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

July, 2004

Redeeming the Time

The Lord judge...(1 Samuel 24:15.)

As I was thinking on this passage, I realized that among other things, the Lord will judge how we use the time He has given us. Both Bettie and I have come to realize the value of time, for we know not how much we have left. We both lost our spouses very unexpectedly, proving again that man knoweth not his time, so we must use what we have left to the fullest. (Ecc. 9:12.)

We are not here discussing slothfulness, though that would be a good subject. We are discussing the misuse of time. Life is a race against time. We will only win that race if we realize the following:

1) Time is limited, and it is no respecter of persons – no one will get more hours in a day than another.
2) The maximum number of productive years is established by God. (Ps. 90:10)
3) Days must be counted. (Ps. 90:12)
4) Time is given to us to do God's work. (Jn. 9:4)
5) Time is unrecoverable. A lost hour is gone forever.
6) Death is certain.
7) Time requires accountability.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10.)

In Isaiah 55, the Lord raises this question:

1 ¶ Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. (Isa. 55. See also, Ecc. 4:8.)

Why do we spend our time on those things that have no eternal value, and very little, if any, value here on earth? The Spirit warns us twice about the use of our time.

First, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Eph. 5:16.)
Second, Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. (Col. 4:5.)

Across the street from the church in Linden was a man who, evidently, only worked a 40 hour week, and, also evidently, has worked at his occupation for some time, for he seems to get a good amount of vacation time. He spends a lot of time working in his yard, washing and waxing his truck (he seems to have a new one every few years), and washing his motor home. He takes his motor home out for the weekend 2 or 3 times a month. I watched him for the 19 years while we were there, and there were times when I "envyed" him. He had a 40 hours a week job that payed well, and he pursued his pleasure the rest of the time.

I have never known that kind of life. My dad was a workaholic – I can only remember two times going anywhere as a family for a day off, other than the State Fair (one of our church men worked one of the gates at the fair). When I got out of the service, though I went right to work in the building trades, I worked as a layman at the church in the evenings (under Dr. Ford Proter). I primarily worked in the bus ministry, though I did anything around the church that needed to be done.

When I met first wife, I was on the staff as a layman at the church that had the college where she was a student. She also was busy as a student in the children's ministry. We married with a common desire to use our time in the Lord's work. We both exchanged the time that most people used for personal pleasure for time trying to advance the Kingdom of God. Even at Linden, we exchanged our personal time in the evenings for Kingdom work time in folks' homes with Bible studies or visitation.

One of the most distressing things for a pastor is the general lack of desire in the people to redeem the time – that is, exchange their personal pleasure time for Kingdom work time. A pastor recognizes the evil days in which we lived, for the allurements of the world prevent people from redeeming their time for the cause of Christ.

In 1 Samuel chapter 24, Saul spent his time pursuing David, with no success. In Saul's unwarranted pursuit of David, not only did Saul waste time, for which he gave an account, but he caused David to spend his time fleeing. And thus we see that we never waste time at our own expense. It always costs others:

If on the job – others must work harder to make up our waste.
If in our relationship with the Lord – those under our protection will have to work harder to avoid Satan's destruction in their lives.
If we are just being lazy – the example we set will be picked up by our children, and somewhere it will be paid for.

Not only will we lose the race against time – the race to accomplish something for the Lord with our life, but we will greatly hinder those watching us from running their race effectively. (Heb. 12:1.)

Most people think the race is to see who can achieve more of this world's goods, the most leisure time, or even the earliest retirement, but nothing can be further from the truth. ("The difference between a man and a boy is the price of the toy. And the one with the most toys wins!") No matter how much we might gain of these things held important by the world, it will not be enough. I think one of the most distressing, and revealing of human nature, books in Scripture is the Book of Ecclesiastes. It ends thusly:

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Ecc. 12:13, 14.)

Saul wasted his time pursuing David, forcing David to spend his time fleeing.

1 Samuel 24:14, David asks, "What is a great king like you with 3,000 men doing out here chasing me? If you catch me, you only have a dead dog to show for all your efforts. What credit is that to you, to be able to return with a dead dog as your spoil of war? What pleasure is it to hunt a single flea? Even if you seek it, it isn't easily found. If you find it, it isn't easily caught. If you catch it, it isn't easily killed, and it is certainly a poor prize for a king and 3,000 of his chosen men."

The heat and humidity in Louisiana seems to bread bugs. Someone gave us a big, beautiful, and very friendly Persian cat, which was a house cat. Needless to say, fleas were a natural, and those fleas infected the carpet. Have you ever tried to find a long haired pet or in a shag carpet? It is a waste of time.

We are far more like Saul than we are like David. We spend our time, energy and money on the unimportant and insignificant things. We waste a lot of time pursuing things that are of no earthly value – useless activities that lose all their value in eternity. If we had to live for eternity on the treasures we lay up with the proper use of our time, most of us would live in poverty.

Time and the Word of God

Though the Tri-Une God lives in eternity where there is no concept of time, we do not. We are trapped in time, which I have found to be very constraining. (C.S. Lewis said that the constraint of time we feel here shows that we were made for eternity.)

First, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Eph. 5:16.)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal. 3:13.)

Christ has redeemed us. He bought us back from destruction. Christ has commanded us to redeem our time from destruction also, and it is destroyed in front of the TV, among many other places.

The metaphor is of a merchant who eagerly and willingly exchanges his personal pleasure time for time to buy and sell to get gain. (James 4:13.) The successful businessman avoids those things hinder his business. We have all known businessmen who succeeded because they exchanged the time one would normally spend in personal pleasure for time pursuing their occupation. The result was their prosperity.

I used to work for a man who had to quit school at a very early age to support his family. He invested the increase of his business into land, making him quite wealthy, though you would not know it by looking at him. The way he gained his wealth was by exchanging personal pleasure time for time building his business. The time was right for his business, and Divine Providence placed him in that time of history. He took advantage of the time, and he prospered.

I knew another layman when I was on a church staff in Maryland. His story was basically the same — he had to quit school at about the sixth grade to support his family. As opportunities developed, he exchanged his personal enjoyment time for the time it took to develop his business, and the Lord prospered him greatly. Nor did he have to sacrifice his family nor his Christian service as a layman. He also became quite wealthy, even purchasing a helicopter to fly back and forth to church.

The Spirit makes a point of twice telling us to redeem the time. We redeem the time as a businessman willingly and gladly redeems his time – we exchange the time we would normally spend on personal pleasure and leisure for time spent advancing God's Kingdom on earth.

We all have the same amount of time. Though we cannot lengthen time, we can purchase good time (developing God's Kingdom both within and without ourselves) with the time we would normally spend – squander or trifle away – on things that have no bearing on God's Kingdom work. In fact, the context of Ephesians 5:15 (See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil) tells us that true wisdom involves controlling time – making it our servant as the successful businessman makes time his servant.

Redemption involves redeeming our time as well as redeeming our souls. (1 Pet. 4:2, That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.) In other words, conversion involves converting our idea of time – we now desire to use our time for the Lord. Conversion means we now willingly use our normally used personal pleasure (no eternal value) time for the Lord. We look for opportunities to serve the Lord, and we give up present enjoyment to do that service.

We need to recover our time, redeem it, from its waste upon unimportant things that do not count for anything in eternity. We will not be judged on how familiar we were with the local recreational areas nor on how well we knew the popular sports figures of our day.

Christian's fascination with sports over the Kingdom of God is not new. The following is from The Governance of God, by Salvian, the Presbyter, ca. 400. He was an eye witness to the fall of Rome. It is vol. 3 of The fathers of the Church, and translated by Jeremiah F. O'Sullivan, Ph.D. CMA Publishing Co., Inc.

In Salvian's estimation, the circus, amphitheatre and theatre had a most corrupting influence on the yople. He must have been familiar with the huge amphitheatre at Trier where Constantine had ordered some captive Frankish chiefs thrown to the wild beasts. The populace was shouting itself hoarse at the games while that city was being taken in 406. Yet, the games went on, and Salvian furnished a vivid picture of the lustful delirium of the populace while their city was being ruined.'7 Shortly thereafter, the city fathers requested the Emyror for the means of holding the games as the best aid to relieve the yople's distress. (De Gubernatione Dei 178)When the Vandals were taking Carthage, Salvian says, it was difficult to distinguish between the shouts of those at the games and the cries of those who fell defending the walls of the city. (De Gubernatione Dei 172.) (Introduction, p. 12.)

The impurities of the game are unique, because, in a way, they make the crime one, both for those who perform them and those who watch them, For, while the spectators approve and gladly watch them, all perform them through sight and consent. Truly, that saying of the Apostle particularly falls not only on those who perform them, but even on those who consent to the performances, that they are worthy of death. (Rom 1.32.) Therefore, in these representations of fornication the whole audience mentally commits fornication, and those who, perhaps, came in purity to the games, return from the theaters in adultery. For, not only do they commit fornication when they return home, but also when they come to the theater, for, by the very fact that anyone desires an obscene thing he is unclean while he hastens to uncleanliness.

(4) Since this is the case, behold what kind of acts either all, or almost all, Romans do. Yet we who do these things claim we are neglected by God. We say we are forsaken by our Lord, when we ourselves forsake the Lord. Let us suppose that our Lord is willing to watch over us, even though we do not deserve it. Let us see if He can See the countless thousands of Christians daily tarrying at the games where base performances are enacted. Can God watch over people like this? Can He watch over those who revel in the circuses and who commit adultery in the theaters? (Pp. 157, 158.)

But we, what can we answer on our behalf? We hold and cast aside the faith, and we confess the gift of salvation equally as we deny it. Where, therefore, is our Christianity, we who receive the sacrament of salvation only for the purpose that we may sin afterwards with the greater crime of deviation from righteousness? We prefer stage plays to the churches of God. We spurn the altars and honor the theaters. We love things and worship things. God alone, in comparison with all other things, is vile to us.

Finally, besides other instances which prove it, one particular illustration establishes the point I am making. If, when it should happen---because it often does happen that on the same day on which an ecclesiastical feast occurs the public games are performed---I ask of everybody's conscience what place has greater crowds of Christian men: the spectators' benches at the public games or the entrance to the house of God? Do the crowds prefer the temple or the theater? Do they love more the teachings of the Gospel or the theatrical musicians; the words of life or the words of death; the words of Christ or the words of the mime?

There is no doubt that we love more that which we prefer. For, on every day of the fatal games, whatever feast of the Church it may be, not only do those who say they are Christians not come to the church, but, if any come perhaps unwittingly, if they hear the games being performed, while they are already in the church, they leave the church. They spurn the temple of God in order that they may run to the theater. They leave the church in order to fill the circus. We leave Christ at the altar and feed our adulterous eyes with the most impure visions and with the fornication of the vilest games. Very rightly, therefore, the Lord has said to us: 'on account of your dirt you have been expelled into banishment.' And again He says: (I have been unable to locate these texts.) 'the altars of this laughter shall be banished.' (Ibid., pp. 163-164.)

Salvian attributes a major reason for Rome's fall to the Christians' love of sports over their love of God. He also lumps the love for the theatre in with sports. However, Christians today do not have to go to amusement centers for their entertainment. They can go to many churches and get their entertainment.

The days are evil, as they were in the days of the apostles. They are evil in this context not necessarily because of the abounding sin, but because they abound with temptations and allurements that seek to lead into things that "waste time." The things may not be sin in themselves, but they draw our hearts and time away from God's Kingdom work. We live in a particularly evil day because generally people have too much time on their hands, and they use that time to pursue personal pleasure rather than to invest in God's Kingdom.

Let me define kingdom work — Kingdom work involves building a godly personal life, as well as building a godly family, going about our occupation in a manner that brings glory to God, proper use of leisure, (Mk. 6:31.) among other things.

Time is given to invest in the Kingdom work of our God. The purpose of our life here is to glorify God by seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Mat. 6:33) – that is, our first and last responsibility is to our Creator. That responsibility is to spend all our time advancing His kingdom here on earth. And there is plenty for everyone to do. We have just enough time to accomplish God's purpose. We do not have too much time on our hands. Time is to be used wisely for the glory of God.

Though I did not bring up the subject, a man once told me about tithing, "That money is mine; I worked for it, and I am not giving any of it to a church." It is tempting to view time the same way: "The time is mine, and I will do with it as I please." And nothing could be further from the truth:

1 ¶ Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. (Pro. 27:1.)
13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 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. (Ja. 4.)

The Book of Ecclesiastes was written by the richest man ever to live. And that entire book tells us of the vanity of a life built around gaining wealth and pleasure. He concludes with the words I opened with:

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Ecc. 12.)

Time is not ours to do with as we please, anymore than money is ours to do with as we please. Time is a gift from God, and it is to be used for His praise, honour and glory. Anything less is robbery from God.

Redeeming the time

Time is to be redeemed:

1) in gaining useful knowledge, especially knowledge of God's word. (2 Tim. 2:15.)

2) in doing good to others, as we have the opportunity. (Gal. 6:10.)

3) in making an honest living for ourselves and for our families. (1 Tim. 5:8.)

4) in prayer and self-examination, to make the heart better, and thereby making our actions better. (Mat. 14:23.)

5) in seeking salvation, and in endeavoring to do the will of God. We are to redeem time from all who would waste and destroy it—like recovering marshes and fens to make them rich meadows and vineyards. (Phil. 2:12.)

6) in maintaining the house of God. (Hag. 1:4ff.)

7) rest and restoration, with the goal of regaining our strength to better fulfill our godly responsibilities. (Mark 6:31.)

8) invest in training our children in wisdom and the knowledge of the Lord. (Pro. 1:7, &c.) This includes training ourselves so we can teach our children how to read (so they can read, understand and do God's Word), compute and communicate through effective writing and speaking. (Pro. 22:6, &c.)

It goes without saying that people make up the church – that is, the New Testament church is the assembly of the firstborn. (Heb. 12:23.) Moreover, the Apostolic church did not have "buildings" to meet in, such as we have today. However, whatever we might think of the buildings themselves, they still represent to the world the kingdom of God on earth. The Lord rebuked his people in Haggai for not using their time to maintain the building that represented the Kingdom of God on earth.

