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

November 2012

God's order of Accountability
Suicide or Salvation
Non-Money and your hone
US Conquered by Bankers
Big Banks always win
Rules Change leaves establishment in control
False Flag
Head Covering
Leadership Lessons
Real Backbone of America's Dictatorship


God's order of Accountability

Leviticus 4

Though Leviticus chapter four is given to God's Old Testament church in the wilderness (before Israel crossed into Canaan, Acts 7:38), it gives us God's clearly defined order of responsibility and accountability of four classes of people. Though the unconverted are outside of God's congregation, many things apply to them.

This chapter gives the sin-offerings of the four classes of people in the nation of Israel: the priests, the congregation as a whole, the civil ruler and the common man who was none of the above. When we look at the sin offering for each, we see that the four classes of people are listed in order of "importance" or accountability before God.

In these various sin-offerings, we see God's order of accountability for the well-being of society.

V. 2, "That is, of negligence or ignorance, especially in the ceremonial law: for otherwise the punishment for crime are appointed according to the transgression, Num. 25:25." Geneva

We know that all the carnal ordinances and sacrifices of the law (Lev 4 &c.) were a figure and pattern for the better things which were to come in Christ; we know that nothing done in Leviticus 4 can solve the problems of the heart: a changed attitude toward the law of God and a clear conscience, Hebrews 9 & 10. So as we consider various points from Leviticus 4, we are only taking some obvious implications for our day: accountability before God according to our individual responsibility, divine revelation and provided grace (cf. Mat 25:15; Lu 12:47; Eph 4:7; Col 1:29; Ja 4:7; 1 Pet 4:10, &c.).

Notice five things common with all four classes:

First, each person is in his place, station of life, by God's sovereign actions (cf. Dan 4:32, 35 & Rom 9, 12:3-6, Eph 4:7, &c.); e.g., the priest did not choose to be a priest, &c.

Second, though the Lord exalts and debases whom He will and when He will according to His good pleasure, all are held to the same standard, If a soul shall sin, it shall die v. 2. Thus, every living soul is included in this chapter; there is neither an exception nor privileged class, Ex 12:49, Lev 24:22, Nu 15:16, 29, Rom 2.

Third, through ignorance... It does not say what to do about intentional sin; under the Old Testament law of the sin-offering, there was no provision made for intentional sin. The only lawful provision for presumptuous sin was cutting the sinner off from the congregation, Numbers 15:27-31; e.g., Num 15:32-36. Presumption brought death in Ex 35:1-3, as the man gathered sticks on the sabbath.

One may say, "But that is Old Testament!" Are we not told the same thing by the author of Hebrews in 10:26-31?

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Though the redeemed are assured of their eternal life, they are promised there will be a final answering for presumptuous sin, about which we can only speculate, as we accept God's word for what it says: Rom 14:12; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 4:5.

Fourth, sin in Leviticus 4 is defined the same as it is in 1 John 3:4Ñany thought or action that is against any of the commandments of the Lord.

Fifth, against any of them... In other words, according to James 2:10, if any one commandment is violated, the sinner is guilty of violating all of the commandments, and he is in need of a sacrifice for sin.

Leviticus chapter 4, as well as the New Testament, assures us that every person is accountable to a common standard (God's truth), but the degree of accountability differs greatly according to his/her station in life.

Order of Responsibility

Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Leviticus 4 gives us the order of responsibility and accountability (and judgment) before God: first, v. 3, the priest; second, v. 13, the whole congregation; third, v. 22, a ruler (civil), and fourth, v. 27, any one of the common people. As we saw in v. 2, all four classes of people are held to the same standard.

I. The first class of people before God: the priest, or the spiritual leader of God's people. He is placed by God above the congregation, the rulers and the common people of the land. But notice he is not listed first because of any special favors from God; rather, he is listed first because his Godly calling makes him first in responsibility and accountability before God.

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

He was responsible to enquire of God and teach the law of God to the people, Lev 10:11. Furthermore, he was the final court of appeals for judging the people according to the law of God, Deut 17:9, 33:10. Obviously, he was responsible to set the example of righteousness, Deut 33:9. Accordingly, as a teacher of the law, he must know the most about the law, and the law assumed that he was the most knowledgeable.

Notice these points about the priest:

First, there is no indication of ignorance on the priest's part although there is on the part of the other three classes of people: concerning the whole congregation, it says and the thing be hid..., v. 13; concerning a ruler, it says come to his knowledge..., v. 23, and concerning any one of the common people, it says come to his knowledge..., v. 28. But of the priest, it only says: do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, v. 3. As the author of Hebrews said, if one knows the truth, yet he goes ahead and acts contrary to the truth, he has only the fiery indignation of the Lord for which to look forward. The priest, as teacher of God's truth, was assumed to know the law of God, and was held more accountable and responsible to all the truth and to act accordingly.

Second, the sin of the priest is listed as sin according to the sin of the people rather than sin against the commandments of the Lord as it says concerning to the other three classes of people. (Of course, all sin is a violation of God's commandments.) Implications: 1) the priest is held to the same standard as are the people only with greater accountability, and 2) the priest allowed the people to lead him astray and away from the command-word of God. (Notice that this is not said about the civil ruler. Aaron was led astray by the people at the foot of the mount.)

Third, the sin offering for the priest and for the whole congregation was identical in every point: a young bullock (although without blemish is omitted for the congregation's bullock, we will assume the same unblemished requirement for both). Thus by being listed first, the priest was held more accountable for his sin than was the whole congregation. Furthermore, the bullock was the most "expensive" of all the sin offerings mentioned.

Fourth, unlike the other three classes of people, it is not said that the priest's sin were forgiven him, vv. 20, 26, 35 & Hebrews 10:26-31. Thus the Lord assumes that the teacher knows the law, and He treats the teacher as though he sinned presumptuously (whether he knew or not, he is responsible to know the law). Moreover, the Lord accepts no excuse for ignorance of His word from those responsible to teach His word to His people.

II. The second class of people before God: the whole congregation. "The multitude excuses not the sin, but if all have sinned, they must all be punished." Geneva

First, they sinned through ignorance, and the thing was hidden from their eyes, v. 13 (Did their teachers fail to properly instruct them?). V. 21 concludes the instructions for the congregational sin offering with as he burned the first bullock, v. 21. Thus, the two offerings were identical (the introduction for each was quite different because the offering dealt with different people in different stations of life), cf. v. 3 & v. 13.

The Lord warned His people of national sin in Deut 28:15ff., 2 Chron 7:14 calls for national repentance (we cannot avoid the fact that each individual is a part of a much larger group, and must do his part for the godliness of that group, Lev 5:1, &c.).

Repentance: Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. 14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief. (Jn 1:8, 9.)

Whole congregation examples:

National sin and repentance: Repenting and turning from the wicked ways of departure from Godly law, which resulltls in the abortion holocaust, or openly promoting and supporting sodomy.

Congregational sin and repentance: Repenting and turning from the debt slavery the congregation placed itself into when they see the truth of God's word. (Pro 22:7; Rom 13:8.) Or maybe repenting of the sin of unknowingly submitting the congregation to the will and whim of the state through all kinds of licensure, when the sin is made known. Or repenting of the sin of intentionally seeking a pastor who ignores the command word of God, and preaches to the ears of the people, or retaining a pastor who has departed from the faith once delivered to the saints.

Second, the congregation's sin was against any commandment of the Lord; whereas, the priest's sin was according to the sin of the people, v. 14 (cf. Num 15:22-26). Of course, in both cases sin was a violation of the commandments of God.

Third, the sinning priest laid his hand upon the bullock; here the elders as the representatives of the congregation (e.g. modern deacons) laid their hands on the head of the bullock. Thus they signified that they (the priest, and the congregation) deserved for their sin what was about to be done to the bullock. The leader of God's people is held as more accountable for his sin than is even the whole congregation.

III. The third class of people before God: a civil ruler, v. 22. His sin was through ignorance of the commands of God, not intentional, presumptive sin. Come to his knowledge... could be something like Nathan pointing out David's sin to him, or Samuel pointing out Saul's sin to him. Notice the sin offering required of a ruler:

It is interesting that in 2 Samuel 21:1ff, the nation of Israel was judged by God for not keeping the covenant they made with the Gibeonites. Saul was actually the one who "warred" against them, but the nation was judged for allowing Saul to wage that war. Undoubtedly, the covenant made by our fathers (the founders of these United States in the Mayflower Compact) has been seriously violated, if not nullified completely. Will the Lord hold the people of this nation, who have allowed the violation, any less accountable than He did Israel in 2 Samuel 21? It has been the people of the nation who have voted into office those who openly espouse murder of the unborn, sodomy, socialism, unjustified wars and decadence of all kinds. Thus "we" have placed over ourselves leaders who promised not only to continue but to increase the war against the original Christian covenant of this nation, for "we" have appointed those leaders ourselves. Obviously, the people are held more accountable before God than are their civil leaders, and will be judged accordingly for their sin.

First, a kid of the goats. This offering would not be as costly as the bullock. Thus, clearly the Lord does not hold the civil ruler nearly as accountable as He does the teachers of His word; it is the teacher who has the tremendous responsibility for society before God, not the civil ruler.

Second, a kid... Not only was this offering not as expensive, but it did not have to be mature as did the offering for the priest and the congregation; their offering had to be a mature bullock. The teacher must be a mature individual, more mature than even the civil ruler, because he has more responsibility and accountability.

My deciding factor in leaving the staff of the church in Maryland and moving to the staff of the church in Louisianan was this statement: "You cannot serve under a man whose standards are not higher than yours."

Third, male without blemish. Note that this is the only thing that set the ruler above the common people: he had to bring a male without blemish, whereas the common people had to bring a female without blemish, v. 28.

Thus, we see that in the Lord's eyes, the civil ruler is only one step above the common man, but on the other hand, the man of God is first on God's list of responsibility and accountability.

IV. The fourth class of people before God: the common people. Not only could they bring a female kid of the goats, but they could bring a female lamb. Their sin offering was sacrificed in the same manner as was the ruler's.

First, the immaturity (kid, lamb) and gender of the offering is stressed, implying a comparison between the individual and a sheep which will follow his leader, Ps 100.

