concise Dictionary of Words in the Greek Testament, Friberg's Greek Lexicon, Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon, New Testament Commentary William Hendriksen, Barnes on the New Testament [23] The author recognizes multiple purposes in the divine design of the female body.Mentioned here, however, is only that designed purpose which facilitates the need for a woman to cover her body. [24] S.S. 7:7-8 "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples…" (NIV) Here again, we see female breasts providing physical delight and pleasure. [25] The word breasts in Proverbs 5:19 is employed in a figure of speech known as synecdoche (See Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p.84.) This is where, among other things, a part is used as representative of a whole or a species as representative of a genus. For example, when Paul says in Ephesians 5:18 "Do not be drunk with wine…" he uses wine as representative of all alcoholic beverages. In Proverbs 5:19 the word breasts is used as representative of all a woman's sexual parts "…let your wife's breasts (i.e. buttocks, thighs, midriff, hips, pubic area) satisfy you."
The assertion that breasts is intended to be representative of all sexual parts is sustained based on the nature of the synonymous parallelism. "…let her breasts satisfy thee at all times and be thou ravished always with her love" is an inverted synonymous parallelism. In such a grammatical construction the second part of the parallelism expands on the first in order to further explain it (See Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p.144 ff,[esp.150] See also, Michelson, Interpreting the Bible, p.324.) In the parallelism under consideration, the intended meaning of breasts is understood to be broadened by the term love, while the term satisfy is understood to be further explained by the term ravished. Conversely, the sense intended for ravished is qualified by the word satisfy (i.e. delight), while the type of love intended is qualified by the term breasts (i.e. sexual/physical,)
Further support for the present assertion is found in the following commentary on Song of Songs 4:12-5:1. "In this wasf the climactic focus is on the woman's vagina, likened to a marvelous and sweet smelling garden, a well-watered fountain. These are common ancient near-eastern images of a woman's vagina." (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Song of Songs, p.806, Intervarsity Press, 1998.)
[26] By definition, it is unnecessary to prove to any honest and self-aware man that a woman's breasts, buttocks, hips, thighs, midriff, and pubic area are innately attractive to men. Any woman who is a discerning observer of our culture's exploitation of the feminine form ought to readily recognize this as well. When photographers or marketers use the female body to entice men or to sell a product, the areas of the body upon which they focus are those mentioned above.
It is acknowledged that parts of a woman's body other than breasts, buttocks, hips, thighs, midriff, and pubic area may be presented in a manner designed to provoke sexual stimulation. The author would argue that this does not make them innately sexual and in need of covering. For example: A woman's lower leg (calf, ankle, and foot, which are not innately sexual) may be adorned to be sexually provocative. High heels, ankle bracelets, and black fish net stockings may be used to call attention to the lower leg and provoke sexual interest. In the same way, a woman's face and hair, which are not innately sexual and do not provoke innate sexual desires in men, may none the less be presented in a sexual, and hence immodest way. Cosmetics, jewelry, and hairstyling, which may be used to make a woman appear neat and/or becoming, may also be used to produce sexual stimulation.
The fact that ankles, hair, eyes, etc. can be adorned in such a way as to produce sexual attraction does not make them by nature sexual. Speech, which can be adorned to be sexually provocative, is not by nature sexual. Similarly, walking, standing, and eating are not by nature sexually provocative, but each may be practiced in a manner designed to provoke sexual delight.
As this footnote began, so now it ends: it is unnecessary to prove to any honest and self-aware man that a woman's breasts, buttocks, hips, thighs, midriff, and pubic area are innately attractive to men.Only the dishonest or self-deceived, will balk at the list of feminine body parts asserted to be sexual by nature and in which men are by nature prone to find sexual delight.
[27] By sound reason is meant reason that at no point contradicts Scripture. [28] See endnote 25 [29] God has provided a practical antidote to the sins of pornography, fornication, and adultery.Each woman is to ravish her husband with her sexual gifts.The fact that pornography and sexual infidelity are at alarming levels within the church clearly points to a degree of negligence on the part of Christian women.The author hopes to address this in a subsequent paper. [30] A woman also sins if she fails to maintain her sexual gifts. Excessive weight gain, failure to exercise, or failure to practice proper hygiene may be sin if diminished delight is the result. [31] I Cor. 7:5 [32] I Cor. 6:19-20 [33] As was discussed at endnote 26, the presentation of a non-sexual part in a manner designed to provoke sexual interest is also immodest and sinful. [34] Matt. 18:6"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." No small condemnation is directed at those who provide opportunity for others to sin. [35] I Thess. 5:21 and II Cor. 10:5 [36] Clothing that exposes the flesh or form of a woman's sexual parts may be worn privately for her husband's pleasure, with God's blessing. [37] Jer. 17:10, Heb. 4:12 [38] See Num. 15:29-30, Luke 12:47-48, and Heb. 10:26 [39] I John 3:4 [40] Dan. 3:17-18, 6:10,Acts 4:19, 5:29 [41] All women practice some degree of modesty.This is brought about by conscience, parental training, and social pressure, all by-products of God's law being written on men's hearts. (Rom. 2:14-15) [42] Anyone who believes the Bible regarding the absolute corruption of the human heart before conversion as stated in Genesis 6:5, Psalm 58:3, Jeremiah 13:23, 17:9, John 3:19, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 8:5-8, etc., and who assents to the power of remaining sin in the believer (Romans 7:14-25, Galatians 5:17), recognizes the utter stupidity of such a proposition. [43] This is an odd perspective within the thinking of those who would typically assert a caregiver's ability to be detached from the overt sexual nature of the procedure. Who would, by nature, have a greater ability to practice some form of detachment than a woman's own son, brother, or father?
The author would also suggest that were we to survey the female staff members of male ob/gyn doctors, we would assuredly find that the detachment theory does not provide them with sufficient confidence to utilize their employer's services in this area.
[44] The author's ability to assent to the assertion that a professional is different than other men was shattered a number of years ago by a personal experience. The author awakened to his willful blindness in this area as he overheard a hospital doctor boast to one of his nurses that he had just had the ‘privilege' of giving a sixteen year old girl her first pelvic examination. This was done despite an initial request by the girl's mother that the exam be done by a woman. [45] The author recognizes that a case could be made and sustained biblically to allow for an exception in the case where a life is in danger, such as: emergency medical circumstances and disasters such as fires and accidents. Time and space preclude developing this argument presently. [46] Matt. 5:13-16 [47] In light of Prov. 2:1 ff, 3:1 ff, 4:1 ff, 5:1 ff, Titus 2:15, I Tim. 3:1-5, 4:11, II Tim. 4:2, Eph. 6:4, Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:7, 17 etc., pastors and husbands/fathers are expected to know what godly living is (including modesty) and are expected to model it, teach it, and command it in their respective spheres. Recognized is the fact that this must be done with gentleness, tact, and all longsuffering, but, nonetheless, it must be done. It is acknowledged that a man with an unregenerate wife is not expected to be able to lead her in this, or any area.
Larry White <sovereigngracebaptistchurch@gmail.com. 315.678.2337. 3301 Ira Hill Rd, Cato NY 13033
It does not seem possible, but another year has passed. Let me assure you, it is all downhill from 50 years old on. And the hill gets steeper as you go. It seems like we are on a sled in the snow on one of these mountains. So here is our end of the year account of what has been happening around the Need household in VA. This past year has been eventful, as always.