There is enough time wasted by the saints that if it were properly used for God's Kingdom work, there would be no lack of workers in the local church and the world would be Christianized.

Time is wasted:

A) in the allurements to pleasure and amusements of every description. There is certainly no problem in pleasures and amusements, as long as they do not violate Scripture, but very little of those things make us more effective for the Lord Jesus.

B) in the allurements to useless things that have no value to the Kingdom of God, yet they cost us multiplied hours of time. There are allurements all around us, particularly the TV. The allurement of sports has extracted a heavy price from the Kingdom of God. Time that could have been well spent in advancing His Kingdom in our personal lives and families has been spent with no lasting effect for the cause of Christ watching a sports event.

As an associate pastor in Louisiana, we found that you might be able to get the men out to do a project at any time except when the Dallas Cowboys were playing. The preacher could preach as long as he wanted to as long as he was done in time for the men to see the kick-off at noon. Our men would alternate watching the parking lot during the service. They did not like to do it, unless the Cowboys happened to be playing that Sunday. I really can think of no eternally redeeming value of sports, whether it be football or basketball. (I do know several men with back and knee problems that resulted from high school sports–they are paying a very heavy price today for their few hours of fun and fame in high school.) I like drag races and tractor pulls, but I can think of no eternal redeeming value of either.

Think of the lost hours reading novels. I must admit, when I was in the military with time on my hands, I loved to read Luke Short, Louis Lamore and Edger Rice Burrows, and I read all of them I could find. But as I look back, I know they did not increase my ability for the Kingdom of God.

Today's Christian authors make a very good living writing useless, vain books which waste time (they have no eternal value) and corrupt the Christian's world view, e.g., The Prayer of Jabez and Left Behind, among multitudes of other books.

C) in the allurement to invest time in pursuing unreasonable ambitions. And even if those ambitions were accomplished, they would be useless in terms of the Kingdom of God.

D) in the allurement to argue about words. (1 Tim. 1:4-6, 6:4, 5, 2 Tim. 2:14ff., Titus 3:9ff.)

E) in the allurement to daydream. (What would I do if I were to win a million dollars?) I was an heavy equipment operator for several years before the Lord forced me into the ministry. I remember operating a crane – there might be 30 minutes or more between lifts. Though the operator must pay attention, there is an abundance of time for the imagination to run wild.

F) in the allurement to overindulge. The overweight population shows that we have become a society of overindulgence. Our possessions also show that we are more concerned about the advancement of self than we are about the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Because the days are evil. The evil days could refer to the shortness and unexpectedness of life – if we are going to do anything for the Lord, we had better do it now.

Redeeming the time involves "buying up" those moments that others seem to throw away. While others are wasting away their time on vain things that do not matter in the Kingdom of God, we are to use our time to improve that Kingdom.

Second, Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. (Col. 4:5.)

Redeeming the time involves losing something of value for the well being of God's work – defined as His work in our lives, in our family, in our friends, in our community, in our church and in our nation. We rescue time out of the hands of Satan and out of the world, as they influence us to misuse that time.

Wisdom toward them who are outside the faith means that we invest something of value to reach them, as we would buy something at the store. We all have a set amount of time, and that time is the same for each of us. We each have 168 hours a week to spend at the store. What do we purchase with it? Do we spend them on things that have no godly value? Do we spend them on things that advance the cause of Christ? Redeeming the time means we purchase things that please God over things of personal pleasure.

The context of Colossians 4:5 tells us that the use of our time is a major message about our faith that we give to the world around us. A mark of our Christian character is how we use our time – is it on personal pleasure, or is it on the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth?


A quick word about Motives.

I often hear folks say, "God judges the motives; God is concerned that the motives are right." True enough, but He will judge if the actions are not right, regardless of the motives.

Saul's motives were right in desiring to secure his children's future, (Pro. 13:22, 1 Sam. 20:31) but his actions were certainly wrong. The godly way to secure his children's future is to know, do and teach the Command-Word of God. (Jn. 13:17, 15:14, Rev. 22:14.) Saul's children's future could have been secured if Saul would have confessed his sin of rejecting the Word of the Lord, which he had rejected twice at the start of his reign. But because Saul forgot, or ignored, the Command-Word of God, God forgot his children. (Hosea 4:6.)

It is clear, therefore, that the kingdom passed from Saul, and that his children perished because of his hardness in sin. (I realize the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty, and that the kingly line had to pass to the house of Judah. I do not, however, even hint that I know how God's Sovereign Providence works behind the scene to bring these things about. I only know that all things work together to accomplish His eternal and sovereign purpose, and that man is accountable for his actions, Isa. 46:11, 2 Cor. 5:10, Eph. 3:11, &c.)

As Saul looked to secure Jonathan's future by violating God's word, he was wasting his time. Physical effort that is contrary to the Command-Word of God will not secure anyone's future, except in failure and destruction. The only thing that would have secured the children's future was to submit to the authority of God's word in places like 1 Samuel 13:8, 9 and 15:3.

God's man told him to wait to make the offering; he did not. God's man told him to destroy Amaleck. He did not.

If Saul had submitted in these two areas, his son's future would have been secure. Rather than put aside his pride and make these two things right, he sought ungodly means to secure his son's future. Anything other than Psalms 1 and Proverbs 3:5-10 to secure our children's future not only is a waste of time, but is destructive. It is a godly attitude to want to leave a good inheritance for our children, but the inheritance we should desire for them is a good name, and the physical inheritance will be a by-product of the good name.

Saul was wasting his time seeking to establish his son in an unscriptural way. All of his effort and time spent pursuing David, not to mention the money to support 3,000 men in his endeavor, went down the drain when Saul and Jonathan were killed.

Wrong priorities always lead to death and destruction, not only for us, but for our families.

Remember here that God used the wrath of man (Saul's anger) to praise Himself. He used Saul to train David to be a good king over His people. And the Lord judged Saul's pride, which led to his wasted life, and led to David's desire to stay right with God. David got the throne, and Saul got the ‘axe.'

The Lord pleaded David's cause.
The Lord delivered David out of Saul's hands.
The Lord delivered Saul into the hands of the Philistines.
The Lord will judge, which is our hope and assurance as we are oppressed by the Saul's of this world. There is a day coming, and the oppressed will be comforted.

The accounts will be settled.
The time will be accounted for.
The motives will be revealed.

And I must look at David in amazement here at this point of his life. He had supernatural grace to enable him to wait for the Lord to settle the account with Saul.

1 Samuel 24:16, Saul lifted up his voice and wept, but his wasted time was unrecoverable. It was gone. Nor is weeping a sure sign of true repentance.

Saul had to account for the misuse of his time, and the price, wages, he received were expensive — they were paid for by many generations.

Saul lost his race against time, and the ripples lasted for many years and cost many lives..

He had to account for his life. He did not use it to God's work, but to pursue the desires of the flesh, to establish his children in life in an unscriptural way. And the Lord judged harshly, as He said he would do.

And the Lord judge between me and thee according to which man was right, David said (24:12). And the Lord did, for the very command of God that Saul avoided to pursue David killed him – he was commanded to destroy the Philistines, and the Philistines killed him. (24:1 with 31:8.)

(On Eph. 5:16, Col. 4:5, see Barnes' Notes, Family New Testament Notes, Geneva Notes, John Gill, JFB [Jamieson, Fausset, Brown], Peoples New Testament Notes, Matthew Poole, Charles Hodge, Adam Clarke, W.B. Godbey and Robertson's NT Word Pictures. Most of these authors are on Online Bible.)

Constitutions, Oaths, and the Heritage of English Law
A response to Justice Champ Lyons, Jr.

by Matthew L. Chancey (My wife's son-in-law)

I recently acquired a copy of His Monument, My Oath, and the Rule of Law by Champ Lyons, Jr., an Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In his paper, Justice Lyons goes into considerable detail to explain the rationale behind his vote to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building in the summer of 2003.

I am personally grateful to Justice Lyons for taking the trouble to explain his position, because it represents an important dichotomy within the field of Constitutional law.

Justice Lyons is a confessing Christian who sincerely believes that his actions with respect to removing the Ten Commandments monument were consistent with keeping his oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States.

However, my belief is that Justice Lyons' positions as presented are based on several erroneous presuppositions about the Constitution, oaths, and English law in general.

Constitutional Presuppositions (Prescribed vs. Implied Powers)

The Constitution of the United States is the oldest written constitution still in use by a government. The Constitution's Framers came from a society which had existed for over 1,000 years under the unwritten constitution of Great Britain. However, those 1,000 years had been marked by much turbulence between the various civil powers governing the British Commonwealth. Kings had quarreled and warred with Parliament; the judiciary had sought to usurp the authority of the People's House; local magistrates had set themselves up as mini-kings, etc.

In an effort to restrain the evil tendency of unchecked power, America's Framers designed their federal government to be separated into three branches, each with delegated powers from a written Constitution. In other words, unless the power was specifically prescribed in the Constitutional document itself, it was not given to the federal government. This principle was highlighted in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

First, notice that the 9th Amendment does not say that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by necessary inference to the federal courts."

Secondly, the specific language in the 10th Amendment makes clear that the only implied rights and powers in the Constitution are those that are retained by the states or the people. This is a critical point, because Justice Lyons' entire position is based on what he believes to be "implied powers" of the United States Supreme Court. But, according to the plain text of the Constitution, no branch of the federal government can have implied powers; otherwise a written Constitution would be pointless.

Throughout his treatise, Justice Lyons refers to the "implied powers" of judicial review (the view that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining the Constitutional validity of a federal or state law or action). Justice Lyons admits that such powers are not prescribed to the courts, but he believes they are necessary to preserve our system of government:

"I have come to the view that such authority is necessarily implied so as to avoid the anarchy that would exist otherwise if there were no final authority on issues of constitutional interpretation, thereby causing the failure of the very governments that such documents sought to create."[1]

In addition to saying what the Constitution is, Lyons believes the Supreme Court has the power to "enforce the Constitution."[2] But the Constitution is very clear that it is the president, not the courts, who is charged with seeing that the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof be "faithfully executed."[3]

Article III of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the Federal Judiciary, and it nowhere contains the concept of "judicial review" as understood and practiced by our Supreme Court today. Justice Lyons candidly admits this fact:

"Neither the Alabama Constitution nor the United States Constitution, by express terms, confers authority upon judges of the court of last resort created by such documents to issue binding determinations on the meaning of the Constitution."[4]

Anarchy vs. Interposition (Were our Founding Fathers Anarchists?)

The necessity of "implied powers" of judicial review stems from an erroneous view of the nature of our federal union. Justice Lyons stated in more than one place that people may not like judicial review and what judges have done with it, but the alternative is "anarchy."[5] This belief is simply absurd.

The basic definition of anarchy is "absence of any form of political authority." If a constitutionally elected public official violates a court order because he believes it to be unlawful, his action is anything but "anarchy." What Lyons calls "anarchy," our Founding Fathers called "checks and balances." Under Lyons' definition of "anarchy," George Washington, Patrick Henry, and James Madison were all anarchists.

Our Founding Fathers were constitutionally elected public officials. However, when they were faced with having to enforce the illegal orders of King George III and Parliament, they resisted the orders and interposed themselves between the English government and their constituents back home.

In the same manner, Chief Justice Roy Moore did not engage in "anarchy" by resisting what he believed to be an unlawful order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson. Rather, Moore interposed himself between the federal courts and the rights of the people he represented and the Constitution that he had sworn an oath to defend.[6]

But according to Justice Lyons, every final decision by a federal court is the "Law of the Land," and every public official is oath-bound to obey:

"Once the power of judicial review is acknowledged, the United States Supreme Court's opinions on constitutional issues become as binding as if written into the Constitution, regardless of one's personal views favoring a different interpretation of the Constitution."[7] (Emphasis added)

"That the Supreme Court of the United States, or, for that matter, the highest court of any state must be endowed with the power of judicial review cannot responsibly be questioned."[8]

"My oath of office to support the Constitution compels me to abide by what the United States Supreme Court announces as the rule of law even when it construes the United States Constitution in a manner with which I personally disagree."[9]

"…the Constitution is not violated when the United States Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, even in a manner with which the litigant disagrees."[10]

Above, we see Justice Lyons blatantly stating that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Lyons even admits that his oath to the Constitution is actually an oath to the opinions of five judges presently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The arguments advanced in favor of former Chief Justice Moore's appeal of his removal from office suffer from the pervasive defect of the failure to recognize the validity of the Court's authority, implied as a matter of necessity from the Constitution, to exercise the power of judicial review… the Special Supreme Court acknowledged the former Chief Justice's position as follows: 'Chief Justice Moore states that the judgment of the Court of the Judiciary has in effect created an "oath transfer" rule—that an oath taken by a public official is no longer to a constitution but to a court's opinion, even one contrary to the constitution.'"[11](Emphasis added)

Evidently Justice Lyons has never visited Constitution Corner at West Point Military Academy, where cadets are taught that their oath of allegiance is to the Constitution alone, and that America is unique as a nation because it does not require an oath to individual rulers – or judges.

Justice Lyons has gone one step past the doctrine of "judicial review" and embraced the concept of "judicial infallibility." His view on the rule of law might constitute judicial orthodoxy by modern standards, but it is the same kind of constitutional heresy that formed the basis and justification for our Founding Fathers' rebellion against the "Divine Right of Kings" in 1776.

The Nature of Oaths Presupposes the Acknowledgment of God

Justice Lyons stated that his oath of office required him to enforce an order to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building:

"…such oath carries with it the obligation, no matter how distasteful, to support the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court…"[12]

However, in the manner concerning former Chief Justice Roy Moore, the central issue leading to the federal order to remove the Ten Commandments Monument was whether or not a state can acknowledge God. Federal Judge Myron Thompson candidly said "No." Chief Justice Moore replied that he could not be faithful to his oath of office if he refused to acknowledge God. Moore recognizes the inherently religious nature of oath-taking that Justice Lyons simply misses.