Second, even though the individual is held to the same standard of accountability (the commandments of the Lord) as is his leader, his measure of accountability is less.

Third, if the sinner is unable to bring a female kid or lamb, he is permitted to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons for his sin offering. If he is unable to bring any of the above, he can bring an ephah of fine flour unmixed with anything; just a handful of flour was sufficient for atonement and forgiveness of sin, Lev 5:6-13. Thus atonement, forgiveness of sin, is placed within reach of the poorest person. Though the Lord is gracious, merciful and desires to forgive the sinner, there can be no atonement and forgiveness without the required sin offering. The Lord is not so high that He is unreachable to the common man, but He cannot be reached without the required sin offering, i.e., Christ. No man, rich or poor, will come to the Father except through Christ's mediatorial work which is available to all who will come to Him, Jn 6 & Hebrews. [The restitution for not tithing or giving to the priest and Levite their portion was quite steep, Lev. 5:14-16.]

Notice some further points about these four classes of people: 1) the two last offerings, the ruler and the common people, are also called peace offerings, vv. 31, 35. The two first offerings are not. 2) the congregation, the ruler and the individual member of the congregation had atonement made and sin forgiven, vv. 20, 26, 35. Atonement and forgiveness are not mentioned in the priest's offering, v. 12.

Four conclusions:

First, this chapter gives us a clear picture of the Lord's classification of people in their order of responsibility and accountability to Himself as revealed in His commandments:

1) the levitical priesthood is clearly a picture of God's men (teachers) of the New Testament. Thus the teachers of God's word are given greater grace for their greater responsibility, Eph 4:7, 1 Pet 4:10. Furthermore, because of their greater place of authority, responsibility and grace, they are held to a much higher standard of accountability than the congregation, the civil ruler or the common people. The pastor/teacher is required to know the law of God, and if anyone has no excuse before God for ignorance, the pastor has none. Did not Paul warn Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man, or he would be partaker with that man's sin, 1 Tim 5:22? How many are placed in positions of responsibility for teaching God's word with no knowledge of the commandments of the Lord which they are called upon to uphold and teach to the people? Can God's man plead ignorance? Did the Lord overlook ignorance in His Old Testament teachers? Will He today? Is there forgiveness for presumptuous sin? Moreover, can we overemphasize the responsibility and accountability which the Lord places upon those in spiritual leadership and teaching positions? I think not.

2) then the congregation; 3) then the civil rulers, who are only a "cut" above the common man (this is sure a big step from the feelings that most civil rulers have today); 4) then the individuals of society. The listing of the civil authorities next to last in God's order of classification is extremely significant, and they are listed after the congregation. Therefore, the teacher is responsible to God for the congregation, not the civil authority. Civil leaders will follow the "will of the people", or will work to move that will to their purpose.

Second, the first two, the teacher & the congregation, must face facts or the third and fourth never will; the unfaithful (to God's commandments) spiritual leader is the heart of our problem today. Thus any return to a godly society must start with God's men leading the people of the congregation in the way of the Lord. Furthermore, God provides no excuse for these leaders not leading the people in the path of the commands of the Lord; when the "priests" do not, it is considered presumption on their part. Only when the men of God realize and accept their responsibility before God for the people as a whole will the civil rulers return. The individual is listed last. Consequently, it is a false hope of the worse kind, presumption, to consider any kind of return to godliness without the "priest" facing the facts of Leviticus 4. In other words, we cannot expect any president to do something which the neither the preachers nor the congregations are willing to do: admit the four opening points of this essay. If pastors and people will not admit that unjust wars, murder of the unborn, sodomy, statism or socialism, &c., are serious sins according to the commands of God, neither will any president nor his cabinet.

Third, note how "teachers" enjoy pointing out the sins of others - congregational, rulers and the common people - but the teacher is the one who should be in fear and trembling that he himself might be found in sin, Philippians 2:12.

Fourth, how can the "Christian Community" complain about civil rulers following the will of the people ("public policy") when the religious leaders do the same? The Lord has exalted civil leaders after the manner of the religious leaders. We cannot expect civil leaders to follow established law (constitution) over the people's will, until the religious leaders are willing to follow God's established law (commandments, 1 John 3:4) over the will of their people who want to do what seems best in their own eyes.

[I knew a local pastor who was told by the leaders in his congregation that they did not care what the Bible said about a particular matter; they were determined to continue in what they felt was best. Even though most of us would have considered the pastor a liberal, he had more intestinal fortitude than the vast majority of "conservative" pastors: he told them that if they would not submit to the word of God, he would leave. He left.]

How can we complain when civil rulers (next to the last in Lev 4) do not know and/or enforce the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold, yet ignore "men of God" (first in this list) who know and/or say nothing of the commandments which they are sworn to uphold? Why do we hold civil leaders to the law of the land, the Constitution, and do not hold God's men to the law of God? Why do we set a higher standard for and expect more from civil leaders than we do from religious leaders? Why will we remain under religious leaders who refuse to follow the clear teachings of the law of God, yet we will almost revolt over civil leaders who will not follow the "law of the land"? Why will people strongly reject statist civil rulers, yet accept statist pastors and churches? In order of importance, responsibility and accountability before God, inspired Scripture lists civil authorities next to the bottom and religious leaders at the top. Should we not do the same if we expect to please the Lord?

Scripturally, the battle is not to get civil authority to return to the Constitution (such return will not solve the problem in America); rather, the battle is to get religious leaders to return to the final authority of all scripture.

Ezekiel 9:6, 7 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were] before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

Isaiah 26:9, With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Judgment must start in the house of God, and throughout the word of God, judgment was through the actions of evil men.

Psalms 75:1 Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near thy wondrous works declare. 2 When I shall receive the congregation I will judge uprightly. 3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah. 4 I said unto the fools, Deal not foolishly: and to the wicked, Lift not up the horn: 5 Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck. 6 For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. 7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another. 8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them. 9 But I will declare for ever; I will sing praises to the God of Jacob. 10 All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.

Book Review

Suicide or Salvation?

By Mohn T. Larabell, The New American, 9/24/12

(Editor's note: American Christians have the promise of God's curse upon them, as they have By their votes, God's people have allowed their civil, and religious leaders, to forsake the law of the Lord. They also allow the state to war against and abandon the law of the Lord by who they put into the office of the civil magistrate. American Christianity is so splintered into factions and turf wars that there can be no united voice against wickedness in high places. Just in our very small community's Ministerial Association, the pastorett of the large Presbyterian church withdrew from the Association because the senior class of last year wanted to have their Baccalaureate service at the Brethren Church (where it has always been because of convenience, regardless of who the speaker is) rather than at her church. We could not even get a united pastor's letter together to ask the schools to consider the church calender in there ball game scheduling.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Cursed is the nation whose God is not the Lord. We are promised that the Lord's blessing will "move" according to which nations recognize God as the Lord in its laws. In addition, the following article came to my attention after I had Leviticus 4 ready to publish. Though the following is from a distressed dispensationalist, LaMay could not be more correct in his assessment of Christianity in America.)

A Christian radio host reveals the effects of secular culture on the church, and warns that unless Christians wake up and take action, American Christianity may not survive.

The Suicide of American Christianity, by Michael D. LeMay, Bloomington, Indiana: WestBow Press (a division of Thomas Nelson), 2012, 309 pages, paperback.

Christianity in America is dying. She is not dying of attempted murder, according to Mike LeMay. She is dying of suicide. What's worse, she is not likely to survive.

The Suicide of American Christianity: Drinking the "Cool"-Aid of Secular Humanism is meant to serve as a warning and a wake-up call to a nation of what Michael D. LeMay feels are compromising, apathetic Christians. In keeping with the boldness of the book's title, LeMay is certain to ruffle a few feathers and maybe step on a few toes with the book's content. However, the subjects are well researched, and the information is backed by plenty of footnotes so that the reader can do his own investigation. Furthermore, LeMay presents his arguments with a palpable humility and sincerity, fully acknowledging that while what he writes is controversial, he is deeply convinced that it needs to be written.

LeMay begins the book by briefly describing the current state of affairs in our nation, pointing out the prevalence of humanistic philosophy and immoral lifestyles in our modern culture. Instead of exposing these problems and opposing the culture, LeMay writes, American Christianity ignores the problems and embraces the culture. This can only result in the death of true biblical Christianity in this country.

The battle against the forces of secular humanism began for LeMay in the summer of 2010. As the manager of the Christian radio station Q90 FM, located in Green Bay, Wisconsin, LeMay works with many area pastors and is acquainted with more than a few nationally recognized Christian leaders. When asked by an area pastor if Q90 FM would support Lifest Ñ an annual Christian rock concert near Oshkosh, Wisconsin, that draws thousands of Christian youth Ñ even though Jim Wallis was the keynote speaker, LeMay admitted he had never heard of Jim Wallis and would have to do some research before giving an answer. Needless to say, what he found shocked him. [Q90 FM, streaming at]

Wallis, a Marxist sympathizer and a spiritual advisor to President Obama, is the CEO of the Christian social-justice organization Sojourners and is popular in many Christian circles, particularly among youth. Sojourners, as could be expected of a social-justice organization, supports government as the solution to many of the world's problems. Immigration laws, the BP oil spill, global warming, poverty, and disparity between the rich and the poor are considered "sins," while issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage are neither discussed nor condemned. Sojourners is an interfaith organization as well, partnering with other religions to promote their social agenda.

LeMay, concerned about what he discovered, offered to fly Wallis to Green Bay to hear firsthand about his views. Wallis refused, and later telephoned LeMay and accused him of being a right-wing fanatic who was trying to silence alternative viewpoints. When questioned, Wallis would not label homosexuality and abortion as sin, and stated that humanity needed to stop global warming because "we need to have a pristine planet before Jesus can return." These views espoused by Wallis and Sojourners are typical of social-gospel theology, and caused LeMay to withdraw his support for Lifest and continue to research what he saw as a dangerous trend in American Christianity. He discovered that this liberalization of Christianity is nearly ubiquitous, and he feels it is destroying the faith.