Bettie just celebrated the birth of her 18th grandchild, November 17th, and the 4th grandchild of 2006, a boy born to Joshua and Julie (her youngest daughter) Flournoy. Matt and Jennie (her oldest daughter) Chancey had twin boys in April, and David Ethell (the middle child) had their 5th child, a little girl, in August. Obviously, we are blessed with many grandchildren.
Christina is at home with us, working on sewing and learning other homemaking skills. My oldest daughter, Jessica, and her husband, Corey DeShong are in Franklin Ohio. Both are involved in very stressful retail management.
We started the year with a car accident on May 23rd. We were rearended in Oklahoma at a stop sign. Bettie tore a rotator cuff on her left shoulder, requiring surgery, November 14th. She recovered from the surgery quickly. However, she also got a case of the "shingles," which did not help matters. Christina had a neck injury, which was fixed quickly by a chiropractor. My neck injury still gives me problems, though the chiropractor has done every thing possible.
We put our house on the market last spring, planning to move to the other side of the Massanutten Mountain to Toms Brook, with Bettie's son, David, and his family. We moved a lot of our stuff into a building he has on the property. We then set aside the spring to build, which did not work out. So we are still in Front Royal, where the property tax is going out of reach for the average person. Though we are about 60 miles from the DC beltway, we are quickly turning into a bedroom community for DC. (Though we cannot see the commute traffic from our house, we can hear it going past us from Luray to DC, starting at about 4:30 AM.) As you know, DC is the home of the fiat money machine, nothing but a ledger entry, so the fiat money flows freely to all on the government "dole." (There are many Scriptural responsibilities assigned to the national government. But its Biblical responsibilities are being trashed [Biblical justice, &c.] while totally anti-Christ activities are being praised and financed.) That fiat money drives up the prices of everything, as the DC crowd that is moving here demands the government services to which they have grown accustomed.
I celebrated my 65th birthday, August 14th. Like others, I feel like a 30 year–old, trapped in a worn out 65 year old body. I can still walk my two miles on a tread mill in under 28 minutes with no problem. I normally walk outside, except during deer season, down a big hill to the Shenandoah river, which is about a mile behind us.
We held our annual celebration of my October 29th, 1999, heart attack in the Front Royal ER. I think I have only missed one celebration. I told my wife we are going to mark the date on our calender, and get a room near the Martinsburg WV VA Hospital, so we will not have to pay the exorbitant ER fees here in Front Royal. By the time we got to the ER, everything was almost normal again. However, they would not let me go until they did everything possible that they could charge for.
I tried to go back to work as an operating engineer to help generate some income. My deal with the employer was that I would work for a week to see if I could recover the "touch" on a dozer. I still had the "touch," but would require some time to regain the speed. ($14 an hour, which was my pay in 1966 as an operator, the same as now.) However, my upper spine (seventh vertebra) is deteriorated enough that I could not handle the rough ride. My left arm pain kept me awake that night, and it took two days to get the proper feeling back in my arms. (The "appraisal" by a military orthopedic specialist when my lower back would not heal [1961] was that I probably had a mild case of polio as a young child. The virus remains in the body, and seems to affect the left side of my body as I get older.)
Bettie is hoping to have her right knee replaced as soon as possible. When she was pregnant with her youngest child, she slipped on a wet floor in a store. She fell with her right knee bent under her. The results now, many years later, is that she has no cartilage in that knee, and it is bone on bone. The pain is terrible.
On the positive side. We have encountered many opportunities to minister in the Lord's name.
We have started a work in West Virginia with a Saturday evening Bible Study. We hope to expand it into a regular Sunday gathering of believers. Presently, we drive about 60 minutes to church in Harrisonburg. Another family drives about 70 minutes to the same church, coming from WV. Pastor Lloyd Sprinkle, Providence Baptist Church, has for many years desired to start a ministry in their area of WV, between Baker and Moorefield. Though the distance to there is about the same as it is for us to Harrisonburg, we must cross the Allegheny mountains on a well traveled two lane rode straight west of us, US 55. There is not a Baptist Church, nor any Reformed work of any kind, within many miles of that valley. The family there has visited about all the churches around them, finding them all Politically Correct, offending no one except Bible believing Christians. The only one they could find that teaches Scripture is in Harrisonburg. There is not even a good Bible believing and teaching, dispensational, arminian church in that area. So, we have placed our property here in Front Royal on the market again, and have placed "earnest money" on a newly built house. The house is a few miles off "Corridor H," which is Robert Byrd's pork project highway turning Route 55 into four lanes across the top of the mountains in central WV. "Corridor H" is planned to connect with I-81 in VA, which will put our location within maybe 2 hours of DC. In addition, the federal money machine is going to spread some of the debt around here with two new large facilities to house FBI and FEMA in the Winchester area. That will add at least another 2,000 people to the federal dole. We are close to the money machine, which is always looking for ways to increase its power and control, and our debt load (which is now a couple of hundred thousands per man, woman and child). As a man once told me, "There is nothing too good for the taxpayers." However, that "money" is nothing but an electronic ledger entry with which real goods and services are confiscated.
We have signed a contract on a new house. Pray that our property will sell for a fair price. The new address will be (is not yet): 2141 North River Road, Baker WV. 26801. Our VOIP phone numbers will probably remain the same.540 754 1565 or 1 866 754 0860.
We are forming a CMA chapter in Winchester, which will now be over an hour from our new location in WV. (Christian Motorcyclist Association. Read CMA's impressive doctrinal statement at http://www.cmausa.org/ CMA has a stronger doctrinal statement and is harder to "join" than about any church I know of.) I have been elected president of the chapter, and Bettie the secretary/treasurer. CMA gives an excellent opportunity to minister into an ignored area, the motorcycle community. Though we will be in WV, Winchester is the closest CMA chapter. CMA has a presence for Christ at major biker events such as Sturgis (http://www.sturgis.com/), Daytona Beach Bike Week (http://www.daytonachamber.com/bwhome.html), Myrtle Beach Bike Week (http://www.myrtlebeachbikeweek.com/), and Rolling Thunder (http://www.rollingthunder1.com/). In fact, the CMA chapter we joined in Manassas VA, has been asked by Rolling Thunder to be involved in the organization of the event in 2007. (Many tens of thousands "bikers" attend that rally in DC in memory of MIAs and POWs. This year will be Rolling Thunder XX, and the 25th anniversary of the Viet Nam Wall.) CMA has an excellent Christian reputation even among the most "pagan bikers," and many biker event organizers request CMA presence. Bettie and I have represented CMA at some bike shows, and look forward to that opportunity of ministry whenever possible. It certainly is a different experience than anything we are used to. "Bikes" give a common ground to speak to many people who would not speak to Christians otherwise. (Strangely enough, the director of our Winchester HOG chapter encouraged us to start a CMA chapter in Winchester, though HOG (Harley Owners Group) cannot officially recognize CMA. Though the owner of the H-D dealership is not a Christian, she has encouraged a CMA presence at her dealership at any event she hosts.) At a recent HOG chapter meeting, a newly retired fireman said he teaches an advanced motorcycle riding safety course. They have two locations, and the classes are full 7 days a week, consisting mostly of women. About everyone who speaks about riding points out that one of the primary reasons for riding is the feeling of freedom. Putting 2 & 2 together—the modern woman likes a motorcycle because it gives her the feeling of freedom.
