The New Sound of Dominion: Reconstructionist Radio

Reconstructionist Radio iconIf you have not come across this excellent online resource yet, it’s time for you to take a look.

The massive cache of books produced by Christian Reconstructionists over the past 50 years have been a treasure trove of theological, historical, practical, epistemological and philosophical works in and of themselves.  Now, many of these mostly forgotten and out-of-print-yet-still-invaluable books are being reproduced and republished as free audio books available to anyone online, thanks to the visionary hard work and inspiration of a dominion-minded truck driver by the name of Jason Sanchez.

Jason has started an ambitious project called Reconstructionist Radio.

I call it music to my ears!

Jason has assembled a team of narrators — growing and they are asking for more — to do the following: take an existing printed or electronic edition of selected titles from amongst the various authors and leading figures of the CR movement past and present, such as Dr. Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Gary Demar, David Chilton and others, and then convert them, painstakingly, into digital audio format.

The resulting audiobooks and downloadable podcasts are being made available to anyone who wants to listen to them, at no charge, since they are produced from books which have been available online for years to anyone who wants to read them, in electronic or PDF format, at no charge.  (They are NOT public domain.  But they are freely available.)

This is similar in concept to Pocket College, which is a massive online collection of lectures and recordings by the late R.J. Rushdoony.  Except that these are original, derivative works rather than mere digital copies of existing works.  Anyway, to date, no one else has ventured to convert any of these books into audio format.  Jason is blazing a new trail here.  Or rather, he is paving a new highway — for truck drivers and everyone else to drive on!

There is a lot of work to be done.  Lots of book titles to be recorded and published.  Many hours and much labor and patience.  But it looks like Jason and his crew of volunteers are in it for the long haul! 

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

In any event, this is a worthwhile project that deserves our prayers and support.  These are important works and now they will find a new audience.  Sounds good to me.

“Let him who has ears to hear, click here”:  Reconstructionist Radio

Rare Lectures from David Chilton: “The Days of Vengeance” (An Exposition of the Book of Revelation)

Rev. David H. ChiltonHere is a real treat.  A series of lectures on the Book of Revelation given by Rev. David Chilton several years before he died.  He died in 1997.  I’m not exactly sure when these were recorded. Probably in the late 1980s.

The series is in eight parts.  In the first part, Chilton introduces the Book of Revelation.  He does it as only David Chilton can.  With his masterful understanding of biblical symbolism and prophetic themes from Genesis through Revelation, coupled with his manic, southern-California style and sense of humor–you haven’t heard a prophecy teacher like this before!

(Examples: Jonah’s prophecy to Nineveh: “Bambi Meets Godzilla.”  Disobedience to God’s commands meant that, of a surety, you were in deep guacamole; the New Jerusalem is NOT a “space station” hovering over planet earth; etc.)

The Revelation of. . . Jesus Christ

The main point Chilton makes in part 1 is this:  the prophecies of the Bible — including those in Revelation — are not pure prediction in the “Jeanne Dixon” sense of the word.  They’re not a display of God’s foretelling prowess. They are covenantal and they are ethical.  They’re God’s judgments pronounced infallibly through His prosecuting attorneys, His prophets. And the main thing that is revealed in the book is, . . . JESUS CHRIST.

Chilton advocates for reading the Book of Revelation as though it were a part of the Bible, and not, as many do, as a separate work of “science fiction.”

Let that sink in.  Read the Book of Revelation as though it were a part of the Bible.

In other words, let all of the rest of Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, be your guide to interpreting this last book of the Bible.  Stop decoupling it from the other 65 books!  That is the key to understanding it.  It will help you to avoid the trap of “headline hermeneutics.”

His commentary on Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, is probably the best expository work on that book.  I’ve written about it here.

I love these lectures.  The comedic confidence exuded by Chilton in this series will ensure that you will not fall asleep during his free-wheeling expository, exegetical and rhetorical bull ride.  Let the rodeo begin. Yee-haw!