The body of LeMay's book contains the results of his research into the influence of secular culture, humanism, the rapidly growing "Emergent" movement, and religious syncretism on biblical Christianity in America. These issues are also frequently discussed on LeMay's daily radio show on Q90 FM, Stand Up for the Truth.

LeMay exposes the beliefs of popular and influential Emergent leaders such as Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and Rob Bell. Those beliefs are essentially identical to those of Wallis and Sojourners. Emergent theology attempts to "change the conversation" about Jesus and the Bible in Christian circles, calling into question fundamental beliefs about Jesus, salvation, heaven and hell, sin, eternity, and the cross. Many questions are posited, but few answers are offered, and Christians are often left with a "maybe we've been wrong about all this" feeling. Social justice and achieving a global "utopia" are quite clearly the goals of popular Emergent leaders. Activities that have traditionally been viewed as "sin," such as homosexuality and abortion, are largely ignored. People are certainly free to hold and express their viewpoints, but the fact that Wallis, McLaren, Campolo, and Bell are all highly influential pastors, authors, and speakers is cause for concern for LeMay. For instance, mega-church pastors, such as Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, have practically "joined hands" with these Emergent leaders and are now promoting little more than a Christianized social-justice message to "save the world" from pollution, disease, and poverty. Presumably a world government will play an integral role in this "salvation." LeMay points out that when he and others with similar concerns attempt to contact leaders such as Rick Warren in regard to their association with Emergent leaders, they are ignored or criticized.

The Word of Faith movement and the closely related Prosperity Gospel are also examined, as LeMay reveals what he believes are blatantly heretical teachings and practices that dovetail more with New Age and occult doctrines than biblical Christianity. The beliefs that people can "speak things into existence" and "create their own reality," and that Christianity is merely about achieving material wealth and temporal happiness are not biblical, LeMay notes, and are damaging American Christianity.

LeMay speaks out against the growing phenomenon of the so-called "Chris-lam" movement in American Christianity, which seeks to unite Christianity and Islam. While "Chrislam" is promoted by Emergent leaders and mega-church pastors under motives such as "promoting dialogue" and "loving our neighbor," he believes that this movement can only result in the watering-down and compromising of biblical Christianity. Dovetailing with this is a noticeable anti-Israel sentiment among Emergent leaders, giving the current tension in the Holy Land a liberal social-justice spin that champions the cause of the "oppressed" Palestinians against the Israeli "colonial oppressors."

LeMay also devotes a significant portion of the book to castigating American Christianity for its stance on traditional moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality. While some groups have made a bold stand against them, he notes that, by and large, modern Christianity in America has either openly endorsed these activities, quietly "accepted" them, or raised merely a small whimper of opposition to what were once unquestionably regarded as sins. This state of affairs, he believes, results from a desire among Christians to be viewed as "tolerant" and "loving," in order to be "seeker-friendly" and to not offend the radical Left. LeMay also postulates that perhaps leaders are reluctant to preach too strongly against sin in fear that their own sins may be brought to light, referencing the embarrassing number of prominent Christian leaders who have been scandalized by adultery or other issues.

[Comment: American Christians now accept abortions and sodomy thanks to Christians sending their children to "public schools" to be retrained in the state's anti-Christ manner of life.]

While Christian leaders are certainly to blame for the "suicide" of American Christianity, rank-and-file church members are just as guilty, LeMay declares. Many are complacent in their faith, or want leaders who will only tell them what they want to hear. This gets to the root of the problem in LeMay's eyes. Christianity, through willing leaders and church members, has allowed the onslaught of modern culture to weaken it to the point where it no longer resists. He feels that this just may be the great "apostasy" or "falling away" that the apostle Paul wrote about in II Thessalonians, chapter 2.

For many readers the book may seem overly pessimistic, even judgmental. An open-minded reader will note, however, that LeMay does approach the issues with humility, never afraid to admit his own shortcomings. He recognizes that criticizing the beliefs of popular leaders may make him, to say the least, unpopular, but he is convinced that believers are to question "new" doctrines and are not to believe every teaching that they hear. The message, not the messenger, is what is to be criticized. Additionally, LeMay does not reveal his own particular denomination, nor does he write about doctrinal issues on which various Christian denominations disagree, but focuses instead on basic beliefs that historically all of Christendom has been united on.

So what's the point? LeMay admits that, in his opinion, American Christianity will never return to its former strength. Most of the church will fall into apostasy. However, he is writing to warn any who will listen in the hope that a faithful remnant may be preserved until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those faithful Christians need to take a stand against what Christianity is becoming, reaching out with the Gospel in love yet never compromising biblical beliefs and values. The back cover of the book gives a good summary into Le-May's view on this matter:

With a lack of strong, principled leaders, and with followers who want their ears tickled instead of being challenged to pursue righteousness, American Christianity is writing its own epitaph as it slowly dies. Unless we reverse course by embracing the complete, absolute truth of God's Word and stop trying to redefine God in our selfish human image, only a remnant will remain from a once-powerful church.

Do we have the courage to challenge our leaders and ourselves to reject secular culture and its influences? Or will we continue to die a slow death at our own hands as we continue to inhale the cancer of secular humanism? Time is running out. ¥

The big news in England while we were there:

Megan, 15, goes on run with teacher

by Julia Gregory

A girl of 15 has fled to France with a married teacher from her school, police said yesterday.

Megan Stammers ran away with 30-year-old maths teacher Jeremy Forrest.

She was reported missing on Friday after failing to turn up for lessons at Bishop Bell Church of England School in Eastbourn, East Sussex.

The pair took a ferry from Dover to Calais nine hours later. Police have released the car registration details of Mr. Forrest Ð who lives with his wife Emily near Lewes, East Sussex Ð and appealed for him to get in touch.

Mr. Forrest Ð a singer who uses the stage name of Jeremy Ayre Ð appeared to refer to a crisis in his personal life in a blog in May. He wrote: ‘About a week ago I had a bit of a moral dilemma to deal with, both internally and externally. And the overiding question it left me with was this: How do we, and how should we, define what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable???

‘I came to a few conclusions, mainly that actually we get a lot of things wrong, but at the end of the day I was satisfied that if you can look yourself in the mirror and know that, under all the front, that you are a good person, that should have faith in your own judgment.' Megan's father, Martin, said: ‘We just want her to make contact with us. We are worried and miss her terribly.'

Writing on Twitter, he added: ‘Have to remain strong for Megs, can't dwell in the misery of "what ifs" Ð we love you sweetheart, doing all we can #findmeganstammers.'

London, England's Metro, Monday, Sept. 24, 2012

Teachers replace the parents in establishing the moral direction of their students. But when the teachers have no Biblical moral direction...? The purpose of statist education world-wide has been and is to replace the Christian moral standards with self-established moral standards, training the Christian's children to have "faith in your own judgment", and follow your own heart.

Deuteronomy 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

The once Christian West has worked and is working very hard to dethrone King Jesus, and replace him with other gods, all centered around man.

As we toured the V-A (Victoria & Albert) museum on a very rainy day in London, we started at the period of the foundation of the British Empire. All of the artifacts of that very early period was clearly Christian. The skill that went into that Christian craftsmanship is amazing, as well as impossible to duplicate today.

Though there was great conflict over which branch of "Christianity" had the corner on King Jesus, all sides realized that Christ was and is King. With no King Jesus to establish moral laws, one faces a "moral dilemma", and is left to his "own judgment". What or who will condemn a 30 year old family man running off with a 15 year old girl, if his own heart does not condemn him? But maybe he felt he was under grace, not under law.


See web site for various pictures with this article.

4 days in London, England

On our way to see Bettie's oldest daughter, Jennie and Matt Chancey, and their ten children in Nairobi, Kenya, we stopped in London for 4 days. It was a very enjoyable time with a friend Bettie met a couple of years ago when she went over with Jennie for the Jane Austen tour, Suzi and Keith Clarke. Suszi has been the tour guide for Jennie's tour for several years. She and her husband were our tour guide each day except Sunday. The family the Lord permitted us to stay with attends the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Spurgeon's), and we went with them to the morning and evening Sunday service. Sarah Jones then took us to Spurgeon's grave. It rained hard all day SundayÑnot an unusual occurrence for London. Cold and wet.

Our second day was a nice day, though quite chilly. Susie and Keith took us on a river "cruise" up the Thames River to Greenwich, where East meets West. There we got to see the Harrison clocks, the first timepeace to be accurate enough to permit sailors to chart a true course.

"Marine timekeeper- ‘H4', by John Harrison, London, 1693-1776. Harrison's fourth timekeeper (‘H4') was arguably the most important timekeeper ever made. His watch finally solved the Longitude Problem. In recognition of his great achievement, in 1772 Parliament awarded Harrison the remainder of the £20,000 (today, about £3 million) originally offered as the Longitude Prize in 1714.

However, the Royal Astronomers fought him all the way, refusing to award him the promised prize for an accurate timepiece because he was an "uneducated" wood worker. But the "professionals" could not make a working clock. Finally, some years after he died, Parliament authorized paying his son the £20,000 reward. The Greenwich museum gave the PC account for the truth would have reproached the Royal Astronomers. (See A&E's Longitude, DVD, available through Netflix.)

Monday was a bad rainy day, so we went to the Victoria - Albert museum so Bettie could see old dresses and fabrics

The West is in trouble

Probably less than ½ of the people we saw on the public transportation, which we used, speak English, and we saw all kinds of head dress that sets various people apart as from other cultures. The hatred of large families by the West, even among Christians, has turned our societies over to the Muslims. Sharia law is being pushed through British Parliament, and burkahs were not an uncommon sight on the streets. Corrupt Western society has lied to women in convincing them that careers outside the home is the way to go. Even with a revival in the Christian attitude concerning the home, it is too late to reverse the minority Christian trend in Europe. The Muhammadans are reproducing in abundance, and Europe will soon be under Muhammadism controlÑpersecution and all. Evangelism among the Muhammadans is the only hope at this point.

We were told by our hosts that the Metropolitan Tabernacle has grown under Peter Masters, to where it now runs about 600. The attendance is as diverse as any church congregation you will see. They have a "bus ministry" that brings in children to their 3:00 PM SS hour, and support various congregations throughout the city. The same problem exists there with their "bus ministry" as I experienced here. Very few parents are reached through that ministry. Various church plants is the lasting answer.