Our Second Marriage book now has a name, Bettie and the Biker—lessons from a second marriage for all marriages. We are trying to get the manuscript into an orderly fashion, so we can at least send a rough draft to a publisher. Pray with us that the Lord will direct in the writing and will provide a publisher. Our fellowship with other Christians in the CMA has reminded us of the need for such a book. We have found that many members have been saved out of a "biker" life style, and are divorced and remarried. We believe the book will be beneficial to them and others like them.
The opportunities of service to our Lord and King are limited only by physical endurance, time and finances.
Job 7:6 My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent without hope. James 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. (Job 7:7, 9:25, 26, 14:1, 2, Psalms 39:5, 89:47, 90:6, Isaiah 38:12, 1 Peter 1:24, 4:7.)
We have had many past opportunities to do the will of God. (1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.) But opportunities continue. Regardless of our age, there is always something we can be involved in for his glory. There must be no retirement from involvement in the open doors the Lord provides, and those doors may be in the most unexpected areas.
Ephesians 5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
Redeeming—that is, "to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own."
65 years old!! It does not seem possible. Yet opportunities abound for making "wise and sacred use" of what time we have left, for his glory.
Pray with us and for us.
A pastor friend asked me, Would I want my daughter to marry a man, or my son to be like those in the book? I had to answer, "No, except for Robert E. Lee or Davy Crockett." Obviously, all the men mentioned had courage, as all young men should have. However the rest of the men were blasphemers and drunks. Real men are men of consistent and strong Christian character. Yes, we desire our young men to have courage and determination as did the men in the book, but Christian character must be the number one point in any real man.
Thanks for all you do to bring truth to the nations and Glory to God, the lost to repentance and faith in Christ.
The Herringtons, Texas.
Dear Bro. Need
May the Lord bless your ministry. You and Bettie are in my daily prayers.
In Christ, Robert Gairing, Stevensville, MT
Dear Editor,
I read with great interest the article, Blood Money-The Civil War and the Federal Reserve by Remington Graham (Nov. 2006). It is excellent.
Growing up in the public school system, I believed what I was taught about the so-called "Civil War." Calling it that is an oxymorn.
I married a girl from Arkansas. I begin studying the War of Northern Aggression. We have visited almost all the major battlefields, prison camps and monuments both federal and state. My wife's great grandfather fought and was wounded in the battle of Pea Ridge, AR. The South was right!
The book, Blood Money, should be required reading in the high schools and Universities. In fact all Americans who are interested in history and in the survival of the United States should read it. It tells the truth about the War of Northern Aggression.
In my library, I have a section on the War of Northern Aggression and a collection of articles on the war. The article, The Civil War and the Federal Reserve, is the best article that I have seen that summerizes the war.
Sincerely, Ray F. Dively, Baden, PA
By Thomas Williamson
For the purpose of this article, we will define "Militarism" as an attitude among followers of the Christian Right and other conservative Americans, which favors an aggressive, military approach to foreign policy problem-solving.
Militarism is that which favors "pre-emptive first strikes" and military intervention in foreign nations, based on such justifications as total obedience to the President, looking for weapons of mass destruction, revenge for 9-11, war on terrorism, nation building, clash of civilizations, bringing democracy to the Third World, fulfillment of Bible prophecy, etc. (Desire to help Israel and to control foreign oil reserves are also possible reasons for our military actions, but these motives are not supposed to be discussed publicly).
The Christian Right in general has become known for its support for militarism. This attitude is widespread among fundamentalists, evangelicals, charismatics and other segments of the Christian Right. Prominent televangelists and prophecy teachers are regularly trotted out in support of militarism, to assure the faithful that God's will is being done as we fight in the Middle East, and that "the stage is being set" for fulfillment of ancient Biblical prophecies.
(However, there are some Christians who wonder if the Bible really commands us to kill people or start wars for the purpose of fulfilling speculative Armageddonist prophecy scenarios that may not even have any real basis in Bible prophecy).
The impression is sometimes given that all Bible-believing, conservative Christians support militarism, or that they ought to do so as an expression of their Christian faith. The perception of the general public, nationwide and worldwide, is that evangelical Christians in America provide the main bulwark of support for our war in Iraq.
(Of course, there is nothing new about the role of organized religion in supporting war. In World War I, churches on both sides of the conflict dutifully supported that disastrous war, and some observers feel that this use of religion to promote war is partly to blame for the lack of interest in God and religion on the part of the disillusioned masses of Europeans from that time until now).
Is it possible that we as fundamentalist Christians will create disillusionment and turn people away from our faith, by our insistence on keeping the war going in Iraq, even when good conservative Republicans like Henry Kissinger and Senator Chuck Hagel say that the war is unwinnable? Should we make support for the war in Iraq a test of fellowship, when at most only 27% of Americans now support the war as it is currently being fought?
Perhaps we should also pay attention to the possibility that the effectiveness of American missionaries to foreign countries may be adversely affected by the perception that American Christians are promoting militarism.
Recently I spoke with an independent Baptist missionary to a Third World country, who criticized the militaristic emphasis of American Christianity. He told me that our militaristic stance is harmful to the work of American missionaries overseas, and that he and other missionaries have to disassociate themselves from that militarism or risk losing their effectiveness. He stated that it would be "terrible" if America invaded Iran, since it would make it appear that America was trying to run the entire world.
This missionary's perception was that the association of American missionaries with militarism would be a hindrance to the progress of the Gospel. Of course, his views do not necessarily represent the views of all Baptist missionaries, but nevertheless his perspective is worthy of consideration.
Thomas Starkes, in the book "Mission 2000" (written in 1979) discusses the question of the identification of the American missionary with militarism and imperialism: "Missions for the future will need a sense of the mystery, human variety, creativity and worth as made in God's image. This sense will aid the American missionary to drop his need to control. The control-syndrome has plagued some missionaries of the past. There is currently an innate American need to control the world. We feel we must unilaterally control every aspect of nature to maximize our wealth. Thus, we must control our wealth to enjoy it. In turn, we must control our neighbor so that he or she will not steal ‘our' privileges. So, we must control world markets and resources [including oil? - editor] so that our society will prosper. This requires a military establishment capable of controlling the hostile impulses of other societies who must also have military establishments aimed at controlling our covetous impulses. The end result is a constant compulsion to control the resultant balance of terror.
"Christian missions of the future can be a sign to those who think they must control. Missionaries who would be a sign of freedom (not control) must build the church and other societal institutions on creative social patterns based on mutual respect rather than mistrust, competition, conformity and manipulation."
As Americans with a mostly white European ethnic background, it is perhaps natural to feel that we, and other peoples like us (such as Great Britain, and Israel, which was recently settled by newcomers mostly from Europe and North America) should provide guidance and benevolent rule to the less enlightened peoples of the world. [Modern Israel is populated by Anglo-Saxons who adopted the Jewish religion. They do not claim to be descendants of Jacob, but they have not done anything to correct others who make that claim. Ed]
When it comes time to invade Third World countries and do nation-building there for their own good, we are assured that the military operation will be a "cakewalk" and that the natives will welcome us as liberators. When it turns out that the "liberated" peoples do not really want us imposing our rule on them, and the nation-building mission becomes a "long hard slog," naturally we become resentful at the ungratefulness of the benighted peoples we are trying so hard to help.