When Justice Lyons took his oath, he placed his hand on a Bible and swore before Almighty God that he would "support the Constitution…." If a federal judge rules that a state cannot acknowledge the God to whom all public officials swear their oaths, how can those same public officials claim to be upholding their oaths by enforcing an order to disallow the acknowledgement of God?

Oaths are oaths because they are given under the witness and judgment of Almighty God. When a witness in court takes an oath to tell the truth, he's not merely acknowledging the penalty of perjury if he lies. He is acknowledging that the God Who knows the inner thoughts of man is a witness for the truth of his statements. Regardless of whether a lying witness is caught or not, the real judgment for violating an oath is with the Almighty, not an earthly judge.

The only reason the Ten Commandments monument was removed was because it acknowledged the God of the Bible as being the ultimate source of our laws and liberties. That's what the federal judge said. And Justice Lyons says that he had to remove the acknowledgement of God from his courthouse because of the obligations of the oath that he had given before God! But you can't have it both ways. Lyons cannot remove an acknowledgement of God (which is exactly what removing the Ten Commandments monument was, according to the federal judge) and in the same breath claim to be honoring an oath made before that same God.

But perhaps it is wrong, as Justice Lyons suggests, to charge the Alabama Supreme Court with lacking "moral courage" in its handling of the Ten Commandments case. It appears from Justice Lyons' own statements that he and his colleagues on the court were not acting as moral cowards, but as moral hypocrites.

"You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"[13]

The Heritage of English Common Law

As was stated in the outset, it is my opinion that Justice Lyons has reached his positions based on erroneous presuppositions about the Constitution, oaths, and English law in general.

I believe it has been shown that Lyons' incorrect views of the Constitution have led him to elevate the U.S. Supreme Court to nearly divine status in matters of our government, thereby undermining the very point of written constitutions and the separation of powers.

But the fundamental problem behind Justice Lyons' views is an erroneous understanding of English law in general. Lyons evidently does not subscribe to the same understanding of law as our Founding Fathers. Rather, Lyons holds to the prevalent "positive law" theory that was absent from English Common Law until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The positive law theory essentially grew from combining the philosophy of Hegel (i.e. "The State is God walking on earth") and Darwin's view of origins.

According to the great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, municipal laws enacted by governments were "rules of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."[14] But according to Hegel, laws were simply rules of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state. The issue of right and wrong was irrelevant to Hegel. Might makes right. When Hegel's views met Social Darwinism, the result was a view of law as nothing more than evolving standards of society, not fixed to any moral concept of right and wrong. Judges became the directors of this evolving standard.[15]

As a consequence of the positive law theory, the erroneous "living document" view of the Constitution was adopted by most law school professors in the early 20th century, and they raised a generation of jurists who believed the Constitution meant whatever judges directing the evolving standards of law said it meant. The Rule of Law was exchanged for the Rule of Lawyers.

This new view of law and the Constitution also influenced the way judges interpreted previous court decisions issued before the advent of positive law. For instance, Chief Justice Marshall declared in Marbury vs. Madison (1803) that the judiciary has the right to "say what the law is." Positive law jurists read that statement through the lens of their own presuppositions and interpret it to mean the Supreme Court can create law through interpretation and, according to Justice Lyons, "enforce" the law as well.

But in reading Marshall's opinion in the proper, historical context, he emphatically held that the judiciary, as well as every other branch of government, was bound by the Constitution:

"...a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."[16]

Nowhere in his decision did Marshall say or imply that all Supreme Court opinions about the Constitution hold as much weight "as if written into the Constitution," as Justice Lyons declares.

Justice Lyons may consider himself to be a "strict constructionist" judge (i.e. the Constitution means what the Framers said it means), but his dogged commitment to the "Divine Right of the Judiciary" makes his personal convictions irrelevant unless they are blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Lyons doesn't like what federal judges have done with the power they have assumed, but his answer is to ratify a new constitutional amendment to fix the problem. However, his proposed amendment suffers from the same disease that plagues his opinions on the Constitution in general: the presumption of judicial supremacy.

For all his concern about "anarchy," Lyons doesn't realize that our nation has never been in danger of anarchy. Rather, we have seen an ever-increasing power of our government for the last 140 years.

For 38 pages, Justice Lyons attacks the view of "one man determining for himself what is law," but for 38 pages, he implicitly advocates giving that same power to one justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We cannot permit a single individual, be he or she merely a private citizen or the chief justice of the highest court in a state, to disregard the rule of law based upon his or her personal interpretation of the United States Constitution, regardless of how sincerely considered or prayerfully derived."[17]

According to Justice Lyons, if one man appointed for life on the U.S. Supreme Court disregards the rule of law in favor of his own personal interpretation of the United States Constitution, he could cast a tie-breaking vote, and all our oaths would compel us to kiss his ring. In trying to prevent anarchy, Justice Lyons' views would sooner make us slaves.

The answer to the problem of judicial activism is not to appoint strict-constructionist dictators to the federal bench, but to denounce the constitutional heresy of judicial supremacy and its venomous side-kick, positive law theory. Congress, the president, and especially state officials, must exercise the powers the Constitution reserves to them and tell activist judges to "pound sand" when they issue opinions that are clearly in contempt of the Constitution.

Although sincere and well meaning, Justice Lyons' views are repugnant to the plain text of our Constitution, totally inconsistent with the views of nearly all of our Founding Fathers, contemptible towards the powers and rights reserved to the states and to the people, and out of line with over 1,000 years of English Common Law precedent.

I earnestly hope that Justice Lyons will return once more to the "ancient paths where the good way is"[18] and fulfill his oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama by rejecting the dangerous doctrine of Judicial Supremacy.


[1] Lyons, Champ, His Monument, My Oath, and the Rule of Law, May 12 th, 2004, page 3. [2] Ibid. Page 13. [3] See Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. [4] Lyons. Page 3 [5] Ibid. see pages 3, 12, 20, and 37. [6] See Eidsmoe's "A Call to Stand with Chief Justice Moore" for more info on the ancient doctrine of Interposition. [7] Lyons. Page 16 [8] Ibid. Page 26 [9] Ibid. Page 37 [10] Ibid. Page 7 [11] Ibid. Page 16 [12] Ibid. Page 13 [13] Matthew 15: 7-9. (NIV) [14] Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. "Of the Nature of Laws in General." [15] For an excellent analysis of the influence of the Positive Law theory, consult Dr. John Eidesmoe's Institute on the Constitution video series, lecture #11 "From Biblical Absolutes to Evolutionary Humanism." [16] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137. [17] Lyons. Page 26 [18] Jeremiah 6:16 and 18:15

Should we support Left Behind?

By Thomas Williamson

In any good-sized American city, you will see upscale neighborhoods with fine, expensive, well-maintained homes and wealthy people. And you will see poorer run-down areas, on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, full of poor folks and riddled with graffiti, trash, high crime and immorality.

Sociologists will tell you that the people in the upper-class neighborhoods are mostly future-oriented people, who are willing to defer instant gratification of their desires, in order to save and make sacrifices for the future. That is how they can afford to live in a nice neighborhood.

Those in the slums are mostly present-oriented people. They make no plans or sacrifices for the future, or for future generations. They are not concerned about improving themselves or leaving any legacy for their children - they just live for today.

Most pastors, if given a choice of pastoring a congregation of future-oriented people, or trashy present-oriented slum dwellers, will choose the future-oriented group.

Why, then, would we want to create an entire generation of present-oriented people, who believe that our movement has no future and there is nothing to sacrifice for? This world-view is the local conclusion that many readers will draw from the "Left Behind" prophecy novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, which are now being so heavily promoted among Christians.

Why should we expect any church member to sacrifice anything to perpetuate a ministry that is going to be broken up anyway in just a few years, according to the message of the "Left Behind" books? Why pay for an expensive building program, just for the Beast to take it over for his coming world church? If there is no possibility of leaving any legacy for the future, why not just spend the money on ourselves, like the lowlifes on the poor side of town do?

THE TRUTH HAS BEEN LEFT BEHIND. Millions of people are reading the "Left Behind" books in the belief that what they read is based on the Word of God, even though co-author Jerry Jenkins has described the books as "fiction" and "entertainment." Some of the "Left Behind" fans bristle and become defensive if it is suggested that future events will not unfold exactly as described in these favorite fictional entertainment books of theirs. It becomes almost impossible to preach straight Bible doctrine on prophecy to folks who have been indoctrinated with the "Left Behind" propaganda.

On the dust cover of the hardback version, we are told that "When you realize that these stories represent events that millions believe will actually occur, it could change your life." Is that the new standard for truth - not because the Bible says so, but because "millions believe it will happen this way?" If so, why not let the Quran or Book of Mormon change our lives? Millions of people believe in those books also.

The Left Behind novels are full of prophecies which are allegedly biblically based, but in reality are not substantiated from the Word of God.

Page 18 of "Tribulation Force" describes "one world government, a one-world currency, a treaty with Israel, moving the UN to Babylon" as marks of the coming of Antichrist, but with no Scripture cited. In reality, the Bible does not predict any of these things as marks of the coming of Antichrist.

On page 214 of "Nicolae" we are told that "the Tribulation did not begin with the Rapture. It begins with the signing of that treaty" (between Israel and the Antichrist). But the Bible does not teach that there will be a gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation, nor that the Tribulation begins with the signing of a treaty between Israel and Antichrist, nor that such a treaty will ever besigned at any time in history.

SECOND CHANCE AFTER THE RAPTURE? On page 21, of "Tribulation Force" we are told that "the Bible talks about 144,000 Jews springing up and traveling throughout the world. There is to be a great soul harvest, maybe a billion or more people, coming to Christ." (This is supposed to happen after the Rapture). No Scripture is cited to prove this, but I guess we don't need Scripture, if our standard of truth is "what millions of people believe will actually occur."

This is just a warmed-over version of Hal Lindsey's preposterous myth of the "144,000 Jewish Billy Grahams" who will bring about the greatest number of conversions of all time after the Rapture (after the Holy Spirit and all true churches have been removed from the earth!) Christians who believe this will not be motivated to bother to evangelize the world now. They can just slump down in their Lazy-Boy chair in front of the boob tube, and wait for the world to be evangelized by Hal Lindsey's 144,000 Jewish Billy Grahams who are supposed to pop up in just a few short years anyway.

However, the passages concerning the 144,000 in Revelation chapters 7 and 14 say absolutely nothing about the 144,000 traveling the globe, preaching to anybody, making converts, or bringing about a revival. That's our job (Matthew 28:19-20) and we are not allowed to slough it off onto an elite corps of "Jewish Billy Grahams" in a future dispensation.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, we are told that as a result of Christ's coming, "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Some understand this to teach that no one will be saved after the Rapture, while others say that there will be people saved, but not anyone

who heard and rejected the Gospel prior to the Rapture.

The "Left Behind" novels clearly teach that people who heard and rejected the Gospel before the Rapture will have a second chance to be saved after the Rapture. This may be "what millions of people believe," but it is contrary to what the Bible says. This is false doctrine, with serious consequences. How many unsaved "Left Behind" readers will find themselves being dragged off to the Lake of Fire, wondering what happened to that "second chance to get saved after the Rapture" that LaHaye and Jenkins promised them?

WHY WE FIGHT. The "Left Behind" books contain many teachings that may influence our national policy toward conflicts in the Middle East, if believed by enough people.

One of the key teachings of the series is that the UN headquarters must be moved from New York to Iraq. Again, no Scriptural backing for this belief is ever provided.

Those who have been wondering why America is fighting a seemingly pointless and unnecessary war in Iraq need wonder no more - we are doing it to fulfill prophecy. Not Bible prophecy, but LaHaye/Jenkins prophecy about the establishment of UN headquarters in Iraq.

Lest there be any doubt as to the need to invade Iraq in order to fulfill his own prophecies, LaHaye in late 2003 issued a statement saying, "the present-day tension in the Middle East is falling in line with biblical [sic] prophecy . . . Iraq will play a prominent role in upcoming events leading to Christ's return. . . . The author and theologian says the war to liberate Iraq will pave the way for that nation eventually to emerge as a world power . . . Scripture suggests that Iraq is going to rise to prominence."

Hard to believe as it may seem, part of our motivation for the war in Iraq may be the desire to fulfill some extremely speculative prophecies "suggested" not in Scripture but in this second-rate series of pseudo-Christian soap operas, called "Left Behind."

BABYLON OR BUST. LaHaye and Jenkins have gone out on a limb, and painted all of evangelical

Christianity into a corner, with this speculative prediction about the UN moving to Iraq. If it doesn't happen that way - if the UN moves instead to Ouagadougou, Pago Pago or Titicaca, ,or what is more likely, stays put in New York, this will create the impression, in the minds of some, that the Bible is not true.

In reality, the Bible says absolutely nothing about UN headquarters being moved to Iraq. This is just one of many science-fiction type fantasies that are recklessly set forth as gospel truth throughout the Left Behind novels.

Like all other sensationalist popularizers of the book of Revelation, LaHaye and Jenkins are selective as to what elements of Revelation to take literally, and what to spiritualize. They convert the "stars of heaven" of Revelation 6:13 into mere meteors. They regard the reference to the virginity of the 144,000 in Revelation 14:4 as non-literal, since Michael Shorosh, card-carrying member of the 144,000, is depicted as being married with children. He is also a murderer who kills anybody who looks suspicious, and he almost blows Buck's head off.

PROMOTING THE ARMAGEDDON THEOLOGY. The Armageddon Theology is the belief that there must be devastating wars in the Middle East, with heavy loss of life, in order for Christ to return. In reality the Bible does not teach this, but LaHaye and Jenkins promote this mistaken belief in the book "Armageddon:"

"When the shooting stopped in Jerusalem, the ghostly silence returned. The One World Unity Army did not immediately attack, but Buck almost wished they had. The quiet was disquieting. He feared the next sound would be the proverbial freight train that tornado victims always mentioned, only this twister would consist of an unending horde of marauders who would stomp Jerusalem to dust. But if that's what it took to usher in Jesus, well, bring it on."