The original Tabernacle faade still stands, but the present building behind the faade and the congregation is only a shadow of what was under Spurgeon.


On to Nairobi, Kenya. Though Nairobi is on the equator (less than 100 miles south), it is 18,000 meters (6,000 ft) high. It was still early spring there, so long sleeves are required. It warmed up in the afternoon, so in the sun, long sleeves come off, but step into the shade, and it was cool. Nights were quite cool. (High 83, low, 58, and dry until the rainy season starts mid Oct. It was right on time, as it rained lightly during the night durring our last couple of days there.) We had no idea of how chilly it would be there, so I only had two long sleeved shirts for England and Kenya.

The water contained a high content of natural fluoride, making it quite unsafe to drink. It is not even safe for brushing teeth, though it is for washing. Dentist's offices have pictures of the terrible damage done by the fluoride to teeth and bones. The pictures clearly reveal the dangerous and poisonous effects of fluoride. Dishes had to be satirized after washing for fear of surface water getting into the well.

Red dust was everywhere, so houses and floors had to be cleaned daily.

The poverty there is quite pronounced, with wages among the poor $2-$3 a day, and 40% unemployed. Trash is piled everywhere. There are many "Christian" churches and even signs that speak of the Christian God. A large percentage of people consider themselves Christians, and the nation is slowly showing the positive results of the gospel, as well as picking up the corruptions of the Western Gospel. Christianity is only a little over 100 years old in Kenya, and what started as sound doctrine, has morphed into the Western Corrupt gospel. "Fly away" and "Name it and Claim it" churches and Western evangelists, "Christian" charlatans, are making their inroads, as they rob from the poor to support their rich life-style.

There are badly needed road projects in the process there, being built by the "China Road & Bridge Co", as America seems to have abandoned Africa to China. So sad, for Africa is very rich in natural resources.

Though the dirt is red, it can be very productive if properly cared for. We made a trip to an organic food market each Saturday we were there. Jennie obtained enough fresh, organic fruits and veggies to last the 14 of us for a week. Cost? About $26 USD. Those who are willing to eat fresh, and not the American boxed and canned diet, can live very well at minimum expense.

Cars: Diesel Toyotas are the overwhelming majority. Diesel is several cents cheaper than gas, and both below $4 USD. These diesel cars can get up to 70 MPG. At home, we have a Toyota PU that might get 20 MPG and a Camry that can get 34-35 MPG if we can find real gas. You do the math. 20 MPG makes our gas over $12 per gal based on Kenyan standards. England was the same way. We hear so much about the high price of gas overseas, but they fail to mention that the cars there get much better mileage. We found Brazil and Peru to be the same with their high mileage cars. Our low milage cars greatly increase our cost per mile above what the world is paying. Why do we not have access to the high milage cars that are so common everywhere else in the world? "Follow the money!" US road taxes are needed, so keep the mpg low?

Almost every road off a main paved road had a gaggle of motorcycles waiting. They wait for people to get off public transportation, and hope they can provide a ride to take that person to their home, which may be several miles down a non-maintained dirt road. We saw up to 5 on a motorcycle.

Juja Farm. See, or check wickipeda

We have been asked to go back and supervise the restoration a house built in 1905, Juja House, and the planned farm there. The house holds an important part in Kenya history. It was built by the man who started the safari "business" in Kenya. (Safari simply means travel.) Though the man had multiplied tens of thousands of acres, Juja Farm, for the purpose of having a wild animal sanctuary very close to Nairobi, the British saw no profit in tourism. (That error has since been exposed, as "safari tourism" is now a chief income source.) As a result, all of the Juja Farm area has been sold off into small plots Ð no roads, but that seems to make very little difference. The Juja house sits on 40 acres at the far end of the once vast area of property, with another 7 close at hand. Some years ago, someone installed irrigation from the river which runs a few hundred yards in front of the house. The house location is a very beautiful area in the midst of typical African landscape (see the facebook page), because of the irrigation. Because of the road's terrible condition, impassable in the rainy season. Though only about 10 miles from the paved road, it takes about an hour to reach the house. In many places, one can walk faster than a vehicle can travel over the marked road.

Matt and Jennie hold the present lease on the Juja house. Their goal is to restore the house, and make the property into a working farm, where local individuals can stay, with very minimal charge, to learn proper small, individual farming technique. The farm is to be patterned after Joe Salatian's farm, with the goal of bringing sustainable individual agriculture to Kenya, in opposition to the take over of Kenya by commercial farming. GMOs are not allowed in Kenya, though the US, Monsanto, is putting great pressure on Kenya to allow GMOs, even tying foreign aid to GMOs.

If you look at the facebook page, it is hard to believe that today's Kenya is only 2 generations past the natives shown on that page, c. 1905. Whoever oversees the house and farm will have an excellent opportunity of establishing a sound teaching ministry. It is expected in Nairobi that a Christian employer require his employees to attend morning "services". Whoever is over the project there will have a ready made "congregation" of 5 men who already work there, as well as any additional employees. Interestingly enough, 3 property maintenance men come with the rent on the property. The problem is that native Kenyans normally do not think aheadÐthey take the easiest way, and only fix things as they break. They will work hard and do things right if they are properly supervised, until they see that the "white man's" way works best. And they will learn after a lengthy battle with the old traditions.

Broad band has only been available at an affordable cost for about 3 years. Matt and Jennie's expertise is in web advertising, and the high end businesses are just now realizing the value of first rate web presence. Though Jennie certainly did not want it to happen during our visit, a top rated US photographer was only available to them during our first full week there, Sunday - Wednesday. One day of shooting was for her Sense & Sensibility site as she introduces her newly designed 50's style of dress patterns. The rest of the photographer's time was for other commercial advertising shoots.

Wednesday, we were able to be "background" in one of the commercial shoots for advertizing the Talisman Restaurant. ( [The Chancey children are in the shots with the children.] The organic market we went to is also pictured there.) The work was really difficult... It was an advertising shoot for probably the best restaurant in Nairobi just a few minutes from Matt and Jennie's. We had to spend the afternoon slowly eating our choice of food. Things were really difficult at times :- ) Meals at high end restaurants cost about what it cost to eat at Golden Coral here. Unlike what we did in Peru, we did not eat at any local shops. Our meals were with our family.

The next day, the owner of The Talisman invited us to her house for lunch. Her hospitality was marvelous: Though she had maids and cooks, she served us at a large table under an avocado tree. Before we left, she showed us around their property, which included a "work shop" where several carpenters were making very high quality and attractive chairs.

Friday and Saturday, the Chanceys took us to a Kenya "camp" for an overnight stay. It was on a large lake, where we were able to tour the lake and see many "water" birds as well as some hippos. We then went on around the lake through areas where typical African animals roam, even giraffes crossing the road, and baboons casting threatening looks at us. We saw about all the typical African animals except elephants and lions.

Sunday was again to a African church, which is very multinational. Admittedly, the area where we were was not typical Africa.

Monday, we went to see Pastor Keith Underhill, Trinity Baptist Church, He has a strong Reformed Baptist Church Ñ probably the only one in Nairobi. He has been here on the field since 1967. The Lord has given him many teaching miniseries, including training pastors and sending them out as church planters. He pointed out that if we did come down for any length of time, we could have an immediate congregation of Kenyans at the Juja house just from the ones working on the house. He also pointed out that South Sudan is wide open for the gospelÐhe has many contacts there. The people have utterly rejected Mohammadism, and the field there is ripe unto harvest. For years, he has pleaded for Reformed Baptist to come down, but there is no interest in reaching them. Life there is difficult, and expensive.

We attended a Kenyan church with our family while we were there. It is not really a regular Kenyan church, for it is "upper class", attended by many whites and Indians. The whites are from many places other than the US. It does have a black Kenyan pastor. The last Sunday we were there, he said that the US has tied foreign aid money to the nation of Kenyan recognizing sodomite marriages. Though there is sodomy here, it is greatly frowned upon by the people. (He said a few hot words against receiving aid from the US under those conditions. I doubt that China placed any such restrictions on the aid they are providing, as China replaces the US world wide.)

There was a Christian man some time ago who wanted to start a chain of stores in Kenya. He went to Wal-Mart in Bentonville AR to study Wal-Mart's operation, and went back to Kenya and opened his chain, Nakumatt. Typical of Christian businessmen in Kenya, he has devotions every morning with his employees, and if they do not attend, they do not work. The cash registers say on their digital readouts, "God supplies our daily bread through our Customers." Christians of all brands there are not fearful of taking their stand publicly. Matt said that if he walked into a "public school" there and started reading Scripture, the head of the school would immediately show up and tell him to stop. The reason he would stop him would be so he could gather the rest of the children to hear the Scripture!

A Few Observations:

1. Rome conquered the world, and built roads to keep the conquered people under control. Those wonderful roads for that era made possible the rapid spread of the gospel. Likewise, British Colonialism taught the world English. The result is that all the great theological books that are available in English are available to the world of English, which includes the African nations.

2. When Christianity came to Kenya, it brought its Western corruption. 40 years ago, there were 6 children per woman. It is now down to 4. The Western god of self-love is replacing God's instructions for the family and children, as it has done throughout the world. However, the grey head is honored.

3. One of the men, a local Christian native, who was in The Talisman Restaurant advertisement shoot asked Bettie and me a very pointed question: What about marriage? The reason for the question was because even the Christian community there is now presenting marriage as a "ball and chain" for young men. He told us that the modern attatude is against the Kenyan tradition of the exaltation of marriage, where the families as well as the whole tribe is involved in marriage negotiations. (Sin and corruption of Truth knows no international boundaries.)

Though Christianity has brought these once pagan natives to Christ, and probably 80% claim salvation in the Nairobi area, the heretical attitude against families and against large families has done its evil work.

4. As US blacks demand reparation for past injustices, no one speaks of holding the Arabs, who made the money as the slave traders and are still in the slave business, accountable. Where is the international outcry over what the Arabs did and are still doing to the African people?