We attribute malevolent motives to them (they hate us because we are free, etc) and we become more determined to do whatever needs to be done until the mission is accomplished.
As the years drag on and the war continues with no end in sight, support for the war dries up, except among evangelical Christians who perceive the war as beneficial for purposes of fulfilling Armageddon scenarios and "setting the stage" for Christ's return. Evangelicals who do not believe in killing, bombing and torture for purposes of "fulfilling prophecy" are regarded as infidels by the Christian Right. Meanwhile, resentment on the part of non-evangelicals, and foreigners, grows against evangelical Americans who are seen as lobbying to keep the war going in order to help Israel and "fulfill prophecy."
Gordon MacDonald of World Relief has sounded forth a warning on what our support for militarism is doing to the image of American Christians in the Third World: "We are now part of an evangelical movement that is greatly compromised - identified in the eyes of the public as deep in the hip pockets of the Republican party and administration. My own belief? Our movement has been used. There are hints that the movement once cobbled together by Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga is beginning to fragment because it is more identified by a political agenda that seems to be failing and less identified by a commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom.
"Like it or not, we are pictured as those who support war, torture, and a go-it-alone (bullying) posture in international relationships. Any of us who travel internationally have tasted the global hostility toward our government and the suspicion that our President's policies reflect the real tenets of Evangelical faith.
"And I might add that there is considerable disillusionment on the part of many of our Christian brothers/sisters in other countries who are mystified as to where American evangelicals are in all of this. Our movement may have its Supreme Court appointments, but it may also have compromised its historic center of Biblical faith. Is it time to let the larger public know that some larger-than-life evangelical personalities with radio and TV shows do not speak for all of us?"
Gary Cutler of Wesleyan Bible Prophecy has sounded forth a similar alarm: "Why do so many around the world now seem to be hating us? Could it have anything to do with our idolatrous pride and self-righteousness? Could it have anything to do with the evident hypocrisy involved in our foreign policy, and in our religion, wherein millions among us claim to follow Jesus Christ, but neither believe, nor obey, His teachings?
"Friends, the so-called ‘Christian Right' in America today is in a SEVERE state of antinomian heresy. And it is this very church-world departed from biblical Christianity in America today, friends, that is supporting the prevailing Nietzscheian political agenda of ‘might makes right' that, in turn, is causing our beloved country to be increasingly hated around the world.
"The Bible says that when a man's ways please the Lord, He makes his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). In a better spiritual day, friends, 9-11 would have evoked humility and soul-searching, instead of a never-ending war on terror (Romans 12:19-21)."
We need to seriously consider the possibility that our support for militarism, which teaches that America has the right to bomb and attack any nation that is suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, or that does not meet our standards of democracy, may be a bad testimony that turns the peoples of the Third World away from our Gospel message. What is more important, the Great Commission or our militaristic political agenda?
Dave MacPherson, author of "The Rapture Plot," has raised the question, "Where are the followers of Christ commanded to pick up a sword and conquer non-believers with it - or even support such sword-bearers? Why have so many Christian Zionists, who seemingly give more attention to governments than to their Gospel, turned the Great Commission into the Great Commotion?
". . . [John] Hagee stated on July 19, 2006 that ‘The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West.' Which Bible verse inspired him to utter this - the one that says ‘Love ye your enemies' or the one saying ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord?'"
The argument could be made that it is right and proper for us as Christians to obey our government and support militarism, even if sinners are offended by our doing the right thing. But does God really require that we subordinate the preaching of the Gospel to any partisan political agenda?
Chester Tulga, in "The Case Against the Social Gospel," published in 1949, wrote: "The church must be in the world but not of it. A New Testament church must not only be separate from the secular state in name, but it must refuse to be used by the secular state for secular ends. The church which permits itself to the spiritual propaganda arm of a sinful state, hypocritically paying lip service to idealism in time of war, or the recruiting agent for the military forces in time of peace, or the supporter of a selfish and sinful international policy in the name of patriotism, or becomes a bulwark of class privilege or an apologist for class abuse, is in spirit a state church, having renounced its primary task, to bring all men and institutions under the criticism of the Word of God."
Tulga, describing the Old Testament prophets, said that "The prophets were true patriots, in that they did not affirm that one's nation is always right and its every action against other nations should be defended. They never advocated the victory of the nation apart from the will of God. . . . They were unalterably opposed to entangling foreign alliances which produced the same dubious partnerships as those in our day. (See Isaiah and Jeremiah)."
Jeremiah made a public protest against the foreign policy of the King of Judah in Jeremiah 27. The Old Testament records in detail the protests of Isaiah and other prophets against alliances with Egypt and Syria, and against various wars and military adventures of the governments of Judah. Even in the days of the Old Testament theocracy, believers were not expected to render blind support and obedience to unwise militaristic policies of their kings.
Some sincere supporters of militarism say that we ought to support pre-emptive wars because they help to advance the cause of Christianity in the Middle East. But is this the proper way to promote Christianity? When the Apostles wanted to call down an air strike on some uncooperative Third World peasants, Christ told them, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." (Luke 9:55-56).
Frank McClelland, writing in the Canadian Revivalist, has said, "The Bible-believing Christian position is clear. Christianity is never advanced by bloodshed. Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.' (John 18:36). . . . True Christianity is heavenly and spiritual, and is as opposed to the Roman Crusades of history as it is to Muslim violence in our day."
Bloodshed is necessary in a defensive war, but an offensive war fought on behalf of Christianity would be very questionable - would it be any different than the Islamic policy of spreading religion by the sword?
Some Christian Right preachers of militarism have been inconsistent in their application of the principle of blind obedience to our leaders. They cite President Bush as an authority to be followed when it comes to invading Iraq, but some of them opposed Bush with regard to his support of a Palestinian state, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the recently canceled Dubai ports deal. (For the record, I supported Bush on all 3 of those issues).
On what theological basis can we demand support of the war in Iraq "because Bush says so" while at the same time opposing Bush on such issues as Israel/Palestine policy, expanded immigration, etc?
Some militarists cite the teaching of a prominent conservative radio entertainer, who appears to hold the position that once the Commander in Chief has committed us to war, it is our duty to support that war without question. And yet that same radio entertainer, who is an admitted, self-confessed drug addict, openly opposed President Clinton's 1999 attack of Yugoslavia (also known as "Monica's War)." If this entertainer has the right to pick and choose which wars he will support, then on what basis are we required to support all wars without question?
Since militarism has become an issue for which we in the Christian Right have become so closely identified, we need to take time to consider the impact it may have on our witness and testimony to a world that needs the Gospel message that we are offering, but at the same time lives in fear of the aggressive American militaristic agenda that evangelical Christians have been supporting so avidly - a policy that affirms that America has the right and duty to bomb back into the Stone Age any nation in the world that gets in the way of our agenda as the world's only superpower.
We also need to consider the effects of that agenda on the effectiveness of our domestic impact and outreach. Voters in our recent November elections heavily repudiated militarism as expressed in our war in Iraq, voting out of office many conservative legislators who supported our views on abortion, the homosexual agenda, cloning and embryonic research, and who supported conservative Supreme Court justices. Was it worth it to suffer the losses we did on those issues, because of our promotion of the war in Iraq?
Is it worth it to identify ourselves so closely with the Republican Party, while Republican politicians deride us as "nuts" and use their power to line their own pockets and to buy votes with wasteful pork barrel spending, rather than to fight for our conservative social agenda?