As Christians, we ought to avoid giving the world the impression that we favor war, death and destruction in order to "usher in Jesus." We need to distance ourselvesfrom the Armageddon Theology and from the Left Behind mentality.

It is unthinkable that the followers of the One who told His disciples in Gethsemane to put their swords away (Matthew 26:52) would ever advocate war for the purpose of fulfilling so-called "Bible prophecy" or for forcing Christ to return to earth.

EASY-BELIEVISM AND SITUATION ETHICS. Reviewers of the "Left Behind" movie noted, quite correctly, that there was no gospel presentation in it. Based on the bathroom scene where the hero, Buck, gets converted, it appears that all that is necessary to be saved is mental assent to God's existence. Based on this gospel of easy-believism, even the Roman Catholic Pope is presented as saved and as going up in the Rapture, in "Left Behind."

Not only is it really, really easy to be considered a Christian in the wonderful world of Left Behind, but the moral standards for a Christian are not all that exacting, either. The Christian hero Buck is portrayed as using his credit card to embezzle and steal from his boss - it's okay, because it's for the cause of Christ, and besides, the boss is a real Beast, the Antichrist himself.

STILL A VIRGIN? YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. On page 134 of "Tribulation Force," Buck expresses his embarrassment at having to admit to Chloe that he is still a virgin at age 30. The book does not explain why any man, at any age, who has never been married, should have to hang his head in shame because he has never committed fornication with anyone.

Unsaved "Left Behind" readers who have been told that "everyone" is indulging in premarital sex will find confirmation on page 136 when 20-year-old Chloe laughs and says to Buck, "What are the odds that 2 unmarried people are taking a walk at midnight in America and both of them are virgins?"

In "Nicolae," Buck tells Verna, a lesbian, that "My Bible doesn't differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals." Oh, really?

ABORTION NOT SO BAD. In "Nicolae," Rayford makes a commendable effort to persuade Hattie not to abort her unborn child, but then

he becomes "angry at himself' for what he said, and apologizes to Hattie for hurting her feelings (page 195).

Later, on page 248, Chloe, sounding just a bit like a Planned (Barren)hood counselor, tells Hattie, concerning her abortion, "These are personal decisions only you can make. And while they are life-and-death¬, heaven-and-hell decisions, all we can offer is support, encouragement, advice if you ask for it, and love. . . . We are going to love you anyway. We're going to love you the way God loves you. We're going to love you so fully and so well that you won't be able to hide from it. Even if your decisions go against everything we believe to be true, and even though we would grieve over the loss of innocent life if you chose to abort your baby, we won't love you any less.... We have to let God love you through us. He's the one who loves us regardless of what we do."

Chloe assures Hattie of God's unconditional love even if she aborts her baby, and there is no hint of God's judgment or even disapproval regarding abortion, which is presented as merely something that goes against what Chloe and her friends believe to be true (that is to say, a matter of opinion). LaHaye and Jenkins have given their readers a truly "uncertain sound of the trumpet" concerning the issue of abortion.

Later on, in "The Indwelling," Chloe considers killing herself and her son Kenny, and Tsion wonders, "Is this a sign of faith or lack of faith?" Tsion, the great Bible scholar, argues against killing Kenny, not on the basis that murder would violate the law of God, but because "that child has brought so much joy to this house." Sounds like situation ethics - if Kenny had not brought so much joy to his house, it might be all right to kill him, and the desire to kill him might be considered "a sign of faith."

SERVE GOD AND THE DEVIL AT THE SAME TIME? In "Desecration," Chang is represented as receiving the mark of the Beast and yet is still considered to be a Christian afterwards. Chang is represented as serving 2 masters, Christ and Satan. It would be hard to imagine anything more unscriptural and anti-scripturalthan this. In "The Indwelling," Chang pretends to worship Antichrist.

In "The Mark," when Chang expresses concern over his dual loyalties, his Christian buddies assure him that it's no big deal, saying, "What's done is done, and a smart guy like you ought to be able to see the upside of this. . . What are you going to do with the `advantage,' as you call it, being bi-loyal for lack of a better term?"

Tsion comes up with a clever justification for "Christians" like Chang who serve both God and the Devil. He teaches that there is a difference between the Book of Life and the Lamb's Book of Life. The Christian who messes up really bad will have his name blotted out of the Book of Life but will remain in the Lamb's Book of Life and still go to heaven. The Left Behind mentality is that Christians can live like the devil and still be saved.

This is just a sample of the ungodly anti-Christian rubbish that the "Left Behind" series teaches, thus encouraging readers to believe that abortion, murder and taking the mark of the Beast are not so bad and that you can done those things and still go to heaven.

The book "Soul Harvest" teaches that "Eons ago, God the Father conceded control of earth's weather to Satan himself, the prince and power of the air." This is unscriptural - the Bible does not teach that Satan controls the weather.

Also in this book, one of the characters seeks a godmother for her baby, which hints of infant baptism.

Christians who read the "Left Behind" novels in an attempt to learn "Bible prophecy" will have to wade through hundreds of tiresome pages describing car chases, traffic jams, transcontinental flights, romantic subplots, endless phone conversations, and transcripts of Tribulation Force members bickering and arguing with their bosses and with each other, in order to come across an occasional tidbit of "prophecy" that often is not backed up by the Word of God and is in many cases openly anti-scriptural.

I'VE GOT PLENTY OF NOTHING (TO DO). According to the Left Behind worldview, none of the great religious achievements of the21st Century will be accomplished by any of us who are already saved. Only the 144,000 and the Tribulation Force, all of them denizens of a future dispensation, have any important work to do for the Lord.

For the rest of us in the so-called "Terminal Generation," there is not much to do except watch our bloodthirsty Armageddon doomsday videos, lobby for Middle East wars in order to fulfill "prophecy," and fuss and fight with each other while we wait for the Rapture.

The massive circulation of the Left Behind books among Christians is helping to create a subculture of lethargic, apathetic church members with substandard morals and a ghetto mentality that says, "Ain't nothing gonna get accomplished until after the Rapture, when the 144,000 come along, so we may as well just sit in the mud and do nothing."

We cannot and should not try to control everything our people read. But we should be aware of the detrimental influence of the "Left Behind" theology, and try to counteract it as best we can. It will become more and more difficult to teach sound doctrine and morality in our churches, as the philosophy of "Left Behind" tightens its death grip on modern Christianity.

Editor's note:

[Left Behind author, Jerry Jinkins'] favorite novelist is Stephen King, whom some evangelicals refuse to read because of his demonic supernaturalism. He calls John Irving's "The Cider House Rules" "a brilliant piece of work," despite its pro-choice agenda. He even stands up for the Harry Potter books, which much of the evangelical world–including laHaye–calls propaganda for black magic. "I love ‘The Wizard of Oz'," he says, "and I didn't want to grow up to be a witch." (Newsweek, May 24, 2004.)

Words from a Jew converted to Christianity in Glorious Appearing: "Jesus will judge you Gentiles on how you have treated His chosen people. Those who honored the Jews are the sheep, and those who did not are the goats." (Quoted in Newsweek.) That is heresy of the first degree, and Jinkins and LaHaye will one day be judged by God for that evil idea placed in the minds of those who read their books. It makes one wonder if they are not also on Israel's payroll?

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


The following is the courtship story of Joshua Flournoy and Julie Ethell, as written by Julie.

In the last issue of The Examiner, you read the courtship story of my sister, Jennie Chancey. I agree with all that she wrote on the benefits of courtship. Since Jennie and I were raised by the same parents, we share some of the same background, such as being encouraged to pray for our future husbands, etc. As Jennie said, every courtship is different because of the unique individuals involved, but there are certain principles to keep in mind when committing to courtship. Courtship involves whole families, not just two people. It's very important that parents are involved in their children's lives. I would encourage fathers and mothers to really know their children, because then, when they get to the point of being ready for marriage, you will already know exactly what your child needs in a life partner.

In January of 1995, Joshua came from Texas to Virginia to be an intern at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). My sister, Jennie, was working at HSLDA at the time and was also the coordinator for the intern program. Jennie introduced me and Joshua, and after finding that we had many things in common, we began a strong friendship. Over the next few months, my parents, Jeff and Bettie, would have "Intern Weekends" in which they would invite the interns to our home in the country just to get away from work and have a family atmosphere since all the interns were far from home.

During these weekends, Joshua and I got to spend a lot of time together in a group setting and under the protective covering of my parents. We also started writing letters, which helped us get to know each other even better. As the months went on, Joshua and I became best friends and it soon became clear that this was something very special. Jeff, my Dad, asked me to tell Joshua to come talk to him and mom about his intentions towards me. I had the job of getting this message to him, in person, no less! I told him -- he and I were both nervous, but excited, to say the least! Before Joshua came over, he had the opportunity to go home to Texas and talk to his parents about all this in person, as he had already done over the phone.

On the evening of May 23rd, Joshua came, had dinner and talked with mom and dad while I was in another room, praying the whole time! One thing I would like to mention here is the importance of daughters (and sons) having open communication with their parents. My mom and dad really didn't know that my feelings for Joshua were so strong at this point. They pretty much thought I was just being friendly and had no other thought about Joshua before that time. They could not have been more wrong -- I already knew by now (as a result of constant prayer) that Joshua was the person God had made for me. I had simply not talked with them about my feelings and it is the one thing I really regret about my courtship. If mom and dad had known how I felt, this part of the process probably would have played out a little differently.

Back to May 23rd! After they talked for about an hour and a half, we all headed out to my dad's church softball game and they wanted Joshua to tell me all he had said to them, while we were on the bleachers surrounded by people. Not exactly the most private place, but that just goes to show that you don't have to be "alone" to have a serious discussion! Joshua told me, in a nutshell, that I had all the qualities he was looking for in a wife, that he thought very soon he'd be able to support a family and his thoughts were heading toward marriage -- with me! I was overjoyed! I told him that didn't scare me at all and my thoughts were heading the same way, he had all I had been looking for and I was excited about all this. Dad and mom, for various reasons, decided we were not quite ready to start a courtship, so we continued getting to know each other and now mom and dad spent more time with him, really getting to know him on a more personal level. This is one of the most important aspects of courtship: trusting and honoring your parents. They have so much more wisdom and experience, not to mention they know your weaknesses and strengths better than you do.

During the summer, mom and dad started to see what my feelings truly were and realized I really loved Joshua. Meanwhile, Joshua had been hired by HSLDA as a full-time employee. My parents still thought we weren't quite ready for courtship, as I was heading off to college that fall. I went to Bob Jones University to major in Graphic Design. It was hard to part from Joshua and as my time there wore on, I realized just how much I loved him. During the time I was gone, Joshua came over quite frequently to my parents' house to talk and visit with them. Also, his family had come to visit him in Virginia and they talked to my parents. They became good friends and realized that God had brought our two families together for a special purpose.

Joshua's family met me for the first time on their way to Virginia. We were at ease with each other right off the bat, so that was a relief to me.

About a month after that visit, my parents came to see me at Bob Jones. It was October the 21st. The night before, I had gone to a quiet place by myself and poured my heart out to God, asking that He please let us start courting. I prayed and cried for an hour or more until I finally felt peace in my heart. Mom and Dad took me off campus to lunch and dad said, "Well, Joshua's set and determined that you're the one he's going to marry!" I smiled and said, "Well, I'm set and determined that HE'S the one I'M going to marry!" I finally told them things I had never said before about how he was my best friend and we just fit perfectly in more ways than one. I asked if we could officially start courting and they said Yes! I was so happy, I could have burst. Before my parents left, I asked mom if I could tell Joshua that I loved him, because that had been one of their particular instructions so we would not defraud each other's emotions. She said I could and every one of my friends could see the joy on my face when they next saw me.

I called Joshua and told him the good news that we could start courting. Needless to say, he was overjoyed. We finally verbally expressed our love fully to one another and it was a day we will never forget. We kept up the letters and phone calls to each other and to my parents as the school year wore on. Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I went home for a reunion of the extended family and saw Joshua for the first time in 2 months. Mom and Dad allowed us to go out to breakfast one morning to be able to talk about some things without 30 people around and we got to talk to each other more about our pasts and the future. After every conversation, the two of us would pray together. It was wonderful, but our four days together passed much too quickly.

When I went back to school, I began to realize that this was not where God wanted me. He was turning my heart away from the career mentality that comes from college, back to home and training to be a wife and mother. When I came home for Christmas and Joshua and I got to spend a lot more time together, talking, praying and reading the Bible, I realized that God was calling me to be a wife and mother sooner than 4 years from now when I'd graduate from college! I flew to Texas to spend New Year's with Joshua and his family and that was a very special time getting to know his family on a more personal level and meeting lots of his friends. As it was getting closer to the end of the holiday, I told mom and dad that I really didn't want to go back to Bob Jones, that I thought God's will was for me to stay home and learn all I needed to know about being a wife and mother. The four of us prayed about it for a few days and all realized I was to stay home.

January and February were spent learning more about running a househould, spending money wisely, making food/meal menus, etc. This whole time, Joshua would visit every weekend and we continued to seek the Lord together. We were allowed more time "alone," but we were never out of view of someone in the family. We could talk without anyone eavesdropping, but we always had a "chaperone" if you will. That helped us keep our focus on where it needed to be and not on other things. One night in February, mom, dad and I went to Joshua's apartment for dinner and had a discussion about how they thought we were ready for marriage and all they were waiting for was a ring! This being 9 months after Joshua had "declared his intentions," we were ecstatic! This was what we had been waiting for!

On March 10th, Joshua took me up to Skyline Drive in the Blue Ridge Mountains about 10 minutes from where I lived and proposed marriage to me with a beautiful poem he had written just for me. The next 7 months were spent preparing for our wedding and my sister's wedding, who had been simultaneously having her own courtship story unfold! She and Matt Chancey were married June 22nd.