5. The blacks in Nairbi are hardworking, and neatly dressed when possible. With few exceptions, any employer would be pleased with their industry. They are like godly people should be world wide.

6. Though there are many "Christian" churches there and a large portion claim Christianity, we have gathered from talking with the native women who work for the Chancey's, (they also have a bakery in their house) the attitude of men toward marriage has changed very little from their pagan days. Faithfulness to one woman in marriage is not the norm. This shows that the Christian message being generally presented here is very short of sound doctrine. There is far more to Christian doctrine than salvation, redemption, sanctification, &c. Sound doctrine must also including teaching modesty and the moral laws of God. However, those who claim the commandments are not for us who are "under grace, not under law" cannot condemn fornication and adultery.

7. As we observed the various people there, including in the church, we noticed that it was the white women who delight in revealing their "assets". Moreover, the fashion industry is trying to undo what the missionaries did. The missionaries put clothes on the women, and the fashion industry is trying to get them off.

8.There is a dire need for sound Christian missionaries in English speaking Africa. Where is the church in this hour of need and open door? Why do we spend multiplied millions of dollars to reach a few who cannot speak English, while we ignore the multiplied millions of people who will welcome the gospel in English?

Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

Non-money and your home

I certainly am no financial expert. See Franklin Sanders for much better overviews of financial situations as they come to pass. However, the following is very obvious to anyone who pays attention to what is taking place, and should be of concern to anyone who desires to retain what "wealth" the Lord has provided. (See Ez. 3 & 33.)

Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. (A double warning, Pro. 27:12.)


With a few computer strokes, the FED is creating from nothing $40 billion a month with which it purchases mortgages from banks. In return, the banks purchase Treasury bonds.

By buying $40 billion more in agency mortgage-backed securities every month, the Federal Reserve will become the majority owner of all of these assets. Roughly $120 billion to $125 billion are issued each month. The Fed already was purchasing about $25 billion a month. ...

The Fed's monthly bills are getting pretty high, as it plans to spend $85 billion a month on "long-term" securities (including mortgages) through the end of 2012. More importantly, the Fed didn't set an end date for purchasing these mortgages or Treasuries. ...

[Translation: with their non-money, the FEDs will be the majority owner of your mortgage that you exchanged hard work for real value in your property, home or business!! Is it any wonder that Ron Paul was enemy #1 to the FED, yet Christians refused to support him?]

The mortgages purchased with the $40 billion a month is being used by the FEDs as fractional reserve to produce $360 billion with which to gamble (invest) in the derivative's market. The planned result is that within three months, the FED will be enriched by 1 Trillion dollars. This money will be obtained by gambling with your mortgage. As we mentioned in the last Examiner, the courts have upheld that the funds you have in the bank are no longer under your control. (Who ends up with your mortgage if the FED loses? I do not at all understand the derivative market. All I am saying is what I have read. We are being told what is going on. We ignore those facts we do not want to face at the risk of losing all the material goods the Lord has blessed us with.)

Confusing? Certainly. Confusion keeps the victims (public) in the dark, so there will be no serious reaction. From what little I understand, foreigners (China) who have the money will end up owning your mortgaged property.


(In the above interview, there are three ways mentioned how Obama, as president, double-crossed the "Powers-that-Be" who put him into office. The result is that those powers did all they can to see that was not re-elected. Though I dismissed that statement, Newsweek confirmed it with "HIT THE ROAD BARACK. Why We Need a New President." Why else would the ultra-liberal media be against him? Romney replaced Oboma as the "anointed one" to carry on their destructive plans. However, it is God who exalts and puts down leaders, and he uses men to do his work. Another major blow against Obama was several anti-Obama movies: "Netflix making ‘Dreams' a nightmare for Obama. Documentary investigating life story now available to 27 million homes" as streaming in its basic plan.


First, the dollar loses value according to the amount of non-money the Fed creates.

Second, through this method, all mortgages in the US will be Federalized, as has been health care, and every other thing the government can get its hands upon.

Third, because the "powers that be" have found the American people satisfied with the status quo, and unwilling to stand up to the banksters, those powers now believe they can do as they will with no response. (Examples? The TSA, using the military to enforce civil law, among many other government unconstitutional interventions. It appears that there is no longer a breaking point that will cause Americans to stand against tyranny.)

Get what money you may have out of the bank; even retirement programs are very close to being confiscated, or totally worthless. If nothing else, keep your funds in paper in your under-wear drawer if you cannot see your way to go to metals. At the least, invest it in something of physical value, for the money may be close to worthless by the end of the year. Get some drums and fuel stabilizer, and set aside some fuel if nothing else.

BTW, if you have kept up with world events over the last 12-18 months, you know that the world has abandoned the US dollar as its "reserve currency". I will not give the dates, but I distinctly remember the news as China has made trade agreements with various nations, particularly Brazil. Yet our State Department continues to sent billions of dollars to develop Brazil's oil supply, while our supply is shut down. China now trades with just about every nation in the world in the YEN, or whatever the local currency may be. The dollar, even the petrol dollar is dead, yet Americans do not know it. The death of the dollar is seen as it purchases less and less at the grocery store and at the gas pump. There will continue to be food and gas, but at what price?

The sum total of the above is stated below. Here are a few excerpts from the article,

Bankers Declare U.S. & Europe Conquered | World government now an open secret

By Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Thursday, July 19, 2012

A recent CNBC clip in which financial analysts admit to viewers that America is under the control of a group of central bankers who are building a world government is a damning insight into how the establishment has dispensed with any pretense of trying to hide their agenda as it is finalized.

During the video, the host asks guests, "Do we all work for central bankers? is this global governance at last? is it one world ? the central bankers in charge?.aren't we all just living and dying for what the central banks do?"

"To answer your question, we are absolutely slaves to central banks," responds the guest.

"We are beholden to what central bankers and policy makers do rather than the fundamentals in the economy," adds another.

This is just one of a deluge of examples where it is now being thrown in our faces that a banking elite is building a world government at the expense of the American people.

From treating the issue as a "conspiracy theory" for decades, the establishment is now tearing away the veil in an effort to force Americans to blithely accept what has been planned all along.

A global government is now being forcefully pushed as the "solution" to all manner of problems, but specifically in relation to financial crises. We are being brainwashed to accept the premise that centralized power in the hands of a tiny elite is the only recourse, and that a one world currency is inevitable.

At the height of the last economic crisis, Bilderberg member and Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman argued that "everything is in place" for a dictatorial world government to be imposed by a technocratic elite.

Rachman's 2008 call for authoritarian technocrats to be put in charge of the global economy in preparation for the official birth of global government is now well on its way to completion, with the economies of France, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, along with the IMF and the European Central Bank, all under Goldman Sachs banker occupation.

These technocrats have not been bashful in openly announcing what they are doing.

Upon his selection to become EU President in 2009, Herman Van Rompuy announced that the financial crisis and efforts to combat global warming were designed to precede "the global management of our planet." He also declared 2009 to be "the first year of global governance."

In the same year, Van Rompuy was joined by the Pope who also called for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy.

World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick also openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit. ....

Fellow globalist and environmentalist David De Mayer Rothschild also disclosed the agenda for global governance in an interview with Bloomberg news.

"It's past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to -- with all the best intentions it's very hard to actually activate.? Rothschild noted. ...

A 2010 UN blueprint for putting the organization back at the forefront of global governance alarmingly revealed the agenda to re-brand global warming as "overpopulation" as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using "global redistribution of wealth" and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.

Bureaucrats at the 2011 UN Climate Summit in Durban outlined plans for the most draconian, harebrained and madcap climate change treaty ever produced, under which the west would be mandated to respect "the rights of Mother Earth" by paying a "climate debt" which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government. ...

"Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Henry Kissinger

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and their great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller ...

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure --- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

Entire article:

Big Banks always win

Excerpt from Former Joe Biden aid writes angry tell-all.

As chief of staff to former Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Biden's successor, Connaughton [Jeff Connaughton, author of "The Payoff"] was radicalized by his unsuccessful experience trying to get an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that would have broken up the country's largest banks. So he left Washington politics and wrote what he believes is the unvarnished truth about the country's political system. The big reveal: Big banks control both parties.

"It's time people understand why Ð and how Ð Wall Street always wins," Connaughton writes at the outset of his book. ..."

Read more:

Pay cash, and be listed as a terror suspect.

Forwarded to me:

Did RNC "Scripted"

Rules Change

Start A Civil War In The Republican Party? - YouTube

"Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how the most controversial rule change in party history was not legitimately passed." "Rule 16:Election, Selection, Allocation or Binding of Delegates and Alternate Delegates."

It is a short video of summarizing what happened at the RNC. There is now no hope of any consertave (Tea Party, &c.) canidate gaining a Republican nomonation. Reagan was the last non establishment president. The establishment has now establihed its total control of the Republican party, for the establishment alone ordains who will be elected from either party. John Banard (Speaker of the House) forced the vote, and controlled its predetermined outcome. (Watch the script that scrolls by in his Tele-Prompter.) The illusion of a free election for President is now forever laid to rest. It does seem, however, that connectives can have a telling influence in Congress and local officials. Vote turncoats like Banard out.

I imagine those who dislike Ron Paul are thankful he had no voice in the nomination process.

(The bus driver who drove the Ron Paul supporters to the convention drove around, and would not let them off the bus so they could challenge the proceedings.)

Though the Republicans control the purse strings, the Republican wimps in Congress have allowed the president to gain control of the budget process. See "Inside story of Obama's struggle to keep Congress from controlling outcome of debt ceiling crisis"

By Bob Woodward, Published: September 8

False Flag

We mentioned false flags last time. Though you will probably get this after the election, I have no doubt that the federal government will stir up major civil unrest regardless of who wins. The reason will be so the sheeple will cry out for federal intervention. I certainly hope I am wrong.

We did notice that in the aftermath of "Sandy", there was no law enforcement present to prevent looting. The looters seemed to have a free pass. Where is the proper presence during that civil unrest?

Our hope is in the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

For your consideration

Head Coverings I Cor 11:1-16

Erik R. Thorp

The following discourse is a refutation to an article by Thomas Williamson in the August issue of Biblical Examiner wherein he declares that "Should we require married women to wear veils in church today? In my opinion, no."