I don't have all the answers to all these questions I have raised in this article - I am just asking. Do we have the integrity and courage to evaluate our political lobbying and politicking, to see if we are possibly driving away the people we are trying to reach (in the foreign fields and at home), while promoting a militaristic agenda that has nothing to do with the real work that the Lord has given us to do?
Surely it is not a sin to ask questions about the militaristic emphasis of modern evangelical Christianity, to determine whether such a policy is in harmony with the Bible or in conflict with what the Bible teaches.
The purpose of such an inquiry is not to spread discord among Christians, but rather to promote unity. We need to do one of two things - we need to develop and promulgate a Bible-based theological justification for militarism, one that all of us can understand and unite on. Or if we cannot do that, then we need to allow each other soul-liberty to disagree on this controversial issue, and to avoid demanding conformity of belief over this complex political issue on which good Christians disagree.
By Ben Wagner
[Editor's note: Ben is a 12 year old homeschooler who goes to our church. He had put this together for the last issue of the Examiner (for Veteran's Day), but I had already sent the Examiner to the printer before I received the final version. So here it is, one issue late.]
Steve Shifflett has lived in the Rockingham County/Harrisonburg area in Virginia all of his life, but with one exception. On March 17, 1966, he was drafted for a 2-year commitment in the United States Army during the Vietnam War.
The army took him from Harrisonburg through Roanoke and down to Fort Jackson in South Carolina. Some of the other men from Harrisonburg who were on the plane with him stayed behind in Fort Jackson for basic military training, but Mr. Shifflett was taken to Fort Gordon in Georgia for his eight weeks of training. He was told at the end of basic training he would go to Fort Sam Houston in Texas to train as a medic after leaving Fort Gordon. "When you are drafted," he said, "you don't get to pick what you are going to do in the army. During my processing for basic training at Fort Gordon, a sergeant mentioned about the job of chaplain's assistant. He thought that it was a good easy job. So I asked for it, not thinking I would get it."
During the Vietnam War, there were so many troops coming and being trained for certain jobs in the military that Mr. Shifflett thought that it was impossible for him to get the job of chaplain's assistant. Yet providentially, he got the job on the last day of his basic training and was sent to Fort Dix in New Jersey to train for it.
At Fort Dix, he was trained as a chaplain's assistant and had advanced training in basic military maneuvers. When he finished training at Fort Dix, he was sent to Vietnam. It was August 1966, and he was 19. He left from the McGuire Air Force base to Vietnam in a civilian 707 plane that was chartered by the military. They flew him to San Francisco to gas up. "The last thing I saw of the continental United States was the Golden Gate Bridge," he recalled. From there he went to Honolulu and then to Japan. He landed in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) in South Vietnam.
"When you landed, everyone on the plane was in a state of shock. You landed in a war zone; not a civilian airport. You see machine guns, barbed wire, soldiers. You get a reality of war. This isn't Fort Gordon or Fort Dix. This is war. It gets really personal. I went through the 90th Replacement Battalion, like everyone who came to Vietnam. I was sent to my unit from there." Like most men, he thought he was going to stop the spread of communism and to protect the poor innocent South Vietnamese from being subdued by evil. However looking back, Mr. Shifflett feels like he was a pawn in the hands of political leaders.
When he arrived at his unit, which was the 2nd Field Force Headquarters, they were living in tents. He fought in the 3rd Corp Tactical Zone, the area most heavily sprayed by Agent Orange. There were three chaplains for the 2nd Field Force Headquarters. The 2nd Field Force's was commanded by a three star general who had 80,000 troops under his command. The chaplain he worked with was a captain. His jobs were guarding the chaplain with a M14 rifle and driving the chaplain to services in the jeep. He also assisted in building churches and chapels. He frequently volunteered to accompany staff chaplains to hazardous locations on Sunday afternoons to provide religious services for the Green Berets in the III Corps Tactical Zone. He was promoted to Special Fourth Class and given a certificate, which he still has, to commemorate the honor.
"We had three services every Sunday morning, and about three services in the afternoon for the Special Op forces. Their camps were in the middle of the jungle and we traveled by helicopter" he recalled. "When I went over to Vietnam I was not a Christian. I grew up without knowing a single gospel truth. All I knew was Christ died on a cross. I didn't even know why. When I was a senior in high school, God started to deal with me. I remember a funeral, a great-uncle died. I can still remember some preacher who gave his funeral. He said, ‘Life is short but not meaningless.' That stuck with me. I started to read the Bible. I started going to church with my grandmother at a Lutheran church. When I was in basic training, I started to read the Bible even more, starting in Genesis. When I went to Vietnam, I was under a chaplain who didn't preach the Word. I continued to read and study the Bible. I didn't walk down an aisle. I was saved and I knew it."
After serving in Vietnam until December 1967, he was allowed to come back home. He returned the way he had left the United States. The only change from the original route was that he was to be flown to Travis Air Base in Oakland, CA. At the last minute, he was rerouted to San Francisco because President Lyndon Johnson was landing at Travis Air Base. "I guess they didn't want some Vietnam soldiers to attack him!" he laughed. The first thing he saw of the continental United States was once again the Golden Gate Bridge.
Mr. Shifflett thinks that the Iraq war is a lot like the Vietnam War. "It is so much like the Iraq war. Those poor soldiers over in Iraq, losing their arms and legs and many killed while the politicians that sent them never served in combat. You know that the United States government forgot the POWs and MIA'S that were left in Vietnam. They are either dead or living out their life in a small cell. I pray that doesn't happen in Iraq."
Thank you, Mr. Shifflett, for fighting honorably in the Vietnam War for our country!
Ben is the 12 year old son of Jeff and Leslie Wagner. They home educate their two children, Ben and Anna. The above was Ben's home work writing assignment.
Book Review
By Leon J. Podles (Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, TX. 1999)
Bettie's oldest daughter, Jennie Chancey, handed us this book. After Bettie read it, she told me it was a must read. Being a "Dick and Jane" victim of the 40s & 50s, I am a slow reader, to put it mildly. It takes far too long for me to muddle through a book, but this one is well worth the time.
Mr. Podles is a Roman Catholic, but he spares no words as he reveals the errors of both Rome and of the Protestants that have led the Feminization of Christianity that has identified Christianity with women rather than with men. I found the book very true from my personal experience of working with people. I also found it very distressing as I look around at what has happened to the church, and its dominance by woman and-or feminized men. He has placed his finger on the problem.
Mr. Podles' book is not the only one to address the Christian feminization problem in recent years, but it is the one placed in my hands. The points that Mr. Podles makes are so practical that this "review" will be more of a major length article than a review. The implications of his comments must be followed through. He quotes a great many sources, which we will not do. Rather, we will take his thoughts and "run with them".
I use the results he found in past as well as foreign surveys, but I do not give their origins nor dates. However, I only use the results that I myself have observed in my ministry which basically started in 1965.
Some of my thoughts will be disconnected, as I skip through this well-documented 288 pg paper bound book. I would urge you to get the book, but the radical departure from orthodox Christianity today has spawned so many "must-read" books that few people have time to read them all. So if you want to fill in the gaps that I have passed over, get the book, The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity.