Enjoy the lectures.

Here is Part One:

For a little bit more info on who David Chilton was, here is an article.

Aren’t All Christians Supposed to Be ‘Reconstructionists’?

CorneliusVanTilThis past week there has been some discussion about Van Til and his worldview and whether it was more in line with Christian Reconstructionism and theonomy than previously thought, or (more to the point) whether his privately held views were a true reflection of his stated positions of amillennialism and an apolitical Christianity.

Joel McDurmon talks about this in his two articles:

Cornelius Van Til’s ‘Spirit of Reconstruction’

When Van Til Got Crazy Political

‘Spirit of Van Tillianism”

Lots of Reformed Christians consider themselves spiritual heirs of Van Til.  The Reformed world and evangelical Christianity owe him an enormous debt for his path-breaking work that established the philosophical framework for what would later become “presuppositional apologetics.”

Likewise, the philosophical and exegetical framework for Christian Reconstruction would never have gotten off the ground without his pioneering efforts.

So, why is it that Reformed Christians who embrace the philosophical and epistemological views of Van Til are loathe to embrace similarly held views when they are expressed by Christian Reconstructionists?

By Which Double Standard?

At their core, are they really that much different?  In their expression, yes, perhaps.  But not in their presuppositions.

Christian Reconstruction as espoused and promulgated by Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, Chilton, et al., was a radical departure from conventional Christian thought — even Reformed Christian thought — at the time (mid-1960s).  But it was based squarely on the philosophical foundations of Van Til.

To paraphrase the old adage from the Reformation:

Rushdoony and North hatched the egg that Van Til laid.

The Greatness of the Great Commission

The title of Dr. Kenneth Gentry’s excellent book leads us to the larger issue at hand, and really puts our mandate as believers and followers of Christ into perspective: our commission as the body of Christ in the world is to take the Gospel to all peoples and all nations and to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

Modern evangelical Christians until the 1980s have sought to keep this a personal, private, home-based matter.  Fundamentalism institutionalized the thinking: “Save souls, not cultures!”  That is beginning to change.

But “making disciples” doesn’t simply mean making more church-goers and Bible-readers.

It means a Holy-Spirit-caused radical transformation that begins at the bottom and works its way up.  It starts out individually, privately, but it ends up collectively, publicly.  Transformed lives leading to transformed families.  Transformed families leading to transformed communities and transformed societies.  Then, transformed cultures, transformed nations and, ultimately, a transformed world.

Isn’t this what we are supposed to be striving for and praying for (“thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven”) (“Go ye into all the world…”)?  Should that not be the earnest desire of our Christ-loving, Holy-Spirit-converted hearts for our fallen race, a humanity comprised of many of our fellow sinners yet-to-be-saved by grace?

You would think so.

Theonomy and Reconstruction: A Reformed Response

R. C. Sproul, Jr. has weighed in on this topic of Christian Reconstruction vs. biblical Reformation and the Great Commission before:

Let’s begin with what we all ought to agree on- that discipling the nations and teaching them to obey whatsoever Christ commanded should include some understanding of the Lordship of Christ over the cultural and political spheres. Jesus is bringing every enemy under captivity, causing every knee to bow, including the knees of princes, judges and kings who will not kiss Him, who will not acknowledge Him as Lord.

No argument there.  He then asks:

So how do we make known the reign of Christ over all things? We begin by bringing our own sinful natures under submission.

No argument there. That is where all true ‘reconstruction’ must begin.

He concludes with this:

What we are called to is neither to huddle in the corner because Jesus is coming back tomorrow, nor to hang out in back rooms cutting deals to hurry His return. Instead we ought to be about our own callings, raising up godly seed, voting for and supporting honest and honorable candidates that submit to the Lordship of Christ. Is this reconstruction, or is this faithful stewardship of our time? Is this reconstruction, or is this seeking first the kingdom of God? Is this reconstruction, or is this making visible the invisible reign of Christ over all things? In the end, it doesn’t much matter what you call it. We are to obey Christ, to train up our children to do the same. This is loving your neighbor and this will change the world. (emphasis added)

Amen, brother.