V.1-2 Paul establishes his credentials as an Apostle of Christ and declares that his word is to be regarded as on equal authority with that of Christ, "be ye followers of meÉand keep the ordinances, as I have delivered them to you." There is no room here for dispute and debate; only discipline and obedience is required as with soldiers waging war. In the red letter bibles, the words of Christ are highlighted as though his word bear more import than those of his apostles, and thereby diminish the word that comprises the whole canon of scripture. Sophisticates like Thomas Jefferson went so far in this direction that he tore out the apostle's doctrine and included only the words of Christ in his bible which is given even today to the members of Congress. But Paul says "as I also am of Christ"; his words are to be regarded on the same plane as that of Christ, there is no light between the two to fit even a thin dime. How so? Surely the written word of a man born of a woman and bearing the sin of Adam cannot be compared to that of a man born of a virgin and without sin and from a human viewpoint that would be so, but Paul was confronted by the person of Christ on the road to Damascus and was later taught by him in Arabia and became the apostle to the Gentiles by Divine appointment. If that proposition is a problem for the reader then he should consult with his Maker.

v.3 The Divine Order is established and it applies to "every man"- black, white, red, yellow, whether he likes it or not, just as the stop sign applies to all drivers, not to just those who obey. "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man", not the other way around. The employer is the boss and is always right and the employee is paid to do his bidding even when the boss is wrong and that is not easy sometimes.

V.4-6 Then follows the discourse on who should wear a head covering at the meetings where prayer and prophesying is to occur and that covering is not defined as a hat, scarf, veil, doily or whatever. Paul specifically requires that men should not have a head covering. This commandment flies in the face of every Jew who puts on his beanie in defiance of the Divine Order. This past year when Jewish Patriot's football owner Bob Kraft lost his wife, the Gentile players had to put on a head covering at the funeral service to honor their boss. So why is it so difficult for Christian women to wear a head covering to honor their head which is man? The head covering on a lady does no damage to her scalp as would a crown of thorns, and is merely a symbol of humility, submission and faith in Christ.

v.7-9 As an advocate of Christ, Paul doesn't end the argument with his ordinance, but also asserts his doctrine by referring back to the account of creation as given by Moses in the book of Genesis wherein Adam was created out of the dust and then Eve from his rib and thus "man is not of the woman but the woman of man." So the order established is not an arbitrary whim by a chauvinist tyrant who has an axe to grind with women, but is rather the thoughtful result based on the historical evidence that Christ is the Creator. This majestic revelation assures the believer in the knowledge that Christ has forgiven his sins, that he is his creator, and that the creation account is awesomely true and not just a cunningly devised fable invented by men to deceive.

V.10-15 The proper relative length of hair on each gender is rendered and reinforced by nature itself. Paul likes the fact that long hair on a woman looks good and conversely, short hair on a man appeals to our sense of what is right and comely. The appeal to strengthen the differences between sexes is made to reinforce the roles that each are to play and is not meant to demean either party. Paul is establishing that clarity, order, purpose and appearance are important attributes that matter and asks the question "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" So he appeals to the better nature in man and to our natural sense of what is lovely and balanced. As an aside, we can also be sure that all the portraits of Christ depicting long flowing hair as a hippie from Woodstock are totally false. There is not the remotest possibility that Paul would defy his Savior in his appeal for men keep shortened hair.

v. 16 The Apostle concludes his discourse on head covering by asserting that the Kingdom of Christ is not governed by custom, but rather by the ordinances of Christ... The man who contends with these ordinances as if they were optional customs is in error because he trivializes the word of God, Christ and Paul. Ordinances are binding law. ["binding law"? Comp. 1 Cor. 11:2 with Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14, 20, ed.]

The Apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that women are to wear a head covering at the meeting for the sake of Christ, for the sake of nature, for the sake of the creation and for the sake of order. There is ample evidence that this directive was followed by believers for close to two thousand years, and until the advent of feminism, women customarily did wear a head covering in the meetings in all of Christendom- whether Catholic, Protestant, Baptist or whatever. So what profit does a meeting enjoy when it abandons the requirements that Paul has established for our good when he has clearly stated in another letter to the Corinthians to "bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"? In this sick and dying world, why do the believing women take pleasure in conforming to the ways of this world when they could instead honor their Savior and Creator with a clear statement of a head covering? Isn't there a blessing to be had when they, with confidence, declare their adherence to the Apostle and to Christ? And isn't it better to err in favor of obedience than to err in favor of rebellion? ...

The word of Christ is the truth and is not in need of revision as it stands on its own as truth now and forever. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was taught by Christ and speaks on behalf of Him and with the same authority. To speak contrary or otherwise to that truth, nullifies the power and intent of the word to the believer and it becomes non-effectual. We are to conform to the word, and are not to conform the word to the world. In spite of and in contrast to the human intellect, the word of God is a constant and remains majestic and sovereign.

Leadership Lessons From the Old Testament

By Thomas Williamson

You know that things are getting bad, when you are in a position of leadership but your own son is going around publicly badmouthing you and criticizing your leadership capabilities.

That is the position that King Saul found himself in - in 1 Samuel 14:29-30, his son Jonathan declared, "My father hath troubled the land . . . How much more, if haply the people had eaten freely to day of the spoil of their enemies which they found? For had there not been now a much greater slaughter among the Philistines?"

Saul discredited his own leadership and lost respect and authority among his followers, by making unwise decisions. "And the men of Israel were distressed that day; for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies.. So none of the people tasted any food." (1 Samuel 14:24)

This foolish, impulsive decree was contrary to the established, sensible rules of ancient warfare, which provided for armies to provision themselves on food captured from the enemy forces (as in 2 Kings 7:16, etc). HUNGERING FOR REVENGE. There is no record that Saul consulted with anyone before making this decision. He was motivated by a vainglorious, self-centered concern for "me, myself and I" as he inflicted discomfort on his people so that he could concentrate on getting revenge on his enemies. Ironically, he only made it more difficult for his famished soldiers to pursue the Philistines and get that revenge that he wanted so bad.

The result of this bad decision was that his people lost respect for his authority, and were less willing to trust him and follow his commands. In fact, they began to blatantly disregard and disobey his orders, as seen in 1 Samuel 14:32-33:

"And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the LORD, in that they eat with the blood."

Later in the same chapter, Saul made another boneheaded decision, and further diminished his authority among the people, who again boldly disobeyed another of Saul's royal decrees: "And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground: for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not." (1 Samuel 14:44-45).

As Saul's reign proceeded from disaster to disaster, he continued to lose the respect and obedience of his subjects. Many of his retainers disagreed with his ridiculous vendetta against David, so that in 1 Samuel 22:8 we find Saul piteously whining, "all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me." Everybody had contempt for his leadership, even his son Jonathan.

In 1 Samuel 22:17, we find Saul's servants disobeying a direct order from him: "And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him, Turn, and slay the priests of the LORD; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when he fled, and did not shew it to me. But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the LORD."

This bold insubordination, against a king with serious anger management issues who was known for hurling javelins at anyone who rubbed him the wrong way, is not really surprising at all. Saul had created for himself a reputation as an unreliable crackpot who was not worthy to be obeyed.

Modern-day pastors, if they are not careful, may find themselves in the same situation as Saul. If they make decisions that are unwise, nonsensical, insensitive or unnecessarily harsh, then they will eventually get to the point where their people no longer trust or obey them. At that point, they may attempt to pull rank and force people to bow to their superior authority, but such tactics did not work for Saul, and they will not work for the modern pastor either.

HOW TO NOT WIN FRIENDS NOR INFLUENCE PEOPLE. A textbook example of how not to lead the people is that of King Rehoboam, who thought he could solidify his control over the people by cracking the whip on them. The results were totally, dramatically counter-productive:

"And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him: And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. . . . Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute, and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David until this day." (I Kings 12:12-13, 18-19)

The annals of modern church history are littered with the carcasses of once-thriving Baptist churches that were wrecked and destroyed by pastors who tried the "Rehoboam Plan" of dictatorial pastoral leadership, commonly known as "Preacher Rule," only to crash and burn.

DAVID'S BESETTING WEAKNESS. Then there is the other extreme, pastoral leadership that is too weak and that allows troublemakers to get away with murder and have their own way. David, for at least part of his reign, made the mistake of going too easy on problem people that he should have cracked down on. (In 2 Kings 2, we see the newly crowned King Solomon dealing with some of David's unfinished business, punishing wrongdoers that the soft-hearted David should have dealt with but didn't).

One of the most shameful examples of David's leadership failure is seen in the coddling of his son Absalom. Joab finally had to rebuke the king on this issue, saying, "Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines. In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now." (2 Samuel 19:5-7).

Some modern pastors have the same problem as David - they are so full of compassion and understanding for their enemies, in or out of the congregation, who are out to destroy their ministry and wreck the Lord's work, that they come across as more concerned for their enemies than for their friends.

Any pastor who wants to maintain the respect and obedience of his people must be ready to crack down on those who are dedicated to destroying the church. And he must also give recognition to those who have loyally supported him, as Joab demanded that David do.

The epistles of the apostle Paul are full of generous statements of recognition and thankfulness for the congregations and the individuals who had supported him and his ministry over the years. On the contrary, any pastor who appears to love his enemies and hate his friends, like soft-hearted David, had better be prepared to experience constant turmoil and rebellion just like David did.

Another sensitive issue is, what does the pastor do when a member of his own family commits flagrant sin? David failed that test, allowing his son Absalom to go unpunished for the murder of his brother Amnon, except for a brief, comfortable period of exile. Too many modern pastors likewise have failed the test - they did not deal with sin on the part of their own family members, thus opening up the opportunity for everyone else in the church to get away with just about anything.

Even the godliest pastors may experience the embarrassment of family members who go bad, and when this happens, they better be prepared to deal with it rather than showing favoritism and protecting their families from the exercise of proper church discipline.