On the first page of his introduction, he makes this statement (all "(pg. #)" are from The Church Impotent, unless otherwise noted):
Modern churches are women's clubs with a few male officers. (ix)
My limited experience has been just that. In many churches, the "touchy feely" atmosphere of the churches that are growing draw the women, and the women drag their fathers, boyfriends or husbands along with then, if they can get these men away from the sports or hunting channels on TV.
Podles points out that the problem is not a recent phenomenon; Cotton Mather also puzzled over the absence of men from New England, and medieval preachers claimed women practiced their religion far more than the men. However, this seems to be a uniquely Christian phenomenon, for those seeking to cling to Orthodoxy seem to have a good balance, and Islam and Judaism have a predominantly male membership.
Sports, war
The ideology of masculinity has replaced Christianity as the true religion of men. (xii)
Hunting, sports and war make men feel like men. (How many men today are suffering with bad knees as a result of high school sports?) In the past, these areas were exclusively male, but the masculinization of women has opened these fields to women. Anything with competition and violence attracts men, and the ultimate violence is war. War includes war stories, literature, and reenactments, where the reanactors assume the character of those they imitate. Thus, sporting events draw huge crowds where the spectators can identify with those involved in the contest. We have seen recently how "sporting events" can also turn into "war events".
I have observed that "Women go to church; men go to football games." (3.) In the modern Western world, laymen attend church activities because their wives, mothers or girlfriends pressure them. The overwhelming majority of conversation between men is sporting events, primarily football, hunting or fishing. Very few conversations, even at church, involve serious theology.
The strategy of American revivalists in the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s was to reach the men through their wives. Women were converted first, then they pressured the men in their lives to convert. (3.) Moreover, the women have been and continue to be far more active and loyal to the church than are the men.
Industrialization, particularly WWII, took women out of the home, placing them in industry, which had traditionally been a male domain. It led in the masculinization of women.
ENGINES EVERYWHERE. These women (pictured below) assembled engines for PB4Y Liberators at Consolidated-Vultee, Downey, California. Women who'd never before worked outside the home became technically skilled and very capable during the war. (Ethell, The Victory Era in Color. Reminisce Books, p. 24. This book in original color, shows the use of women in industry. See ww2color.com for a great many color images of women newly in the factories. We have hundreds more "women" images to scan and post.)
A key player in the retreat of the men from Christianity is Western industrialization.
I heard or read it somewhere that the most overlooked story of the twentieth century was the mass exodus of women from the home. The statement was made by a liberal author, yet he realized the destruction of the family brought about by the women fleeing their God-ordained role in the family.
Opponents of revivalism claimed that it "appealed to the weak-minded portion of the community, and while proponents of revival rejected this conclusion, they did not dispute assertions about the sex ration." (17.)
Feminization was present in the church. The emotionalism of revivalism appealed to the women, flooding the church with those women, giving Christianity a feminist reputation. The famous Charles Finney, who preached the Second Great Awakening the 1830s, commented that "Women composed the great majority of members in all churches. They dominated revivals and praying circles, pressing husbands, fathers and sons towards conversion and facilitating every move of the evangelist." (17, 18.) However, interest in religion had been weak among men from almost the very beginning of the English settlements. (18.)
Female zeal found outlets in such crusades as the temperance movement, in which female church members joined with ministers to conquer male vices, to the continued annoyance of men. (See Christian Feminism, http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/w199908.htm)
I should mention that the temperance movement was against all drinking, not just against drunkenness. I heard that Otto Scott said that if you want men in the church, the pastor should drink beer. (I do not support that idea, for the church is not a social club.)
We should also say that criminality and drug abuse are results of a distortion of masculinity. Inner-city crime can be linked to the loss of masculinity in the family, as men abandon their masculine roles as husbands and fathers, and the boys look for other ways to show their "manhood". "Gang wars" makes a boy feel like a man, much as national wars make solders feel like men. Go into a black church and observe the number of women and children vs. the men. (1960-1965, my Seabee Battalion of 600 men only had one black man in it, and he was an exceptionally good worker. I knew of no black men in the building trades, 1965-1970, after I got out of the Navy.)
Podles points out that it seems the clergy are not unhappy with the absence of men, for women are easier to deal with than men. Hymns and Bibles are being rewritten to remove references to men, and few men in the church protest. Seminaries are already half-female students, and the Protestant clergy is becoming characteristically female, as is the health care industry.
The obvious reason for the great influx of women is that women are relational. Women want relationships, and those relationships can be built in a social club, a church.
Because Christianity is now seen as part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose own masculinity is somewhat doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included. Rather religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life, and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world of childhood dominated by women. (xiv)
As one layman put it, "life is a football game, with the men fighting it out on the gridiron, while the minister is up in the grandstand, explaining it to the ladies." (5.)
Sadly, the above statement is truer than we would like to admit. Are there not pastors who make war among other pastors, maybe to make them feel more masculine?
The "childhood dominated by women" can lead men to feel more comfortable with women than with men. The above has been my experience with far too many "pastors". The Methodist pastor's wife in Linden told my wife, Carol, that the reason her husband went into the ministry was because it was better than selling vacuum cleaners. Of course, his church was dominated and controlled by women.
The charismatic churches have the highest degree of women dominated assemblies, with probably the genuinely "Reformed" churches having the least amount of women domination, and all churches other than the Eastern Orthodox have a majority of women in their membership; obviously some of that is due to the longer life expectancy of women. Men are almost totally absent from the more liberal Presbyterian or Methodist assemblies.
During the first half of the nineteenth century the English identified weakness and femininity with saintliness. (6.)
Hence, the rougher and more dangerous the activity – occupation, sports, war, &c. – the more it is identified with masculinity by the participants and by the spectators. The spectator identifies with the participant, and the spectator feels manly.
Reading Mr. Podles book makes me thankful I came out of the rough and tumble building trades, which was then exclusively dominated by males with all the "worldly" attributes of men. A lot of that had to do with the fact that though my dad was a lay pastor, he was first of all a top notch "mechanic," welder and fabricator who started in the ‘30s building oil refineries and steel mills (which are now being torn down and sold to China). As far back as I can remember, he and his brother had a welding and fabricating contracting business. He started me working with him as soon as I was old enough to pull welding cables around on the job. He was quite disappointed that Providence prevented my following him into the building trades, even as I wanted to do.
Discounting the Sovereign Grace of our God, the plague of "single motherhood" that is upon our nation today only breeds more feminized men who will forsake their duties as men. (I wonder if this is a reason that so many young men today refuse to step up and take their place in manhood – godly marriage and a family?) The Mother figure Mary was not available to the Protestants, so sentimentality and then feminism filled the void.
When feminized men abandon their manhood and family responsibilities, then the women are forced into the unnatural role of masculinity to support themselves and their families.