Nine days after posting that, he reposted another article that had been published two years prior, which was even more amicable to Christian Reconstruction.  It ended with this kind word of solidarity:

Theonomists, like the rest of us, long to see justice in the political realm. They long to see the nations discipled. They long to see the kingdom made manifest. They long to see every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Who, within His kingdom, could ever argue with that?

Who, indeed?

Sproul 2.0 (“Did I Really Say That?”)

More recently, however, Sproul seems to have lost his spirit of solidarity with theonomists and reconstructionists in a podcast and an accompanying article.

It is chock-full of back-handed compliments, like these:

These good folks have the wisdom to not be embarrassed by the Law of God. Every time somebody tries to discredit the Bible stance on sodomy, based on its stance on slavery, unlike the rest of the Christians, these guys don’t blush. They’re perfectly comfortable with slavery because they aren’t slaves to popular opinion. This movement, sometimes called Theonomy, sometimes called Reconstructionism, is the stuff of nightmares to the liberal left. These guys are well-educated, articulate, and medieval.

I see.  Well-educated, articulate, and medieval.

No matter.  What Sproul said in his previous two articles stands as sufficient testimony to the general agreement that exists between what “Christian Reconstructionists” want for the world and what other Bible-believing Christians want.

“WHAT DO WE WANT?”  A redeemed and reformed world.  If not for ourselves, at least for our children and their children and their childrens’ children.

“WHEN DO WE WANT IT?”  Later!  (After Jesus comes back bodily to fulfill the responsibilities of His church–right after we are air-lifted out of the global mess we left behind!)

This is where premillennialists and postmillennialists part company.

They’re looking for the lifeboats.  We’re building a whole new shipping company!

But Sproul sounds far more in congruence with the latter group in his eschatology than the former.  For that we are grateful.

This, friends, is the very progress of history, the making of God’s enemies into his footstool. And this is the very trajectory of history. Here we are told, not that things must get really bad before He comes again, but that they must get really good. He is now at the right hand of the Father, there He will stay until all His enemies are defeated. I confess that I don’t know exactly what this will look like, it won’t mean that everyone on the planet will serve Christ. It won’t mean that there will be no more sin and no more death. That will await his final return. But it does mean this, that every pretender to the throne of Christ will be brought low.

At least he is laboring — grudgingly alongside his theonomist provocateurs — toward the same worthy goal.

Is Biblical Christianity ‘Reconstructionist’?

Let’s take the familiar critics’ question and turn it around.

It is a fair question: “Is Christian Reconstruction ‘Biblical’?”

So we ask the converse of it: “Is Biblical Christianity ‘Reconstructionist’?”

An equally fair question.

Let’s wrap up this article by asking and answering it.

Does biblical Christianity see history as the progress of Christ’s kingdom on earth advancing before He returns? In other words, is it optimistic about the future before His Second Advent?

Do fish swim?

Does biblical Christianity see all of Scripture as self-authenticating and the inviolable basis for presupposing that ALL of its utterances and pronouncements are true, and that it is the authoritative rule and standard over ALL of life and ALL people and places at ALL times, by which ALL things are judged?

Do birds have feathers?

Does biblical Christianity see the Gospel as a comprehensive message of salvation to be preached to ALL the world, so that MANY souls (collectively and individually) may be saved and many cultures redeemed, to the glory of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Do cows give milk?

Is biblical Christianity a faith that is intended to affect everything in our lives and in our world, for good and for God’s glory?

Are these questions obviously rhetorical (and the answers self-evident)?

Yes!

An Informed Response

So, the next time somebody asks you, “Is Christian Reconstruction ‘biblical’?”, or they tell you that it isn’t biblical, ask them if they know what reconstructionists really want.