Many years ago, the son of the senior pastor of my church came up to me and told me, "I do not believe in the Bible or in anything that this church stands for." This was dealt with in a scriptural manner. One week later, this son, a grown man, was publicly voted out of the membership of the church. There was no effort to cover up his sin of unbelief. Shortly afterward, he was saved, gave a testimony of his salvation and was received back into the membership.

At another church, the sister-in-law of the senior pastor moved in with a boyfriend and openly lived in sin with him. Here again, it was handled scripturally - the pastor brought the matter before the congregation, which voted this woman out of the membership. This set a healthy example that was followed faithfully in the future - other members with morals problems were excluded from the membership, which would have been impossible had the pastor's sister-in-law been coddled and protected from disciplinary action.

Pastors who fail to lead their churches to take such necessary action against wrongdoers in the church, whether they be family members, close friends or big financial contributors, had better be prepared for a rough and turbulent ride in the pastorate, and perhaps to be booted out of their place of leadership, as David almost was.

GAINING RESPECT BY COMING THROUGH ON PROMISES. Then there is the problem of the pastors who are "All talk and no action," constantly blathering on about all the great things they are going to do someday, but they never come through. When they start bragging about the glorious accomplishments in their future, eyes begin to roll, their people give each other knowing, sarcastic glances and mutter under their breaths, "Yeah, sure." The leader who makes endless promises of future grandeur in the ministry, but never comes through, will slowly but surely forfeit the confidence and respect of his people.

General Joshua did not fall into this trap. He did make grandiose promises, as in Joshua 3:5 where he said, "To morrow the LORD will do wonders among you," but unlike all too many modern pastors, Joshua came through and followed through.

Specifically, he promised that the waters of Jordan would be stopped from flowing, so that the people could cross over on dry land. And he came through. (Joshua 3:13-17). As a result, the people developed a deeper confidence in him and were willing to trust and follow him: "On that day the LORD magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life." (Joshua 4:14)

Joshua earned the trust and respect of his people, and as a result they were willing to follow him when he gave some seemingly nutty instructions about the conquest of Jericho - they were to spend a week marching around and around the city, physically wearing themselves out under the hot sun, going around in circles for no apparent purpose, accomplishing nothing, taking no new ground, making no advances on enemy territory. They were not even to try to intimidate the enemy by making war cries. (Joshua 6:7:10)

If Joshua had not already earned the people's trust and confidence, they might have gone on strike and refused to obey him, just as another generation of warriors refused to obey King Saul. But they obeyed, because Joshua had demonstrated wise leadership skills and had showed that the Lord was with him - and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

A serious instruction


1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Here Paul applies Deut. 17:6, 19:15. 19:15 (One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, shall the matter be established.) to the Gospel Church. We will see how it is also the basis for our Lord's words in Matthew 18.

Receive; (That is, take up, take upon one's self. to admit i.e. not to reject, to accept,.. Acts 16:21, 22:18, 1 Tim. 5:19. Thayer) Thus, any accusation against an elder is to be rejected, unless properly witnessed.

"give an ear to, entertain; as in Acts 22:18, "They will not receive thy testimony." .... Paul applies the witness law, i.e., receiving or entertaining a testimony against an elder, to Timothy's dealings with presbyters who might be accused of not "ruling will." He was not to encourage delatores, secret accusers and defamers, but if any one had a charge against a ruler, it was to be done in the presence of witnesses. .. And, therefore, the direction to Timothy is, "Suffer no man to accuse a presbyter unless he is accompanied by two or three witnesses who are ready to back up the accusation." (Pulpit Commentary, vol. 21, p.100.)

Now, let us look at accusations in the light of Paul's instruction to Timothy... Accusation, 1 Tim. 5:19. (Complaint or Charge against. Used in Lk. 6:7, Jn.18:29, 1 Tim. 5:19, Tit. 1:6.Thayer. Tit. 1:6 must be kept in its context of vv. 6-9 which identifies an elder's blameless actions.)

"[T]he special mission of Timothy must be borne in mind, He had to make inquiries into matters which must often have been of a delicate and somewhat indefinite kind. Occasionally he might be tempted to go upon information which was partial and defective; and he should therefore be the more careful to insist upon sufficient evidence, especially when one in the position of an elder was concerned; otherwise he might entangle the church in worse evils that those he sought to remedy. But this, of course, implied that in all ordinary circumstances the same method should be generally followed; and attention was specially called to the case of presbyters only because a certain deference was due to their position, and the consequences would naturally be of a graver kind should any false step be taken." (Patrick Fairbairn, Pastoral Epistles, p. 220 1874.)

"He [Timothy] was not to regard such a charge as well-founded unless sustained by two or three witnesses... But before two or three witnesses. Marg., under. The meaning is, unless supported by the testimony of two or three persons. He was not to regard an accusation against a presbyter as proved, if there was but one witness in the case, however positive he might be in his testimony..." (See Barns', pp. 183, 184 for the 4 reasons for witnesses. Or OnLineBible.)

Skipping the first three reasons, which, by the way, are good:

(4.) The character of a minister of the gospel is of value, not only to himself and family, as is the case with that of other men, but is of special value to the church, and to the cause of religion. It is the property of the church. The interests of religion depend much on it, and it should not be wantonly assailed; and every precaution should be adopted that Christianity should not be deprived of the advantage which may be derived in its favour from the piety, experience, and talents of its public defenders. At the same time, however, the wicked, though in the ministry, should not be screened from the punishment which they deserve. The apostle gave no injunction to attempt to cover up their faults, or to save them from a fair trial, he only demanded such security as the nature of the case required, that the trial should be fair. If a minister of the gospel has been proved to be guilty of crime, the honour of religion, as well as simple justice, requires that he shall be punished as he deserves. He sins against great light; he prostitutes a holy office, and makes use of the very reputation which his office gives him, that he may betray the confidence of others; and such a man should not escape. There should be no "benefit of clergy," and neither a black coat, nor bands, nor the lawn should save a villain. (Barnes'. Emp added.)

In other words, though a ministry may prosper in numbers under a particular minister, that "prosperity" cannot screen the villains "from the punishment which they deserve."

"Here is the scripture-method of proceeding against an elder, when accused of any crime. Observe, 1. There must be an accusation; it must not be a flying uncertain report, but an accusation, containing a certain charge, must be drawn up. Further, He is not to be proceeded against by way of enquiry; this is according to the modern practice of men to purge themselves of such crimes, or else to accuse themselves; but, according to the advice of Paul, there must be an accusation brought against an elder. 2. This accusation is not to be received unless supported by two or three credible witnesses; and the accusation must be received before them, that is, the accused must have the accusers face to face, because the reputation of a minister is, in a particular manner, a tender thing; and therefore, before any thing be done in the least to blemish that reputation, great care should be taken that the thing alleged against him be will proved, that he be not reproached upon an uncertain surmise;... (Matthew Henry, OLB.)

1 Tim. 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder,".. refers to the private and pastoral intercourse with an elder, and to the method in which he should be treated in such intercourse..." (Barnes'.)

Three Criminal Charges

1 Timothy 5:17-25.

Paul lays three possible Biblical, not civil, criminal charges against an elder: first, not ruling well, second, lack of labour in the word, and third, false doctrine. If the elder fails in any one of the three, he is to be rebuked. If he does not respond to the rebuke, further action must be taken. We will deal primarily with ruling well, but all three fit within the following.

If he is fulfilling his responsibilities, v. 18, muzzle not the ox, applies. If he is not, then v. 19, accusation, applies.

V. 20, them that sin... That is, an elder of v. 19 who does not rule well, nor labour properly in the word and doctrine. Moreover, there must be no partiality shown to one elder above another. "...without any prejudice on account of rank, wealth, personal friendship, or predilection of any sort. Let there be entire impartiality in all cases.... (Barnes') The persuasive and charismatic ways of an elder must not exempt him from Biblical rebuke and action.

If he is not fulfilling his three responsibilities, there can be no rubuke nor accusation brought against him, even on a personal basis, without at least one other witness.

How is this reconciled with our Lord's words of Matthew 18 where the sinner is to be approached on the individual bases first? Both Matthew Henry and Albert Barnes' make the point that the instructions of 1 Tim. 5:19 are given only for dealing with an elder. Thus, it can not be confused with Matthew 18, and the individual.

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul instructs how charges must be brought against a man who is in the God-ordained office of an elder. The charges are brought against this man as he discharges the duties of this office (really, this would be a 24 hr. duty). Thus, God not only requires extra from the one in the office of elder (pastor), but He requires extra precautions to be taken in charges against the ones in that office. God requires at least one other witness to protect HIS office of pastor, but He does not leave that office above reproach, as some seem to think it is.

Even the Lord required the proper witnesses against the adulterous woman.

Matthew 18 covers charges against an individual as he goes about his daily life, not as he fulfills the duties of an elder. Of course, personal offences must always be dealt with on a personal level, no matter who the offence is with.

Matthew Henry identifies v. 20 as public exposer of sinners other than elders. It certainly could be inclusive, but the context is an elder who does not rule well, or goes into false doctrine, v. 17.

V. 20. If the accusation proves to be true that he is not ruling well, and the elder refuses to repent when properly confronted, then the offense must be presented to the church.

Rebuke before all of the church or congregation. The word rebuke properly denotes to reprove or reprehend. It means here that there should be a public statement of the nature of the offence, and such a censure as the case demanded. It extends only to spiritual censures. There is no power given of inflicting any punishment by fine or imprisonment. The power of the church, in such cases, is only to express its strong and decided disapprobation of the wrong done, and if the case demands it, of disowning the offending member or minister. This direction to "rebuke an offender before all," may be easily reconciled with the direction in 1Ti 5:1, "Rebuke not an elder." The latter refers to the private and pastoral intercourse with an elder, and to the method in which he should be treated in such intercourse Ð to wit, with the feelings due to a father; the direction here refers to the manner in which an offender should be treated, who has been proved to be guilty, and where the case has become public. Then there is to be a public expression of disapprobation. (Barnes'.)