Shortly after we got engaged, Joshua decided to bring his time at HSLDA to an end and finally start his own business, one that he had been thinking about and planning for quite a while. One of Joshua's friends in Dayton, Ohio, offered him the use of his office and computers to start his own internet business. Joshua worked very hard for the next 6 months and by the time we got married the business was making enough money to support the two of us. It was hard to be separated all that time, but it was a blessing in disguise, because it allowed us to stay focused on our goals.

We were married October 5th, 1996 on a beautiful Fall day in the Blue Ridge Mountains. That day, we shared our first kiss ever, which will always be a special memory. We spent our honeymoon in Colorado and lived in Dayton, Ohio, for about a year, before moving to Texas shortly after the birth of our first baby, Elizabeth. Now nearly eight years and four kids later (and number 5 on the way!), we still praise God for the joy of courtship. It's the best way to get to know someone's true personality, their strengths and weaknesses. It allows for the bonding of the families and not just the couple, which is so important because you're "marrying" a family, not just a person.

When you date, all you do is set yourself up for divorce, "trying on" different people to see if they "fit." When you are committed to courtship, you become friends with many people and save your emotions and purity for your marriage partner. I know it's easy to get distracted when you meet great Christian young men or women, by thinking, "This must be the one!" I did this myself! But, when you take those thoughts to the Lord and keep committing your heart to Him, it's so much better when you get married and can tell your spouse that you loved them so much, you saved ALL of yourself for them.

Joshua's business that he started after we got engaged is still our main source of income and keeps growing stronger every year. Hunting Information Systems is an internet directory of Hunting Outfitters and Guides. You can visit it at:

"Praise to the Lord, the almighty, the King of creation! Oh, my soul praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation."

Partriarchy, Part Two

Below is the second portion of Andrew Sandlin's article. We covered the first section last time: "Old-Fashioned Conservative Tyranny". This month, we would like reproduce the first part of his article without addressing it from Scripture, and then the second part of his article with a Scriptural response. (It is distressing that Sandlin does not defend his position from Scripture yet he has "followers" who say they follow reformed, following "Scripture alone". The complete article and answer is posted at

The Hegemonic Patriarchy

by P. Andrew Sandlin

Today's secular culture is at war with the family. Lax divorce laws, radical feminism, rampant pornography, legalized abortion, "children's rights," mainstream homosexuality, and inheritance taxes – all these and other factors collude to assault the family, particularly the Christian family.

The (Over)Reaction

It is perhaps inevitable that the Christian reaction will at times become overreaction and that the family, a central institution in God's plan, should begin to monopolize all of life. In fact, a renewed patriarchalism in some quarters is working for hegemony over the other legitimate spheres of God's authority. But patriarchalists don't justify their (over)reaction only to the ravenous egalitarian society. They also (over)react to a reckless, egocentric Church that is oblivious to family prerogatives ("After all, I am the elder [or bishop, or deacon, or what have you], and I am the supreme authority in the Church").

But the solution to social and ecclesiastical tyranny is not patriarchal tyranny, [emp. added.] which, in fact, is no less culpable than the former. Tyranny is tyranny, and "spiritual" tyranny is perhaps the worst form of all (think: Spanish Inquisition).

Old-Fashioned Conservative Tyranny

Today's hegemonic [leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others. Apparently, Sandlin thinks partriacal Christians believe they must dominate their wives and families in an almost brutal way – like a pagan overlord. Ed.] patriarchalism seems at points to bear an eerie resemblance to the pagan patriarchy [1 a form of social organization in which the father or eldest male is the head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line. 2 a system of society or government ruled by men. Ed.]of ancient Rome (before the rise of the Empire). Pre-Empire Rome was a patriarchial culture. The housefather was given virtually unlimited authority. His word was law – not metaphorically, but literally. If his wife bore a daughter, and he preferred a son, he could simply cast the daughter into the streets to die of starvation or be beaten by a wild animal. He could beat and otherwise abuse fellow family members at will. With limited exceptions, the father was the central authority in society. Many other ancient cultures were similarly clan-based, and these extended families (not just Mom and Dad and Junior and Susie, but grandparents and third cousins and "in-laws") ruled the countryside by blade and blood. At the center of this tyranny was the patriarch, generally the oldest surviving male of the family. (Mario Puzo's rendition of The Godfather furnishes an embellished, but generally accurate, portrait of this arrangement.)

For this reason it is sometimes ironic to hear Christians declare that they are championing a "conservative view of the family." If they are conserving old-fashioned pagan patriarchy, they are deviating from Biblical Faith, which repudiates this tyranny. We are called first to be obedient Christians, not card-carrying conservatives. Today's Christian patriarchalists are far removed from the violence of the pagan patriarchalists (in most cases, at least!), but in their commitment to hegemony, they are too close for comfort.

Baby Machines

Some Christian men that I have observed treat their wives as baby machines. The wife is never under any circumstances permitted to work outside the home, despite the fact that the Bible nowhere forbids such work. True, the young mother's central Biblical responsibility is domestic – her family (1 Tim. 5:14). Today's "career-minded moms" whose work is a separate track from her husband's generally conflict with the Bible's pattern of the woman as a suitable help to her husband (Gen. 2:18-25). However, the Bible does not prohibit women, including wives and mothers, from working outside the home. We must not, therefore, allow "conservative" standards to supplant Biblical standards.

[End of second section]

II. Baby Machines

"Some Christian men that I have observed treat their wives as baby machines." Are Christian wives commanded to be stay at home "baby machines?" Obviously, Scripture nowhere says, "Thou shalt not work outside of the home." However, Scripture clearly declares that wives are to be keepers at home and in subjection to their own husbands in everything Titus 2:5, Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, 5.

The issue is not has conservative standards supplanted Biblical standards, but it is has modern standards supplanted Biblical standards. The Biblical standards for men, women and for the home are established by Scripture, resisted by the fallen nature, and corrupted and hindered by sin. It is clear that a woman in the work force is not being subject to her own husband in all things, unless she is working for her husband, as do some women I know.

Actually, the woman in Proverbs 31 was a very intelligent working woman, but her work was centered around her home and was under her husband's authority. No amount of human reasoning, tradition nor social change can get around the clear Scriptural admonition for women to be "keepers at home." (Do social conditions change the law-word of God, or simply change the applications?) Why do the older expositors boldly confront the keepers at home passages, e.g., Titus 2:5, while the modern ones ignore them or try to explain them away?

Genesis 1:28 said, "be fruitful and multiply," and the woman is the one created to have the babies. It is not the man, but the woman who is (using a crass term) the "Baby Machine," if a society will have babies. Maybe we should have "Test Tube" babies bred in laboratories, raised in day care centers and Christian Schools so there is no need for "Baby Machines" and stay at home moms. Sin causes both the man and woman to despise the woman's place in society, which is to be a help meet for her husband, keep the home, and have babies, a task neither assigned to nor possible for men. There were no "Mr. Moms" in Scripture, nor does the Word of God condone any such thing today.

There are those who say that the 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.), and 9:1,was for a different time when the earth was empty, so it does not apply for our day.


1) though they may claim not to be dispensationalists, they are, for they say that God's word there is for another dispensation.

2) if the command to be fruitful and multiply is not for our age, then we must also say that the mandate to subdue the earth and take dominion is not for our day either. I find it interesting how folks can chop up Scripture to fit what they want to believe. Even when passages are restated in the New Testament, there are those who will remove them from their Old Testament context. The dominion mandate is regiven in Matthew 28:19, 20, but I reckon that because the multiply command is not referred to, it is not part of the restated dominion mandate.

3) throughout the Old Testament, a large number of children was a sign of God's blessings upon his people for obedience to his law-word, Genesis 17:20, 33:5, 49:25, Leviticus 26:9, Job 42:12, 13, Psalms 107:38, &c.

(Though I have not read, nor do I have any desire to read "Jabez's Prayer", I can safely assume that the author did not point out that part of Jabez's request was for a lot of children—bless me indeed in the context of Old Testament blessings, 1 Chronicles 4:10.)

4) in Scripture, many children was a cause for rejoicing in the goodness of God, Psalms 127:1-5, 128:1-5, &c. Today, a large family with many children is many times seen as a curse from God. Even the Christian community has bought the enemy's lie that a small family is God's modern way, while the pagans like the Muslims see a large family as their god's blessing. Guess which group will take over the nations?

When Bettie's oldest daughter, Jennie (, was expecting their fifth child, "Americans" would look at her like, Don't you know where babies come from? when she had the other 4 with her in public. However, Spanish ladies would look at her quite the opposite. In fact, one Mexican lady stopped her, and ask if all the children were hers. When Jennie said yes, the lady patted her bulging stomach and said, You are a rich lady. That is the way God looks at children.

Has Sandlin departed from the historic, orthodox Christian faith?

Did Scripture or sin place the woman in the competitive work force? The issue is not has conservative standards supplanted Biblical standards, but it is has modern standards supplanted Biblical standards.

Is it not strange that there are those will establish even above Scripture man-made documents such as the Westminister Confession, yet they will ignore clear Biblical injunctions pointed out by equally as godly men of the past, when those injunctions do not support what they want to teach?

There are some of us who believe that the word of God changes not, regardless of social conditions. Let me bore you with some thoughts of godly men of the past concerning our point of the Biblical place of women in the home:

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:5.)

The Lord, in both 1 Timothy 2:9-14 and Titus 2:1-5, protects or safeguards marriage. If these instructions are followed, the enemy's opportunity to gain the heart of the wife will be greatly restricted. Furthermore, women who go outside the home to places where they have close contact with other women's husbands are commonly used by the enemy to win the hearts of other women's husbands.

Moreover, the instructions (of 1 Timothy 2:9-14) are to women professing godliness, so it is safe to assume that neither Titus 2:1-5 nor 1 Timothy 2 applies to those making no such profession, though these are still good common sense instructions even for them: their marriages will be preserved in many cases. Also, the reason for the instructions given in this passage is clearly stated by Paul—v. 14, the woman was deceived in the transgression. So the instructions are for the woman's protection from her propensity toward deception, and thus her family being destroyed.

What is the historic, orthodox position?

(The following is primarily from Titus, by Thomas Taylor, first published, 1619. Klock & Klock reprint, 1980. [Taylor])

Keepers at home.

Chastity then is the main marriage duty, and the undefiled bed the honour of it (Heb. 13:4). So our apostle brings it in, like some honourable lady, with attendants going before her, and some safeguarding behind her. All the marriage duties which went before chastity made way for it; and all those that follow are its preservatives. Yea, all may be known at sight to belong to such a noble mistress.

Of them all, the Holy Ghost thought this one, homekeeping, fittest to follow at her heels; for homekeeping is indeed chastity's best keeper. Not that a woman is never to be found out of doors, for many necessary and just occasions call her abroad. (1) As a Christian, the public duties of piety and worship; and the more private duties of love and works of mercy, in visiting and helping the sick and poor. (2) As a wife, both with her husband (when he shall require it) or without him, for the necessary provision of the household and such
like. But the thing here condemned is the affection of gadding at any hour, to hear or tell news or to seek merriments or company, accounting their own house a prison rather than a home, and easily forsaking it without just occasion. This is justly condemned.

Reason 1. This is a forsaking and flying for the time, out of the calling in which they ought to abide; for their calling is commonly indoors, to keep the household in good order; and therefore for them to wander from their own place is as if a bird should wander from ner [sic] own nest (Prov. 27:8).

Reason 2. This is the highway to become busybodies; for what weighty matters call them out of their calling? Is it not to prattle of persons and actions which concern them not? Thus the apostle couples these together, "idle and busybodies" (1 Tim. 5:13). Those who are idle in their own duties [homekeeping, ed.] are most busy in other men's; and these busybodies have two special marks to be known by, their open ears and their loose tongues.

Reason 3. The Holy Ghost makes this a note of a whorish woman; she is everywhere except where she should be -sometimes gadding in the streets with Tamar, sometimes in the fields with Dinah, sometimes outside at her door; but her feet cannot abide in her house (Prov. 7:11). And even if her body is within doors, her heart and senses will be without. Jezebel must be gazing out the window; but if the angel asks where Sarah is, the answer comes, She is within the tent; and the daughters of Sarah will be within their tents, not in the taverns, nor straggling so far abroad that their husbands cannot readily answer where they are.

Reason 4. They lay themselves open to desperate and unavoidable evils, if they make no bones of violating this commandment of God. How Satan watches all advantages to take them, when they are out of their ways! And how easily he prevails against them, when they have plucked themselves from under God's protection. Dinah was no sooner assaulted than overcome; Eve was no sooner separated from Adam than set upon, and no sooner set upon than vanquished. Women who easily forsake their own stations are given over, if not so far as these, yet so far as to forget themselves by unchristian speeches and actions, which they have good cause afterward to lament with sighs and tears. (Taylor, p. 272, 273.)

"Subject unto their husbands."

Marriage in itself is neither virtue nor vice; yet it is a shop of either, according to the qualities or practices of the persons married. And therefore this is the seventh marriage virtue, prescribed to the younger women, and for it there is great reason and necessity.

Reason 1. If we consider the law of creation, written by God's own finger in the hearts of all men, used in all nations, and enacted by the natural light of heathens into the public laws, we find that the wife should be subject unto her own husband. This is one reason given by the apostle, that Adam was first created and then Eve (1 Tim. 2:13). [Ibid.]

Outside the home in the workplace clearly violates this command, for the wife, or daughter, clearly places herself in subjection to a man other than her own husband.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22.)