Tell them they want the same thing that all Bible-believing Christians around the world want.

A world won for Christ, the redemption of Adam’s fallen race, and the coming (and growth and advancement and ultimate victory) of His Kingdom!

A New State Agency: Department of Ecclesiastical Subordination

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA“Faith-based” alliances and partnerships are all the rage.  Since January 2001 when George W. Bush — within days of being sworn in as president — created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (later renamed the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships), the lure of federal money to assist in community assistance programs has been irresistible.  Churches and non-profits have lined up to take the king’s nickel, forgetting that there are government-mandated “strings” attached to that nickel.

In my home state of Arizona, the state agency responsible for administering welfare, “child safety,” job training, unemployment, senior, family and other social services is the Department of Economic Security.  The DES.

Last week, Gov. Jan Brewer signed an executive order creating a new state agency: the Office of Faith and Community Partnerships.  It is modeled after the federal program, which Barack Obama renewed in February 2009 — again, shortly after being sworn in as president.  (Government control of churches and charities seems to be a high priority with these newly-elected presidents!)

I suggest a new name for this new state agency:

Department of Ecclesiastical Subordination

Its mission: to protect you from unwanted unconstitutional abuses like… being presented the Gospel and quoted inspirational Scripture verses by church workers or rank-and-file Christian volunteers who overstep their statutory bounds by inadvisedly sharing their faith with the people they serve in the context of showing their faith to the people they serve, while they are engaged in providing state-supported, publicly-funded social services.

It’s for your own good, you know. Separation of Church and State.  Establishment of Religion and all that.

If I were a pastor or church worker, I wouldn’t worry one whit about the state controlling what I say or what I do while I’m “on duty” administering state-supported, publicly-funded social services.  Nope.  I would simply tell that poor mother or handicapped person or jobless or homeless person, “Sorry, Charlie (or Charlene), I know I’m a Christian.  But since I’m helping you here using your hard-earned (or not) taxpayer dollars, I have to play by the unbiblical, religiously intolerant rules.  I can’t say a single syllable that might be construed (by government or ACLU or SCA lawyers) as being “religious” or proselytizing, or else — BAM! — no more tax money.

And we can’t have that.

Better for you to be warmed and fed and spiritually-deprived than for us to violate agency rules and not gain more tax money!   This is called high finance for high callings.

Cainsian Economics

How does this work?  It’s really very simple.  Let’s say you’re pastoring a church that has a legacy of helping the poor and “underprivileged” in the community.  But, the economy being what it is, you’ve fallen on hard times.  Giving is down.  Building projects and expansions are up.  The needs are there.  The means to meet them are not.  What do do?

“Partner” with the state.  Of course!

In exchange for some free tax money, you get to dole out services and shut your mouth.  They’re not paying you to talk about Jesus and all that Christian stuff.   They’re paying you to be the hands and feet of the state.  Do good unto others, but don’t talk about Him who is good.  They want the works without the faith.  It’s the American way.

Why do Christians accept this? Why do Christians believe this?

Because they have been fed a steady diet of artificially-flavored, theologically-homogenized evangelicalism.

Because they have refused the solid teaching, the strong meat-and-potatoes of covenantally-robust, historically-orthodox biblical theology.

Because they have sat under preaching and worshipped in churches that believe in “no creed but Christ; no law but love”: antinomianism.  Pietism.  A perfect recipe for swallowing bad ideas wrapped in good intentions.

And because they have, for the most part, been “educated” in the public school system — a rigorously atheistic, pro-government, pro-socialist system that Christians overwhelmingly support and put their own kids through.  But I digress. (But maybe I don’t.)

This kind of “partnership” is rightly called, Faith-Based Fascism.  Churches get some extra money.  Along with an extra muzzle.  The state gets more useful idiots to do its bidding.  And Christians get to feel like they’re “in the game” and “have a seat at the table.”

Seat at the table? What’s for dinner?  Your faith and religious freedom of speech, that’s what!