Though the congregation of the Lord can take no "civil" action against an offending elder (or member) after he has been properly rebuked, the Lord will take appropriate action according to His Law after the church deals with the villain properly. Because the congregation has no power to enforce any "civil" punishment against the offending elder or member, that person may feel they have avoided their justly deserved consequence. (Ecc. 8:11.) However, the Lord's action against the villain is much more severer than any "civil punishment" could ever be, for once the church removes the offender, the Lord turns that offending and unrepentant elder (or individual) over to Satan:

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

It has been very well put: "There is nothing worse than to die in the Devil's slaughterhouse."

Some time ago, I was told of an elder who was removed from a church by its congregation for not ruling well, yet other elders placed their seal of approval upon him. They left their approval upon him even after the truth was revealed as to why he was removed. Whom will the Lord hold responsible for not fulfilling their Biblical Responsibility?

Will not the congregation, or those responsible to rebuke an elder, be held accountable before God for not scripturally dealing with an elder who does not rule well, nor labour properly? Why do we pastors, who preach and believe God's righteous judgment, fail to realize the seriousness of God's word? (Ja. 3:1.) Is it any wonder that even sound gospel preaching churches are in such a depressed position when there is no courage to rebuke offending elders? If justice and judgment will not start in the Biblical House of God, will not the judge of the whole earth do right?


Though the below is from an ad for Lose the Wheat Lose the Weight, we have found his statement to be true. We went totally off wheat for 90 days, before we knew of this book, and each of us lost 22 lbs. We added wheat back in, and the pounds came back. However, the wheat in Kenya was not GMO nor hybrid. We ate more there than we do here, and lost weight, and with no gluten problems.

Lose the Wheat, written by a doctor who saw the effects of wheat on his patients, contains all the research documentation concerning wheat as well as on gluten as found in other grains.


The fat-making myth of so-called "healthy" whole grains:

The first advice to eat more whole grains was issued by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute through its National Cholesterol Education Program in 1985. Funny thing: 1985 coincides precisely with the explosion of obesity and diabetes in America.

But WHY is wheat so toxic to your waistline?

Because it's NOT really wheat anymore! It's a genetically engineered SUPER-carbohydrate that came from the Sierra Mountains in Mexico in the 1960s.

Thanks to funding from a renowned foundation and the Mexican government, a small group of scientists set out to make wheat easier to grow and more pest-resistant.

The goal was noble: To help end world hunger. The result was unexpected and HARMFUL to our health.

By altering the genetic structure of the wheat, and making it more tasty and palatable, the scientists unwittingly created a new SUPER-carbohydrate unlike anything the human body had ever experienced before.

Even a small serving of this "new" wheat triggered STUNNING surges in human blood sugar levels.

The results were so dramatic, you actually get a SMALLER blood sugar shock from a candy bar than from two slices of today's "healthy" whole wheat bread!

The "new" wheat also has the uncanny ability to pack on poundsÑwhile you think you're eating healthier

Not only does the NEW wheat trigger a tsunami of blood sugar, but the surge lasts a whopping TWO HOURS, then crashes in a matter of minutes.

This roller-coaster ride repeats itself throughout the day. The result? Your hunger and cravings are virtually out of control. Fat accumulates all over your bodyÑespecially around your middle.

I call it a WHEAT BELLY. And the bigger it gets, the faster the fat accumulates. It's a vicious cycle that has saddled millions of Americans with unwanted and unattractive fat. But not just any fat...the most DANGEROUS fat of all.


Read and heed.


Nancy Levant, April 17, 2007,

If you want to understand big corruption, you've got to follow money. I could end this article with that said, however, and following a day researching the power of money, I am filled to brimming with thoughts on money and the attainment of power alone.

First, let me say this: if you are a parent and you haven't found Dr. Dennis Cuddy's series titled Mental Health, Education, and Social Control, you are clueless about your child's social, political, mental, and physical entrapment and vulnerability. For the sake of your children, read this series TODAY. I will post the link at the end of this article.

In brief, the implementation of universal mental health screening in schools, which is currently operating in our school system, is a public-private partnership deal between the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry. It is a money scam. If you read Dr. Cuddy's series, you will clearly follow the money trail from pharma to Fed and back. How do American parents stop this insidious, unconscionable attack upon our children? You break the money trail.

Pull you children out of the public school system immediately. Every excuse that you claim for not homeschooling your children is bogas. Never again support a school levy. If you are devoted to your public school system, you are a complicit player in the destruction of your child's psyche, health, future, and your country. All your excuses are null and void. You want to see "universal" mental health screening go away? Make good and sure that every public school stands empty at the beginning of the school year. You want to see the globalist-Socialist indoctrination of your children cease and desist? Don't allow them to be indoctrinated by the excuses you give for not homeschooling. Any parent can homeschool a child, and any parent who sends their children into a pubic school building is an enemy of freedom.

Next, sell your large houses immediately. Get rid of them and pay off every single debt that you have. Owe nothing to creditors and lenders Ð nothing. Think about renting. Why? If you rent, you do not personally participate in the property tax support of governmental indoctrination centers called schools. If you buy another home, buy it away from populated areas, but buy only if you can pay off the house with cash, and never, ever support another school levy.

Now let's talk about banks Ð the apex of the global money trail. My suggestion is to close your accounts. Use money orders to mail payments. Keep your money elsewhere and always have cash on hand. Close your savings accounts. You do not need them. Do not continue to support the scams and crimes of the elite by participating in their theft systems. Instead, support small business owners who do not "partner" with criminals. Also, cancel all large media subscriptions. The only way to fight public-private fire is with money. Take it away from them.

Now let's talk about our employment. If you are working in "traditional" health care systems, including mental health care, insurance industries, non-profits, or for any of the mega-conglomerations and corporations, you are feeding the power of the monster. Once you sell your large homes and pay off your debts, you will no longer need to live or think like financial slaves. Work for good, decent, honorable, and honest people or start your own businesses. Get off the big money grid that has skillfully made you into a debtor slave and nothing more. If you are currently a government employee, shame on you, for your government is destroying your nation, your rights, and your children. Facts are facts.

You have the right to refuse this system. You have a right to freedom, but you have a moral obligation to demand a moral government and economic system. If you participate in immorality, knowing full well the corruption at hand, you are an enemy of freedom. It is time for every American citizen to draw the line in the sand, for our nightmare is upon us. With the wisdom of a child, simply say, "I'm not playing this game anymore."

Now, let's get to the crux of our deplorable state of national affairs. There's the one-world governance mission, which "representatives" carry out according to their financial handlers, and then there is the political backbone of the one-world system, and it's called the declared state of emergency in the United States, which began in earnest in 1933. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and control every aspect of the lives of all American citizens.

This situation has continued uninterrupted and unchanged since March 9, 1933. Our nation has operated in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 75 years without the people of the nation realizing such. You didn't learn this in any of your public schools, did you?

According to current laws, as found in Title 12 USC, Section 95(b), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]."

On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application."

This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution.

Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 contains the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency.

Title 12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (also called The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."

This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration.

According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, we have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens are declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain.

This also provides for the confiscation of enemy private property. Now we understand why we no longer receive allodial freehold title to our land. As enemies, our property is no longer ours to secure.

The only way we can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. Sound familiar all you life-long learners?

So, guess who initiated all of these emergency powers? On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6".

Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system and did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans. Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency whereas "all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed." Wow, talk about a permanent, hand-crafted, and delivered dictatorship.

Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the Constitution is automatically abolished. We are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. We are under a system of War Powers.

Our stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as Americans are considered enemies of the state. What we have is not ours under the War Powers given to the President, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine.

Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted to him these emergency powers. And for nearly 75 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, whereby terminating the original proclamation and his "approved and confirmed" dictatorial powers.

So, we ask ourselves how America came to its deplorable condition, with Constitution dissolving before our eyes via an out of control Executive Branch, and all rights granted to the people following suit, and now you have the answer. Presidents and Secretaries of the Treasury can do anything they choose, because they were given such powers at the "emergency" request of The Federal Reserve, including killing the Constitution. Ignorance surely was bliss, wasn't it?

Sure, they allow a few token rights here and there to keep us in a state of ignorant denial, but mark my words Ð it's only a matter of time before the new laws of their one-world creation (Communitarian Law, which is based on "the pubic good") end all ignorance in full. Think Martial Law, FEMA rule, centralized police state, and the end of all semblances of our pretend freedom.

If you love freedom, even if it was a figment of our deceived imaginations, you still might want to consider that everything has become "federalized," and your money supports this state of American affairs. Therefore, the first issue is to demand an end to the declared state of emergency, which renders our "leaders" capable of any dictatorial power they choose to inflict. And your "money?" Does the Federal Reserve ring an emergency bell? Are they STILL driving the "declared emergency" presidential wagon? Is the purposeful bankrupting of this nation by the Federal Reserve Corporation still enforcing our declared state of emergency Ð the same "emergency" the Fed implanted into law in 1933?

Many thanks to for the information about America's declared and unending state of emergency. God bless you for your dedication to freedom. Also, many thank to Dr. Cuddy for the steadfast devotion to sovereignty, Christianity, American children, and their clueless and economically enslaved parents.

Seek truth, facts, and actual knowledge. Don't find yourselves manipulated and dictated to by "leadership" of any flavor, including the religious leadership. It's up to you to use the brains God gave you, and to figure out for yourselves how liars lead commoners to slaughter. You still have access to truth. Better find it while you can and act accordingly and in unison with all countrymen.

1, Contact A.C.E (Americans for Constitutional Enforcement) at and click on the link, "A.C.E. Download Page." Or, you can go directly to the download page at A.C.E. provides a free packet of information on how to start community groups, and will also provide you with educational materials for your groups.

2, Attend the Kansas City Summit. Go to, and register to attend this national meeting of like minds this coming July. Don't even think about summer vacations, folks. This year, serve what's left of your nation by building the coalition that can muster the numbers and the media attention to save our country. Pray, and with your help, this will be a historic event in American history.

3, Please read Dr. Edwin Vieira's newest book titled Constitutional Homeland Security, which can be purchased at Remember that we must always look to our Constitution for answers to tyranny. If we, the people, fail to protect our liberties and our homeland, we will, in fact, as Dr. Vieira states, "Édegenerate into a centralized bureaucratic police state." This is a book with a constitutional and viable plan that CAN save this nation.