4. In everything, except that which relates to conscience and religion, he has authority. But there his authority ceases. (Barnes')

[V.] 22. (Eph 6:9.) The Church's relation to Christ in His everlasting purpose, is the foundation and archetype of the three greatest of earthly relations, that of husband and wife (#Eph 5:22-33), parent and child (Eph 6:1-4), master and servant (Eph 6:4-9). The oldest manuscripts omit "submit yourselves"; supplying it from #Eph 5:21, "Ye wives (submitting yourselves) unto your own husbands." "Your own" is an argument for submissiveness on the part of the wives; it is not a stranger, but your own husbands whom you are called on to submit unto (compare Ge 3:16 1Co 7:2 14:34 Col 3:18 Tit 2:5 1Pe 3:1-7). Those subject ought to submit themselves, of whatever kind their superiors are. "Submit" is the term used of wives: "obey," of children (Eph 6:1), as there is a greater equality between wives and husbands, than between children and parents.
as unto the Lord—Submissiveness is rendered by the wife to the husband under the eye of Christ, and so is rendered to Christ Himself. The husband stands to the wife in the relation that the Lord does to the Church, and this is to be the ground of her submission: though that submission is inferior in kind and degree to that which she owes Christ (Eph 5:24). (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown.)

Comment: Continually, Scripture warns against the church submitting itself to any other authority other than her lawful Husband's, Christ; many of the same men who allow their wives to submit to others preach against the wrong submission of the church. Men allow their wives and daughters to submit themselves to authorities other than their husband or father, as the case must be.

Reason 2. Consider God's law and institution after the fall. "Your desire shall be unto him, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16); as if he had said, Since you cannot rule yourself, it is now especially fitting that you should be put under the rule and power of another. Yea, though this subjection is not so liberal, sweet, and free as before the fall, yet it is the apostle's reason, that Adam was not first seduced, but Eve; and therefore her honour was first lost, and a less liberal subjection was more securely bound upon her.
Reason 3. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is of his church (Eph. 5:25); and therefore as the members are subject to the head without reasoning, so should the wife be unto her husband. ... Therefore the wife must signify that she has a feeling for him in her heart, as the image of God's majesty, glory, and sovereignty, through her whole behaviour in a meek and quite spirit; and if she rebels against this, she raises up against the Lord himself. (Taylor, pp. 274, 275.)

Comment: Thus the danger of being under another man's authority is the warning of 1 Timothy 2:14—being especially subject to deception, she is placed under her husband's (or father's) loving, watchful eye.

"The woman does not lose her rational power of thought and responsibility by abiding in the place assigned her by the gospel; and she also has a right to prove all things—only in a manner suited to her position—in order that she may hold fast that which is good, and reject what is otherwise..." The woman, normally, has a gentler, more loving and sympathetic nature, which in places outside the home can lead to serious problems. The man, on the other hand, with his governing powers, as a rule is inclined the opposite direction. (1 Timothy 2:11. Pastoral Epistles, Patrick Fairbairn. Orginally published by T & T Clark, 1874. Klock & Klock reprint, 1980. P. 129.)

"In many other things woman may be his equal; in loveliness, and grace, and beauty, and tenderness, and gentleness, she is far his superior; but these are not the qualities adapted for government." (Ephesians 5:22, Barnes.)

May the husband beat his wife, to force her unto this subjection? It seems not, for: (a) There is no word or example for it in the scriptures. (b) No man ever hated, much less beat, his own flesh, except in madness. (c) Her subjection must not be servile, but as that of a member to the head. ...
"That the word of God be not evil spoken of."
These words contain a general reason enforcing all the former duties. By "the word of God" is meant the doctrine of the gospel, taught, received, and professed by believers in all ages. As this holy gospel is glorious in itself, so its glory and honour ought to be preserved, yea and advanced in the lives of all who look for salvation by it.
Our apostle then concludes that the word is blasphemed when the lives of its professors are not attuned unto it. And this may happen in two ways, either by doing what is prohibited, or else by not doing what is prescribed. The latter is here especially condemned, i.e. a life idly led in regard to Christian practices. The apostle has not in the former verses reproved vices, but has recommended virtues, and all upon this ground, "that the word of God be not evil spoken of"; which shows us that to be idle or negligent in the work of the Lord is sinful in such a one. (Tylor, p. 175, 276.)

Comment: Not only to the women who remove themselves from God's appointed place blaspheme God and pollute His name, but those who allow or encourage them in their removal also blaspheme God. And they are being watched by the heathens as they submit to pagan masters in the work place.

Doct. Profession without practice strikes not only the person professing, but also the word of God which he professes, by giving occasion to the profane to blaspheme and scoff at God's holy religion (Rom. 2:24). Reason 1. Such is the malice of the Devil and his instruments, that hating God himself, they turn everything they can against God and his truth, for it is a light revealing their darkness. ...
Reason 2. The Lord imputes this sin less to those who blaspheme the truth, than to those who are movers and occasioners of this sin. "When they entered among the heathen, they polluted my name" (Ezek. 36:20); ... (Ibid., pp. 276, 277.)

Let us then beware of staining our holy profession with unholy practices. The reasons are all around us.
(i) For others, they are either godly or wicked. For the godly, we are bound to confirm and strengthen them. Women professing religion are enjoined all these former duties in order that, though their husbands were unconverted, yet they might win them; or at least the gospel would not be rejected as a teacher of discord. For enemies, all of them watch for some colour of your sides to reproach the truth; but by your watch over your life you may reclaim them; or if they are incurable, at least you shall convince them in their practices, damp and shut their mouths, and get reverence to yourself even in their own conscience; and thus by living without rebuke, you shall shine out and rebuke a crooked and perverse generation (Phil. 2:15). (Ibid., 277, 278.)

Comment: Sadly, Christian women going out among the pagans and submitting to them in the work place has become so common that neither the Christians nor the pagans think anything of it, let alone consider what the Word of God has to say. It has become so commonly accepted that such unbiblical activity has taken on respectable Biblical character.

(ii) Considering yourself: As a professor, you are set upon a scaffold.
(c) Third, what can Satan himself do, more than to lay stumblingblocks to withdraw men from God? And wherein can a man more resemble the Devil, than in showing himself as an angel of light, standing among the sons of God, when indeed he remains a foul spirit of darkness?
Use 4. This doctrine reprehends various sorts of men.
(c) A third sort take themselves farther than either of the former, and perhaps have found some grace in their hearts, but yet they do not watch over themselves, nor give their hearts unto this doctrine; but they become remiss in their care and diligence, and stand so loosely that by some fearful stroke or other thay [sic] may dishonour at once God, his word, themselves, and their profession. And though they can truly say, My course is not that of the swearer, drunkard, or adulterer, yet by becoming slavish to some one lust, or by sliding into some one unchristian action, they more dishonour God than some other men by a thousand oaths or perjuries.
How then may we so carry ourselves that the word of God may not be evil spoken of? Lay up these rules of direction.
(b) Never profess in word that doctrine whose power you mean to deny; but gird your loins with the girdle of truth, for then you will hold out as an ornament of that truth which you profess. ...
(c) In everything regard God's name more than your own; you are taught to pray, "Hallowed be thy name," before forgiveness of your sin, or your own salvation. A man carefully defends his name; he will redeem and rescue his name, if it is hazarded, with all his might; and much more should we defend God's.
(e) Take not all the liberty you may, but sometimes depart from your right before you will dishonour the gospel. Christ in this case departed from his right, and paid custom; so did his disciples; and men do not imitate their blessed example, if they take all their liberty, and never regard what evil will follow of it. The heart must make answer here to two questions, Is this my right, and, Will it do my profession no wrong? Then I may take all my right and use my liberty, and else I may not.
(F) Pray with David, "Lord, let no man be ashamed because of me." What a grief and cut it would be for thee to bear the Papists' triumph because of me; and for the atheists and scoffers, because of me, to say, Oh, this is the stamp of all professors, and therefore I will never believe one of them at all! Does not the offence of one of Christ's little ones bring woe enough, but must you offend them all by your sin?
So much of the duties of the younger women. (Taylor, pp. 278-281.)

Rushdoony quotes Sorin (1840): "‘Again, as it is the duty of women to be keeper at home, and not to be wandering from her place, like an unhappy spirit seeking rest and finding none Titus ii. 5, so most unquestionably, it is the duty of the husband to render that home as interesting and cheerful as possible...'
It is precisely the family order described by Sorin against which much revolutionary activity is directed." (Institutes of Biblical Law, I.205.)

1 Timothy 2:12-15:

Reasons for the Apostolic injunction respecting the subjection and silence of women (vv. 12-15).

Reason 1 ..., from the order in which the sexes were created. Adam was first formed; then Eve. The priority in creation and a certain superiority (ver. 13). ...
Reason 2 ..., from the history of the Fall. In the Mosaic accont, Adam is not said to have been ‘deceived'; but the word is applied to herself by Eve in Gen. iii. 13. Eve was deceived; Adam was rather overpersuaded (ver. 14). ... [Obs. 1. ...The point is that Eve's facility in yielding to the deceiver warrants the Apostolic rule which forbids a woman to teach.] ...
(Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy, H.P. Liddon. Originally published by Longmans, Green, and Co. 1897. Klock & Klock reprint, 1978. Pp. 18, 19,)

Added note of interest: Modesty, A.D. 240


Thou wishest, O Christian woman, that the matrons should be as the ladies of the world. Thou surroundest thyself with gold, or with the modest silken garment. Thou givest the terror of the law from thy ears to the wind. Thou affectest vanity with all the pomp of the devil. Thou art adorned at the looking-glass with thy curled hair turned back from thy brow. And moreover, with evil purposes, thou puttest on false medicaments, on thy pure eyes the stibium, with painted beauty, or thou dyest thy hair that it may be always black. God is the overlooker, who dives into each heart. But these things are not necessary for modest women. Pierce thy breast with chaste and modest feeling. The law of God bears witness that such laws fail from the heart which believes; to a wife approved of her husband, let it suffice that she is so, not by her dress, but by her good disposition. To put on clothes which the cold and the heat or too much sun demands, only that thou mayest be approved modest, and show forth the gifts of thy capacity among the people of God. Thou who wast formerly most illustrious, givest to thyself the guise of one who is contemptible. She who lay without life, was raised by the prayers of the widows. She deserved this, that she should be raised from death, not by her costly dress, but by her gifts. Do ye, O good matrons, flee from the adornment of vanity; such attire is fitting for women who haunt the brothels. Overcome the evil one, O modest women of Christ. Show forth all your wealth in giving.


Hear my voice, thou who wishest to remain a Christian woman, in what way the blessed Paul commands you to be adorned. Isaiah, moreover, the teacher and author that spoke from heaven, for he detests those who follow the wickedness of the world, says: The daughters of Zion that are lifted up shall be brought low. It is not right in God that a faithful Christian woman should be adorned. Dost thou seek to go forth after the fashion of the Gentiles, O thou who art consecrated to God? God's heralds, crying aloud in the law, condemn such to be unrighteous women, who in such wise adorn themselves. Ye stain your hair; ye paint the opening of your eyes with black; ye lift up your pretty hair one by one on your painted brow; ye anoint your cheeks with some sort of ruddy color laid on; and, moreover, earrings hang down with very heavy weight. Ye bury your neck with necklaces; with gems and gold ye bind hands worthy of God with an evil presage. Why should I tell of your dresses, or of the whole pomp of the devil? Ye are rejecting the law when ye wish to please the world. Ye dance in your houses; instead of psalms, ye sing love songs. Thou, although thou mayest be chaste, dost not prove thyself so by following evil things. Christ therefore makes you, such as you are, equal with the Gentiles. Be pleasing to the hymned chorus, and to an appeased Christ with ardent love fervently offer your savor to Christ.

Instructions of Commodianus (AD 240), Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV.214, 215. Commodianus (c. 200-c. 275) was probably a North-African bishop of whom little is known. Born in a pagan home, but won to Christianity through reading Scripture. Though an honest student of Scripture, his theology is not reliable. He gives a painful picture of the decline of godliness in his days. (‘ Fathers' Introductory Note, and Who, s.v., COMMODIANUS.)

In the next issue, we will address Sandlin's next point:

III. Apron-Centered, Kitchen-Table Tutelage, or Culture-reclaiming daughters


Biblical Examiner

The February 2004 issue is especially good, starting with the front page article on Exodus 17, continuing with your analysis of the Judge Moore case, and capping off with your shining the spotlight on G. W. Bush's religious duplicity. I am happy to note that I have read Be Fruitful and Multiply and share Mrs. Need's enthusiastic endorsement of the book.

Your exposition of Israel's war with Amalek is especially enlightening, as yours is the first explanation I've heard of the literal goings on as well as the significance of the various aspects of the war, especially as it applies today.

Thank you for a fine publication and please accept the enclosed check as a donation toward your expenses.

Sincerely yours, Pegy R. (Mrs. John H.) Embree, Bethlehem

Bro Ovid Need
Thanks for the extra copies of the Biblical Examiner. The one with "Godly Example for young men" is very good considering the jail work I am doing.
I trust the Virginia spring is fine, and we have put away our snow shovels.
In Christ, Chaplin Mack Besser, Batavia IL

Dear Bro Need
Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Your Biblical Examiner reached me through Br. Thomas Williamson. I was greatly blest. As a Baptist pastor of a small church in this part of the world holding forth the Historic Baptist Faith adhering to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, I am very happy that you can include me in your mailing list.
I have been training young men in our expanding work reaching our aborigine tribes. Will you be kind to find some people who can help purchase the AGES Christian Library CD for our Seminary Library?, including the Online Bible ME? With your help, we will greatly use these tools for the expansion of the Kingdom of our Lord. Truly we need books to help us train our own people to do the work fo our Lord in harnessing them with the truth.
The used books sent by Bro. Williamson greatly strengthens our faith in the once delivered to the saints.
We will be grateful for your kindness and concern for us in your prayers.
Sincerely in Christ Alone,
A. Victory T. Brillantes, Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Lubaton SUBD, Surallah, Sough Catabato. 9512 Philippines

To the Biblical Examiner:

We would like to donate this check requesting you put us on your mailing list to receive your paper.
A friend gave us a sample of your paper, and we really liked it. Please send us a copy to our home.