It is not unusual to find the ratio of women to men in liberal churches 2:1, 3:1 and even as high as 7:1. The more liberal a church, the more it attracts feminized leaders. (12) However, it is the female Christians that are more likely to hold to the basics of the Christian faith. I have noticed in my own ministry that the basic day-to-day activities required to keep a Christian ministry is primarily fulfilled by women. (13) It has also been observed that Sunday Schools lose 60-80% of their boys between ages twelve and eighteen. Though girls also leave, they did not in such large numbers. (15)
As industrialization took over America, the men separated themselves from Christianity as though industry and Christianity could not co-exist. The emotionalism of the nineteenth century revivalist movement appealed primarily to the women, and the church has never recovered from the feminist reputation it gained during that period. The overwhelming majority of female church members also drew feminist male ministers, who were able to move easily among the predominantly female congregations. (17)
However, the feminization of the church cannot be attributed to the revivalist movement, which only added to the problem. "Interest in religion had been weak among men from almost the very beginning of the English settlements." It was the females who were attracted to religion during the First Great Awakening, 1797, and they continued to dominate the church. The wives or daughters who attended church then drew in their husbands and fathers, but that male commitment was normally not a long-term affection. "Female zeal later found outlets in such crusades as the temperance movement. (18, 19)
Women were attracted to the God of love, comfort and forgiveness, while men were attracted to the God of power, planning and control, which I have found to be true even today. Though women are more "religiously inclined ," making them more orthodox, it also makes them more open to alternative religions, (20) which is why God placed them under the protection of their fathers and then their husbands. (1 Timothy 2:12, &c.) Sadly, the average male finds the Christian religion incompatible with masculinity. (23)
"The difference between men and women had grown less in the mid-twentieth century, in part because more men were going to church, and in part because fewer women were going to church." (24) What Podles says about the Roman Church applies very well to the Protestant church: "The Catholic Church in France has maintained its presence in society through the influence of women. This strategy has even affected the teaching of doctrine. .. The Jesuits, according to Michelet, had ‘a great attempt to fasten on the man through the woman and on the woman through the child'." (25) "Men are directed to conviction by reason; women to persuasion by sentiment." (31.)
My personal experience as a pastor with paedobaptism was that this tradition is kept alive by sentiment, not by sound Scriptural doctrine. (In fact, many times those committed to this position refuse to consider sound Biblical doctrine in the matter.) It seems to keep the women in the church, as their sentimental love for the child wants to do everything that might assure their infants of heaven. The women keep the men and families in the church.
Example: several years ago, a young couple came to me wanting to be married without a state license. I gladly did it under a coverture marriage. <http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/w199803.shtml#Coverture> The couple took their first baby to their pastor to be baptized, but the pastor refused to do it unless the couple got a state license. Thus, the belief in paedobaptism was used by the church leadership to keep the "believers" in line.
Podles makes a very sad observation: "Wherever Western Christianity has spread, the church is feminized. ... There is something about Christianity, especially Western Christianity, that drives a wedge between the church and men who want to be masculine." (25, 26.)
Podles gives this summation of the problem:
Before the industrial revolution, men and women labored together on farms or household workshops, but the industrial revolution separated work from the home. Initially, women and children worked in factories because they would accept low pay. When men replaced them as the principal workers in factories, these men separated their families as much as possible from the squalor and dangers of the industrial city, and suburbia was born. Women specialized in taking care of the house and children, separated themselves from the competitive, workaday world, and gave the home a sacred and sentimental aura. As religion had no place in politics or business, men relegated it to the home and to the woman's sphere of responsibility. ... Women are domestic and religious, men are public and therefore irreligious: "Men's life faces the outward world, and his instincts and interests lie that way. Hence, men crowd where public questions get downright discussion. Our individualistic religion has helped to feminize our churches. (28. Emp. added.)
Women being excluded from governance (political, educational, commercial and ecclesiastical) "turned to the church, which allowed them to exercise their abilities and to gain some power and respect." The result of the clergy being ignored by the men was that the clergy turned their attention to the women. (30.)
Henry Ward Beecher compared God's love to a mother's love. And thus crept in the unconditional love of God toward the sinner, and the idea that Christ's soul was characteristically womanly. Hence the rejection of masculinity form Christianity. (33.) Of course, this ignores that the fact that Christ gathered around him men who were very clearly masculine: fishermen. James and John were known as The sons of thunder, which is not a feminine handle. (Mark 3:17.) God's love throughout Scripture is compared to a father's love, not a mother's.
Based upon passages such as Matthew 16:24, Mark 9:35, Luke 14:7ff., 2 Corinthians 12:10, &c., Christianity is seen as a denial of life and power. It is seen as a religion for slaves, weaklings, the effeminate—"a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self mockery, self mutilation." Since Christianity denies the will to power, it cannot be masculine. Thus, a man must choose between being masculine and being a Christian. He cannot be both. "‘the macho ethic' ... ‘hinders men from worshipping God.'" However, "animosity between masculinity and Christianity ... cannot account for Judaism and Islam, or for the first millenium of Christianity, the age of the Church fathers." (35, 36.) What happened in Western Christianity that caused such violent reaction against masculinity?
Read the book. It will be worth your time.
Ellison spokesman says book [Quran] represents ‘religious tolerance'
January 10, 2007, By Bob Unruh
A Special Forces veteran and commentator says new Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (Hakim_Mohammad) of Minnesota was absolutely right when he said Thomas Jefferson gleaned knowledge from the Quran – only it was knowledge about his enemies that Jefferson likely gleaned....
The Muslim slavers busy:
He [Ted Sampley, the publisher of U.S. Veteran Dispatch] noted that over 10 centuries, Muslim pirates had cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and abducting slaves, mostly by making pre-dawn raids that left high casualty rates.
"It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the ‘non-Muslim' older men and women as possible so the preferred ‘booty' of only young women could be collected," he said. The women were sought for their value as concubines in Islamic markets.
Throughout the years, the followers of Mohammad have led in the slave trade, desiring particularly Christian women, as well as young girls and boys. There are not enough words to describe the evils of the Muslims.
Sampley notes that for years the American government paid Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages, but not long after Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, he dispatched the USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid to the Mediterranean.
Jefferson's first presidency coincided with what generally is called the Barbary Wars running from approximately 1801-1805. That year the Marines marched from Egypt into Tripolitania, freeing Americans held there as slaves, he wrote. After being elected president, Jefferson declared the First War on Terror, a "war against the Islamic ‘Barbary' states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli"
Certainly, Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran, for he wanted to know what to expect as he went to war against the Muslims.
"So what did Jefferson learn from the Quran? …Unless a nation submitted to Islam, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. It's no wonder that Jefferson studied the Quran. He realized that if Americans ever capitulated, the Muslims would be singing ‘From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of A-mer-i-ca,'" DeMar concluded.
From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53692
A class of 50 high school students took a field trip to the Washington National Cathedral, the Islamic Mosque and culture Center and a synagogue. But they did not go to a Christian Church, no doubt because of the "separation of church and state." (The Washington Post, B1. 12/15/06.)
Two of the pictures at the top of the page these captions:
First, "Kellie Burkinshat, left, and teacher Amy Buckingham prepare to enter the Islamic Mosque and Culture Center." The picture shows the females covering their heads.
Second, "Graig L. Sumberg, executive director of the 6th and I Historic Synagogue in Washington, displays tora scrolls to Wootton high School students Imad el-Amine, second from left, David Ducey, Saba Bader, Doug Elliott and Yalda Jafari. Honukkah begins tonight."
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
The God of the Scriptures will only be served as he requires, but we must not add to or detract from his requirements, v. 32.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
This commandment clearly forbids studying various religions. Our time should be spent studying the true religion as found in Scripture. A major danger of sending our children to pagan institutions for their education is that they will be taught the ways pagans serve their gods, which is sin.
(WND, January 11, 2002)
In the wake of Sept. 11, an increasing number of California public school students must attend an intensive three-week course on Islam, reports ASSIST News Service.
The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."
"We could never teach Christianity like this," one outraged parent told ANS. [But the parent was not outraged enough to remove her children from that pagan institution.]