Thank you, John Collins, Riverdale MI

Dear Servant Need;
Greetings and love in Christ Jesus our Lord, and Master.
Christianity has become a dirty word much like Nazism, Facism, etc. And when we have a president that claims... to be Christian, but acts like an angel of Satan, this only further erodes in the minds of the young and vulnerable what being a Christian must be.
Then for this once great nation under God... to sponsor and even encourage terrorism (Israel) that hates our Lord and seeks to replace Him with some smooth talk, is a disgrace not only to The Son but to every thing He did and stood for.
Being NO-abortion for many many years, which to me Pastor, is the real holocaust. I am not a holocaust denier, but I am a realist, in that since 1973 when the US Serpent Circus Court sanctioned and blessed the mass slaughter of the alive but unborn babies, made in His image and made possible only by Him, some 40 million have been slaughtered.
Thank you for your continued speaking out against all that is evil, and for helping bring the "light" to those in the dark.
Let us pray without ceasing and beg Him for His forgiveness and... intervention.

May God bless and keep thee!
In His service, Servant Ron Ely, Hiawatha Kansas

Dear Sir:

I am currently incarcerated at the Eastern Orgon Correction Institution (EOCI) at Pendleton OR.
Could you please add my name to your address list and send me your paper, plus anything else you may have to help me.

Thank You.
Tim Mock #9564205, 2500 Westgap, Pendleton OR 97801

Dear Bro. Need:

Ever since I heard you on John Anderson's program, I have wanted a copy of your book The Death of the Church Victorious. I am glad I procrastinated because now I can have the expanded version! So I have enclosed my check in the amount of $25.00 and will look forward to receipt of your excellent tome.

The latest Biblical Examiner contained, as always, many edifying and thought provoking articles. I especially appreciated "The Mystery of Contentment". I never fail to find your personal news and photos interesting; they are much appreciated as well.

I am very happy with the Online Bible but I really need to sit down and read the instructions! I suspect I am missing quite a lot by not doing so.
Thank you again for your work. Blessings to you and yours.

Joy Vann, Dothan, AL

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed....Psalm 2:2


Wal-Mart, May 5, 2004

We worked the polls again for the spring local election in Front Royal. It was an interesting campaign.

Wal-Mart has wanted to build a "Super Center" just north of town, between two bridges: The southern bridge is over the south fork of the Shenandoah River, and the north one is over the north fork of the Shenandoah River. The two rivers meet just east of US 340, north of Front Royal.

The bridges are about a mile south of I 66, and are each only three lanes wide. The road through town is only two lanes; Wal-Mart wanted to build in a flood plane between the two bridges.

There were several objections by the local people to the building site, especially since there is plenty of space just north of I 66 to build, which is only a few miles further north of the city, and on a four lane highway. The main objections were that the three lane bridges would not handle the traffic to a Supper Wal-Mart, and that a Super Wal-Mart would completely change the character of Front Royal. Besides, the three lane highway from I 66 to Front Royal is bumper to bumper during the evening rush hour as people return home. Moreover, there is a Super Wal-Mart about less than 20 minutes north of Front Royal in Winchester.

The town held hearings on Wal-Mart's request to build there, and the public opinion was almost completely against Wal-Mart. (Zoning boards and laws are a fraud. Companies like Wal-Mart get what they want, regardless of what the community desires. There was an abundance of public opposition, but the zoning board approved Wal-Mart's plans anyway. I would not be so strenuously against zoning boards if they were accountable to the people they supposedly represent, but they are not. They are appointed, thus out of reach of the voters, and susceptible to fraud when big money wants to do anything.)

Though the public was very antagonistic against Wal-Mart, the mayor and a majority of the city counsel voted with Wal-Mart. But it was an election year, and the final Wal-Mart plans were not in place, so everything was put on hold to see how the election would come out. Wal-Mart sent out bulk mailings trying to influence the people to support Wal-Mart's bid to build, and even did phone surveys (I received both a mailing and phone call urging me to contact the powers that be to support Wal-Mart. We are outside of the town, so we could not vote, but we would have been affected by a Wal-Mart where they wanted to build.)

There were four incumbents who supported Wal-Mart: the mayor, and three councilmen. There was only one challenger to the mayor, but there were 5 challengers to the three councilmen. The election was seen as a referendum on the Wal-Mart issue. The mayor did a mass mailing that had the same layout design and sending bulk mailing permit and address as did the Wal-Mart mass mailing—a place in Minnesota, I believe.

The turnout was about average for a very local election, around 15%. The results were quite pleasing. All of the candidates who supported Wal-Mart were removed from office. Even though the vote was split by 5 persons seeking the three seats on the council, the three Wal-Mart men were easily beaten.

The voters normally have good common sense, which is probably a reason politicians try to keep issues out of the voters' hands. There is big money in allowing the big corporations to have their way, money which the people do not see. So the politicians want to keep the power to themselves, and thus they tread over the voter as though he is too dumb to know what is best for him.

Zoning Laws

I have fought against zoning laws since we had an encounter with a zoning board in the church where I was an associate pastor in the 70s. We had a prayer meeting in the church parsonage, which was next door to the church. A neighbor was very antichristian, so he took the church to court for zoning violation, for the parsonage was not zoned for religious purposes. He got a court injunction against us, so we could not hold a prayer meeting in the house. (When confronted with the prospect of zoning in Indiana, I notified every church in the county of the danger of zoning, sending them an abundance of documentation of the antichristian flavor of zoning. Only one church out of 90 joined with me in standing against the county effort to implement zoning, for the rapture would rescue them from any problems with zoning boards. However, enough unsaved people could see past the next year to stand against the effort to enact zoning. The county still has no zoning.)

I have found that zoning laws are theft and fraud against the property owners. Here is another example of the uselessness of such laws:

Beheadings Fuel Backlash Against Muslims


The recent beheadings of two American businessmen in the Middle East have added fuel to the angry backlash against Arab-Americans and Muslims that began after the 2001 terrorist attacks. ...

And in the Chicago suburb of Orland Park, residents urged officials this past week to reject a mosque's building application. A Baptist pastor told a public hearing he feared it would attract Islamic extremists and violence. The center was approved over boos and catcalls from the audience.

(I am sure that if the application to build had been by the Baptist pastor, it would have been overwhelmingly rejected.)


We have been to three conferences since our last mailing. I had the privilege of speaking at two of them concerning the Dispensational Money Machine (about my book). We picked up several new names for our mailing list, and want to welcome them to the Examiner. The third conference was the Southern Heritage Conference in Monroe LA. (Over 3000 miles in three weeks.) Though we only have a book table at Monroe, which in no way pays for the trip, we meet Bettie's youngest daughter there, and get to spend some time with her, her husband and 4 (soon to be 5) children. They live in Farmington TX, only about 3 hours away from Monroe. It is 1,000 miles for us, but it is the one time a year we get to see Joshua and Julie. (See their "Courtship" experience in this Examiner.)

We have been taking several of Sprinkle Publication books with us. I have some left over, which I will make available at a good price. See the list and special pricing in this issue of the Examiner.

The spring, and now summer, was very wet here in northern Virginia, and the property seems to have gone to the wilds, so it is catch-up time.

Custom sewing

Bettie and Christina have started a sewing business.

They know how difficult it is to find modest clothing, and they desire to serve busy mothers by sewing modest dresses that are both practical and pretty for their daughters. They prefer sewing for girls ages four through fourteen, but are flexible and willing to sew for other ages as well. Though they can, they prefer not to make fancy, complex dresses, for their goal is to make affordable everyday modest clothing. They will sew from your patterns and fabric if you so desire.

They will take a limited number of custom orders each month, since we are still caring for Christina's 94-year old grandmother as well as doing normal household chores, cooking and gardening, etc.

Their goal is to glorify God in their work, and minister to the needs of families for modest apparel for their daughters. (Someone suggested they also make matching clothing for the sons in the family. If you are interested in any clothing, check with them and see samples of the sewing at

Bush and Chaney

Have you observed that during the photo mess from Iraq, Chaney seems to be the one in charge. It sure appears that he represents those who are pulling Bush's strings.

These men, Chaney, Bush, and a multitude of others, have no loyalty to any nation. Their loyalty is to a New World, One World Government, and they willingly sacrifice any citizen and/or nation to their plans.
See <> to see that in 1997, Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld and other well known men committed themselves to making a world-wide America empire, with America being the policeman of the world. Their goal is to make world US friendly, even if it requires sending in the US Marines. One of their goals was and is " to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;" Who defines our interests and values? It appears that our interests and values center around making money, for even the US economy is being sacrificed to bring up the economy of those determined to destroy us, e.g., China. What, may I ask, Constitutional business is it of ours "to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" when they have not at all done any harm to us?

I-81, Chaney's Money Machine

We live just on the East side of the Massanutten Mountain range, which is about 60 miles long. I 81 is on the West side. I 81 is a major truck route from Mexico to Canada, running 325 miles in Virginia along the Blue Ridge Mountains, right up the Shenandoah Valley. There is a big push on to make I 81 a major truck route by adding 4 more lanes and making it a toll road for trucks, charging 22 to 37 cents a mile. "The profit margin for most trucks is about 3 to 5 cents per mile", so it would force the long distance trucks off of I 81 onto US 11 or onto I 95, while leaving the local trucks forced to pay the toll. Truckers interviewed at truck stops along I 81 said they would drive 70 miles out of the way to avoid tolls, which would place them easily on I 95, or onto other major North-South Interstates. The projected cost is $6.4 billion, so to help offset the cost, they want to consider tolls on passenger vehicles.

There were many battles fought up and down the area of Northern Virginia covered by US Route 11, which followed the old roads through this area, so the truck route would destroy many of the major "Civil War" battle fields. I 81 parrells US 11.

But those pushing for the truck route don't care about anything but money and their New World Order.

NPR had an short segment concerning the truck route on I 81. They pointed out that the state does not want the truck rout, local governments do not want it, nor do the truckers want it. The promoter of the new truck route, I 81 being the first of many, is "STAR Solutions, a conglomerate of construction and engineering companies..." NPR pointed out that STAR is pushing the project because they need the work and the market for their concrete and asphalt products. Though the Shenandoah Valley Business Journal had an lead article on the I 81 efforts. (Truckers Fear Impact Of 1 81 Tolls Cost Could Move Trucks Off I-81, Possibly Onto Smaller Highways. May, 2004. The truck toll on the road is projected to be .35 per mile, or about $150 to go through VA.) The article did not mention who is the power behind STAR. However, NPR pointed out that STAR is owned by a subliterary of Haliberton, Dick Chaney's old company.

The Scriptures are certainly true when the Lord tells us, For the love of money is the root of all evil: (1 Timothy 6:10.) Follow the money trail, and you will find the men behind the evil activities of our day.

Public AntiChrist Schools

Southern Baptists Propose Resolution to Exit Public Schools

Thursday, May. 13, 2004 Posted: 9:53:40AM PST

A resolution to urge Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools has been proposed for the denomination's annual convention on June 15.

"It dawned on us that academics were going downhill. That was the beginning of our awakening," said Mr. Pinckney, a former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who co-submitted the resolution with Bruce Shortt, a Houston lawyer.

Southern Baptist is the nation's largest non-Catholic sect with 16.2 million members. The resolution urges Southern Baptists to "remove their children from all government schools and see to it they receive a thoroughly Christian education."

The resolution directs the members to provide their children with a Christian education instead of "an anti-Christian education" that public schools teach including the acceptance of homosexuality. It notes, "it is foolish for Christians to give their children to be trained in schools run by the enemies of God."

Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy for the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "We are also concerned about what happens in public schools, some of which is contrary to Southern Baptist faith and sensitivities. But we've never said public education is incompatible with Christian life." He commented that Southern Baptists have never taken such a position against public education.

The resolution, with several dozen of resolutions, will be submitted to SBC's Resolutions Committee to decide whether to present it to the full convention next month. If the resolution is sent to the floor, it will need a simple majority to pass. If rejected by the committee, Mr. Pinckney will introduce the resolution on the floor, which would need a two-thirds majority vote to pass.


I commonly receive anonymous "studies", desiring, I am sure, that I copy and pass them on. My thoughts about such anonymous things: I won't read them, having no respect for those who refuse to sign their names to their writings. If a person is not willing to be identified with what he or she writes, then why write? Save your time, paper and postage.

Must Check web sites

Anyone with the ability to think independent of Big Brother, George Bush, should check these web sites. However, if you are still convinced that Bush is God's Messiah for America, you will consider me a heritic for pointing you to these web sites. Sadly, the evidence presented on these sites is irrefutable.

Flight 93, shot down Mark Dankof's latest release, The Coming Preemptive Strike on Iran, A Coming American Military Draft, and A Man named Michael Anthony Peroutka is available for immediate publication and re-posting.

Check out these 2 links: [What hit the Pentagon? A Boeing 757 loaded with passengers and fuel right? Well perhaps that has now become a serious question of debate. Over the past year I have been collect information on the crash and making an attempt to piece together what actually happened. Believe me it hasn't been easy and I still don't have all the answers. However as time goes on I learn more and get more view points to work with. Much of this speculation can be put to rest perhaps by having the FBI release a video the took from a Gas Station surveillance cameras shortly after the Pentagon was hit.] [UPDATE 7/7/03 -- As this article shows, something DID hit the Pentagon, contrary to the French "No Boeing 757 Theory" which claims that nothing crashed, and that the impact was created with on-site explosions. However, analysis suggest that what REALLY happened is far more sinister than either the official version or the French theory. It now appears that what crashed into the Pentagon was a guided missile or drone craft cloaked to look like a 757, something that could be controlled with precision. Such a theory best fits the facts. To find out more, please read the following off-site article:]

It amazes me that our so called representatives turn a blind eye to this assault on American soil. They must be getting paid off but by whom and how do we follow the money trail? This is an eye-opener.

Red flags fly over Baghdad
Iraqi Communists get U.S. support in role in new interim government
Posted: July 6, 2004

The Iraqi Communist Party is strongly represented in the new interim government in Baghdad and is getting U.S. taxpayer support thanks to a U.S. group led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WND. ... <>

A vote wasted on a third party?

No, it is a vote wasted on Bush or Karrey.

We have been attending the Council of Conservative Citizens meeting in Arlington VA for the last several months. ( At these meetings, relevant, current events are discussed, e.g., a recent discussion concerned illegal immigration. The meeting takes place the second Tuesday of every month, with few exceptions.

We attended the May meeting, and their guest speaker was Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Constitution Party's candidate for president. (<> He should be on the ballot in 40 states.)

When we were contacted that he would be at the meeting, I ask for an interview. I heard nothing back from those I asked, so I dismissed the idea, and did not go prepared with a tape recorder, and I was down the road a piece before I remembered that I forgot my camera. When we got to the meeting, I was told I could have the interview, I had the privilege of sitting down for a few minutes and speaking with him.

He was raised an active Romanist, but at about the age of 40 and upon an invitation by a friend, he attended a reformed Presbyterian church, and, hearing the truth about many things, he stayed with the Presbyterians, and started "walking the walk". He continues to "walk" in a reformed church closer to his home. He is a lawyer who knew nothing about the Constitution until he studied it in order to teach his children, whom they home educate. When he studied the Constitution, he had to take action.

With every question he was asked from the floor after his address, he referred back to the Constitution—if the Constitution does not support the activity, he is against it.

He had the right answer to everything I asked him. Families: it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Iraq: no declared war, so we have no business there. Gay marriage: Constitutional Amendment–Marriage is not in the Federal jurisdiction according to the Constitution. It is family business. A Constructional amendment concerning marriage would be deconstructed, as has been the First Amendment, and reconstructed to suit evil men. Jobs overseas: Get the US out of the trade agreements such as NAFTA. These violate the Constitution. Israel: Treat Israel as any other nation. Illegal emigration: Treat illegal emigration as being illegal. IRS: Abolish and repeal the 16th Amendment. Federal Reserve: Remove, and return to sound money.

Don't waste your vote on the Republicrates. Make your vote count before God by casting it for a godly man: Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Constitution Party's candidate for president. Check it out at

Of course, the question arises: There will, more than likely, be some Supreme Court appointments in the next four years. Will Bush appoint more conservative candidates than will Karrey? We know the Republicans will not resist a Karrey candidate as much as the Democrats will resist a Bush candidate. However, look over the past nominations: Which were more godly, Democrat or Republican? The oneworlders can play the political game far better than can those who truly want to keep an American republic.

But consider the following:

RICK [Santorum] AND GEORGE [Bush] SUPPORTED THE MORE PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE [in PA primary]. BUSH CONSISTENTLY PREFERS THE PRO-ABORTION REPUBLICAN "... George W. Bush has raised funds and campaigned for militant pro-abortion Republican politicians..." (Robert Novak, February of 2003.)
BUSH'S CLAIMS DEFY LOGIC, BUT ARE ACCEPTED BY CLERGY APOLOGISTS FOR GOP "How can a man, namely, George W. Bush, claim that he is working in behalf of the culture of life and for the day when ‘every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law' when he works to elect pro-aborts to serve in public office and appoints pro-aborts to the highest offices in his own administration? There is a disconnect here, people. Wake up. … Why do people like Father Frank Pavone and Austin Ruse and Deal Hudson and the sycophants at the National Right to Life Committee continue to be silent as this president campaigns for pro-aborts and funds contraceptive abortifacients here and around the world? Why have we not heard one word from these influential sources about the introduction of contraception as one of the first things that followed our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq? Are they afraid of losing their White House passes and photo opportunities?"
AS GOVERNOR, BUSH HAD A PRO-ABORT RECORD IN TEXAS BUSH IS THE ENEMY OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM "...He has failed to protect American borders from an influx of illegal immigrants, doing so for two reasons: to curry favor with Spanish-speaking voters and to pay off political debts to the corporate barons who profit from the sweat of illegal immigrants. He has, as noted above, campaigned actively for pro-aborts in his own political party, and he takes a Wilsonian view of the world, believing that American ‘democracy' is the salvation of all nations…. His obsession with Iraq has needlessly cost the lives of American service personnel and civilians and piled up debts that will enslave future generations of our citizens while the real threat to American security, Red China, is treated with complete magnanimity. … He is not our friend. Indeed, it is my belief he has been one of the worst presidents in the history of this country. …"
DEMS AND GOPS BOTH LEAD IN THE WRONG DIRECTION Source: Thomas A. Droleskey, PhD, The Remnant, 5/15/04, pp. 1, 11, 12
Robert Novak, New York Post, 5/22/04, p. 17

Why Sandra Day O'Connor is the Supreme Court's defining force.
"The Rule of law must ... be flexible enough to adapt to different circumstances." (O'Connor before the Nebraska Bar Association. Thus we have no rule of law; we have rule by circumstances.) She and Anthony Kennedy, both appointed by Reagan, ruled the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional. She also sides with the abortion crowd. (The Washington Post Magazine, July 4, 04)

(We have the choice between two pro-abortion, pro Family Planning, pro one world candidates in the major parties. Which path to destruction will we chose? Republican or Democrat? I have the complete articles for the above statements on my hard drive. I can send you a copy if you like.)

Mental Illness
Bush Plans to Screen Whole US Population For Mental Illness
Source: BMJ Journals
Published: Jun 20, 2004, by Jeanne Lenzer. Posted 2004-06-20 by Mark Dankof

This article from BMJ Journals suggests a Bush idea aka George Orwell, regarding the screening of the entire American population for Mental Illness. Bush may want to begin the screening process with the following subjects: 1) Himself; 2) His chief advisors; and 3) Any limited government conservative concerned with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the growth of the Leviathan State generally---who will still vote for George W. Bush in the first Tuesday in November. Feeling mentally stable and alert? Try Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party, Ralph Nader, Badnarik of the Libertarian Party, Fido the Dog, or good old-fashioned abstention from the polls as your fall alternative. Still voting Bush and Cheney? Don't worry. Just click on the Mental Illness URL and Sign Up. NOW!!!!


From Monday, June 21, 2004 <>

Bush to screen population for mental illness. Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by
supporters of the administration.

The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report <>, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.

Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public. ...


From an e mail:

Have you ever seen this? Very interesting reading about our oil supply (or lack thereof ) and the resultant crash when it runs out.


I have a book named "The Oil Non-Crisis" written by the chaplain on the Alaskan pipeline project, Lindsey Williams. In the book, he shows that there is 300 years worth of oil on the North Slope at our current usage. Yet Congress locked it up to prevent its development. He wrote the book in the middle 80s.

He was traveling the country selling his book until he got messed up with a woman who was not his wife. Then he dropped out of sight. Those of us who knew him or of him always wondered from where the woman came.

E mail response:

This guy's site says the Alaskan reserves only give enough oil for a year or so of current world consumption. Very interesting reading, although these folks are totally bought into the whole global warming, overpopulation myths as well so who knows.


Candidates Argue Over Escalating Gasoline Prices
Bush Cites 2001 Energy Proposal, Alaska Drilling; Kerry Presses for Efficiency, Alternative Fuel
Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

Austin, May 22
... Bush, who was in Austin on Saturday to celebrate his, daughter Jenna's graduation from the University of Texas, spoke of his 2001 energy legislation, which emphasized expanded domestic production and called for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "This national strategy would help make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy," Bush said. "Yet, these measures have been repeatedly blocked by members of the Senate, and American consumers are paying the price."

Kerry, who has been a leader of the opposition to drilling in the refuge, agreed that the problem was too much reliance on foreign oil but offered a different remedy. The Massachusetts senator proposed tax incentives for makers and buyers of fuel-efficient vehicles and more government spending on alternative fuels. ...

The "one worlders" are determined to lower the US to third world status while saying what ever is needed to get the Christian vote. The education system and the media are only small cogs in the big wheel that is grinding us down.

I think 2 Samuel 24:1 fits here: "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against" the US for her departure from the God of her foundation, and God has raised up pagans in judgment of paganized Christianity. Daniel 4 makes it clear that the Lord exalts and puts down who he pleases, and no one can say, "What doest thou?" Job 9:12 & Romans 9.

When I read and hear of all the evil that is going on meant to reduce the US to the trash heap of history, I must keep in mind that my allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not to the kingdom of men, including the US.

My human side finds the whole mess quite depressing. Of course, we as Christian men are driven by the compulsion to do something to correct observed destructive situations; hence, The Biblical Examiner, and other small publications I am able to put together. They are not much and do not have the influence of any large "Christian" publication, but it is something for which the Lord has provided the opportunity.

I am firmly convinced that we can blame the current situation on the Dispensational doctrine that influences "Christians" to say that they will be gone before any of the bad things happen. See Chapter 71 in my book.

20 years ago, I found that it was useless to try to influence those who perceived themselves as great "Christian leaders", and I saw that the answer was a "grass roots" influence. That has since been my goal.

Judaism growing among black Americans

[I found this article amusing, and embarrassing to Christians who say that the Jews today have anything to do with Biblical Jews, decedents of Jacob.]

CHICAGO, June 4 (UPI) -- Growing numbers in a congregation of black Jews in Chicago has necessitated a move to a bigger synagogue, once a safe house for Martin Luther King Jr.

Rabbi Capers Funnye leads Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation, which this weekend moves from a 1902 synagogue to the larger facility, the Chicago Tribune said.

Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken traces its lineage to a congregation founded in 1915. The flock is mostly African-American, though there also are two white families, blacks from the Caribbean and a Russian whose father was a black American.

The group has grown from 55 families to 70 in recent years.

"We fully expect over the next 20 years for the face of Judaism (in the United States) to change dramatically from largely a white, Eastern or Central European group to include many more Asians, Latinos and blacks," said Gary Tobin, president of the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research.

James Landing, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has studied black Judaism, says their numbers probably do not exceed 10,000.

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

If by Messanic Jew, one means a Jew who has become a Christian, then the term is impossible. One is either a Christian, Muslim, Shinto or Jew. In Scripture, "Jews" had to prove their linage, Ezra 2:62, 8:1.

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Israel's Threat to World Peace
Source: Nile Media, Published, May 12, 2004
Author: Brigadier General James J. David. Post Date: 2004-05-12 11:27:58 by Mark Dankof

Middle East seasoned General James J. David's article on how Israel constitutes a threat to world peace may be accessed at Nile Media's Must Read section. General David has written a letter to the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the arrest in Tennessee this past weekend of two Israelis under suspicious circumstances.

His text is as follows:

From: Brigadier General James J. David

To: Mark Dankof's America

This is a Letter to the Editor that I sent to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Middle East Terrorists?

Something very suspicious happened over the weekend that's not receiving much news coverage. Two Middle East men who led Tennessee police on a high speed chase in a rented Ryder truck are now being held without bond pending an investigation by the FBI.

It seems that the two Middle East men refused to stop while being chased for three miles by Tennessee police. Officers saw the men throw something from the truck while being pursued and later the officers found a vial containing an unknown substance along the roadway.

Once the men were apprehended, officers also found a "Learn to Fly" brochure in the truck leading officers and others to express concern about the security at the Nuclear Fuel services plant nearby. The two men also gave authorities a fake Florida driver's license and fake identification cards.

It would seem that this incident would've received headline news coverage, but not only did it not receive Headline News, it wasn't even mentioned in the AJC, CNN, FOX, or any other major media outlet. The only mention made was in an Associated Press article. It wasn't mentioned in the other outlets because the two Middle East men were not of Arab origin -- They were both Israeli Jews. Now you know why the silence.

Whatever the case may be, is there any doubt that journalists generally understand critical words about Israel to be hazardous to their careers?

James J. David

James J. David is a retired Army National Guard Brigadier General who served 3 years active duty in and around the Middle East.

The story can be verified with the following link: 1. Real History and the Mossad

Interesting Note:

Isaiah 5:18 ¶ Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: 19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!

Does not this sound like some well-known Dispys who are trying to hasten the Lord's coming with their efforts with national Israel? They hope to be able to hasten the Lord's work by trying to fulfill what they feel is proper prophecy. (And Dispys charge Postmils with trying to bring in the Kingdom through work. The very founders of modern Dispensationalism sought to bring about the millennial reign of Christ by working to restablish a national Israel through their efforts. See Death of the Church Victorious, 138.)

Speaking of Dispys, we attended a Bible Church today, July 4, 2004, because a friend was singing. The message text was 2 Chronicles 7:14, but digressed to Genesis 12:1, Isaiah 60:1, and the exaltation of national Israel. The preacher praised those who raise money to send "Jews" to Israel. Of course, he never mentioned the fact that Dispy doctrine calls for the destruction of 1/3 of the "Jews" in that land; thus, Christians are financing the death of multitudes of "Jews", according to their theories. The preacher also said that they had flown a "Star of David" flag in their church, and had raised it above the American flag. The result was that a family left. He then said, "If you are not a friend of Israel, you do not have a home here." The music was overwhelmed by the drums, as the drummer closed his eyes, swung his head around, and beat the drums with all his might. When the music started, the people started shaking, and I thought there would be dancing in the aisles, but they controlled themselves.

A sign of the times!

Learning in Las Vegas for TRBC?

I could hardly believe it when I read in The News & Advance (June 27,04) about the music "worship leader" of Thomas Road Baptist Church, pastored by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, going to Las Vegas to learn from, a "Quintessential showman (Wane Newton), how to make an audience or a congregation - come alive." What a repudiation of the ministry of the Holy Spirit of God that was. Why didn't the "worship leader" of Thomas Road Baptist Church go to God, on his knees, and ask him to guide him by the Holy Spirit in "how' to make an audience - or a congregation come alive?" This is nothing but another example of the "pseudo-Christianity" that has had America by the throat, since the 1960s. -----The Rev RAY RODGERS JR. Lynchburg, Va. (Copied from the News and Advance on July 4th, 04)

[Home] [Topics] [Index] [Examiner]