Elizabeth Christina Lemings, a teacher in the Byron, Calif., Union School District, was unaware of the course until her seventh_grade son brought home the handouts. Obtained by ANS, the handouts include a history of Islam and the life of Mohammad, its founder. There are 25 Islamic terms that must be memorized, six Islamic (Arabic) phrases, 20 Islamic proverbs to learn along with the Five Pillars of Faith and 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples to be studied.
"We can't even mention the name of Jesus in the public schools," Lemings laments, "but ... they teach Islam as the true religion, and students are taught about Islam and how to pray to Allah. Can you imagine the barrage of lawsuits and problems we would have from the ACLU if Christianity were taught in the public schools, and if we tried to teach about the contributions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Apostle Paul? But when it comes to furthering the Islamic religion in the public schools, there is not one word from the ACLU, People for the American Way or anybody else. This is hypocrisy."
ANS reports that students are to pretend that they are Muslims, wear Muslim clothing to school, stage their own jihad via a dice game and pick out a Muslim name (to replace their own) from a list of 30.
When asked what they thought about the course, students described it as "fun," while others described Islam as "a pretty culture." Joseph Lemings, 12, told ANS, "the jihad was like playing a video game." ...
Thus, the impressionable seventh graders in the California public schools were required to violate the Second Commandment, and professing Christian parents permitted their children to be indoctrinated.
(Type in "Required Islamic studies", and you will get over 1 million sites, with many of those sites pointing to major colleges offering degrees in Islamic studies. But no degrees in Christian studies at those colleges. The Petro dollars are coming back to the US to destroy Christianity, and replace it with Mohammadism.)
When will Christians wake up to the fact that the number one goal of the state is to separate Biblical Christianity from America, and the state is having great success as new generations come along.
12/10/06. The front page of the Northern Virginia Daily two articles praising the Muslims. It had a large picture of a good number young Muslim girls in Austria taken during a religious class at a mosque. All of the girls had their heads covered, and had very large smiles.
Main article was an AP article: Report warns of ‘Islamophobia' in Europe includes violence. The article goes on to praise Muslims, telling how much they are being persecuted, how nice they are, and how they need to be respected.
The second article was another AP article: Muslims in the cross hairs Program in Va aims to dispel fears.
In this article we are told that "A More Perfect Union [Gretchen Schoel, executive director], a program of the Virginia Inter Faith Center [Rev. C. Douglas Smith, executive director]" has placed signs in Arabic in public places like the city buses and colleges in Richmond. The purpose of the signs is to get people used to seeing Arabic script.
Bias toward the Muslim community is a continuing problem across the country and in Virginia, said Imad Damaj, president of the Virginia Muslim Coalition for Public Affairs. "There's so many lazy, unexamined assumptions about all of us and how we react to people," Damaj said. "We need to challenge ourselves."
Schoel said history has proven that Americans can learn to let go of irrational fears.
One would think that the Associated Press is now owned by Muslims, and it could well be. Our foreign and energy policies have placed the wealth of America into the hands of the Muslims. They now have unlimited resources with which to finance taking over the world either by propaganda or with the sword.
Muslims shout at Jesus' home: ‘Islam will dominate the world'
By Aaron Klein, 1/1/07.
The followers of Mohammad understand that they must train up their children in their religion if they will take over the world. However, Christians fail to understand that allowing the pagan state train up their children leads to their children being pagan.
WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574
Churchill on "Mohammedanism"
Unbelievable, written in 1899!
I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.
For those younger members who may not know - or have not been taught - Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time, He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral."
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill; (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 [07] — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14spy.html
Returning from a preachers' meeting up I-81, we saw a government drone flying over the highway. God's judgement in the form of "Big Brother" Bush is here. Are we ready??
BTW, Obama is a Muslim.
1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.
It certainly is amazing how God works behind the scene to perform his will and word. Whose fault was it that Abiathar chose the wrong side? Was it God's or his own? No doubt, Abiathar did not consider himself fulfilling God's plan when he chose to support Adonijah against Solomon, yet he fulfilled God's word to Eli spoken in 1 Samuel 2:27ff.
It was about 80 years before God's prophecy against Eli's house was fulfilled. Because of the length of time it took to fulfill, Eli and his children may have thought Eli's house escaped God's judgment.
Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the LORD which thou hast spoken. And he said, Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days?
Those who continue to offer their children to Molech in government schools do not see God's promised destruction come upon them, so they think they have avoided God's judgment. However, it is their grandchildren they are sacrificing.
Of course, God's two edged sword cuts both ways — promises of judgment and promises of blessings:
In spite of failures which I lament, of errors which I now see and acknowledge, or of the present aspect of affairs, do I despair the future? The truth is this, the march of Providence is so slow, our desires so impatient, the work of progress is so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope." - Robert E. Lee
Living in a degenerate age is not easy. On the one hand, we have to fight the temptation, both overt and covert, to be conformed to the spirit of the age. On the other hand, we have to resist the depression born of fighting what appears to be a rear guard action. (Franklin Sanders, The Moneychanger.)
How do we keep our courage when God's providence moves so slowly and mysteriously to do justice, to punish the wicked and to build his kingdom?
Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Faith. Judge according to God's righteous word, not by appearances. (John 7:24) As always, our hope is in the Lord; his will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven. Our job is simply to be faithful stewards with what he has entrusted with us.
MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI,
a history of religious proscription, the seizure of churches,
and the persecution of ministers of the gospel, in the state of
Missouri DURING THE LATE CIVIL WAR, and under the "Test Oath"
of the New Constitution. By Rev. W.M. Leftwich, D.D. Southwestern
Book Publishing Co. 1870. (Spiral bound copies of the pages. Extremely
rare) 2 Volumes, $20 each, post paid. Vol. I, 436 pgs, Vol. II,
445 pgs.
Martyrdom in Missouri
Ten years before the firing on Ft. Sumpter, the war, falsely called
"The Civil War" had its beginning in Missouri. These
books detail the bloody hand of tyranny in both church and state.
Rev. Wm. Leftwich records truthfully all that occurred, being
a victim and observer of those fateful years. A must read.
Pastor Lloyd Sprinkle (Sprinkle Publications)
NEW: A STUDY IN THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT...
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy...Bro Need. $3.00.
THE CHRISTIAN AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT,
Romans 13. By Pastor John Weaver. Trade paperback, 200 pages.
$14
DEATH OF THE CHURCH VICTORIOUS.
507 pgs. Trade paperback, $25.
THE RAPTURE PLOT, Dave MacPherson.
300 pgs. Trade paper back. $21.
THE INCREDIBLE SCHOFIELD AND HIS BOOK,
Joseph M. Canfield. 394, pgs. Trade paper back. $26.
1599, GENEVA BIBLE. We are
waiting for them to be back in stock again. We will provide them
at a good price. Check with us before your purchase elsewhere.
NEW: ONLINE BIBLE for Windows, new ver,
2.10. The best computer Bible program, or your money
back. $40. NOW WITH Pocket PC programming for installation of
basic study program on Pocket PC.
(All Post Paid, US) Ovid Need (PO MO made to Ovid Need preferred.),
The Biblical Examiner, 9017 Stonewall Jackson Hwy, Front Royal
VA 22930 (Or order over web, using PayPal. See the web site. Donations
can also be made through PayPal.)
Complete list of material at our book store