If your pastor thinks this is a good idea, tell him that it isn’t.

How to ‘Reconstruct’ Medicine: Healing the Healing Arts, Part I

EarlyCancerTreatmentLOLLately, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the idea of the “Christian reconstruction” of medicine.

Namely, what does that mean and what does that look like (or what would it or should it look like)?

Now, to those of us who subscribe to the theology of applying our faith to every area of life, it doesn’t seem strange at all to apply the same comprehensive biblical world-and-life-view that we apply to religion, education, business, politics and economics (to name a few), to the practice of medicine — a field that at first blush seems far removed from the philosophical, theological and ideological turbulence that usually goes along with any discussion of faith, morality and (therefore) ethics in those areas.  After all, “medicine” is scientific, isn’t it?  A purely rational, objective, “evidence-based,” empirically-driven discipline, right?  And it attracts only the most caring, compassionate, empathetic, highly intelligent individuals who love humanity and wish to direct their formidable talents, skills and training towards the practice of medicine in order to serve and help (and to heal) their fellow man and visit him in his physical affliction, right?

If only.

If there is one kind of medicine that is NOT characterized by the idyllic characterization described above, it is the type of “western” (specifically American), allopathic, corporately-driven, technologically-sophisticated, mainstream “modern” medicine that is practiced today in the United States, the most historically and culturally (but not covenantally) “Christian” nation on earth.

Medicine and Morality

Yet how can we, as Christians, deny that the comprehensiveness of our faith, and the biblically-informed system of morality and ethics that flows from it, constrains us to give it a very prominent and decisive role in our understanding, interpretation and implementation of that great body of knowledge and empirical evidence and experience that we’ve garnered through the centuries in those areas of natural science — biology, chemistry, anatomy and physiology — that have a direct bearing on our theory and practice of medicine, an area that deals intimately with the highly personal issues of a man’s health and the treatment of his diseases?

It is actually pretty easy to see the disconnect that exists today between faith and medicine.  The most visible evidence is the absence of — or at least the steady erosion of — a universal or “standard” code of ethics and morality to guide healing professionals in their respective capacities as they make inherently ethical and moral decisions regarding their patients, and interact with them on the express notion (or the notion implied by the relationship) that the “healer” is there to help his patients in any way that he can, and, if possible, to heal them.

Physician, Heal Thyself

In doing some background reading for this article, I came across a rather fascinating and helpful academic paper published in the Journal of Medical Humanities in 1987 and republished in the American Journal of Bioethics in 2006: “Toward a Reconstruction of Medical Morality.”  It deals philosophically with the ethical and moral issues that inevitably arise in the practice of medicine, touching only briefly on the theological aspect of it — and not at all on the ethical or moral validity or invalidity of certain approaches or methods.  But it is a good place to start the discussion.

The author, Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, was a leading bioethicist and professor of medicine and humanities at Georgetown University before he died in 2013 at the age of 92.  (Georgetown posthumously named its Center for Clinical Bioethics after him.)  His paper deals with what he views as the root causes of the ethical and moral dilemmas which face healthcare professionals today, owing to the fact that, (a), there is no longer a unified, common understanding of what is “moral” and “immoral” in the practice of medicine as well as what is “ethical” and “unethical” — not just among physicians and other healthcare professionals but also between the professionals and their patients — and, (b), a “fracturing” has taken place of the traditional Hippocratic image of the physician as “a benign, benevolent, all-knowing, authoritarian figure who decides what is best for his patients,” being replaced by one or more of the following competing medical models: the “John Locke” philosophical model that pits doctor and patient as “two autonomous individuals entering a contract for service”; the overtly commercial, for-profit model favored by so many of his colleagues, where “medical knowledge is held to be a proprietary possession of the physician” and he makes it available “as the baker would make bread available” to the public, “when he pleases, in what manner he pleases,” “purveying it for a price on his own terms” — “for those who can purchase it if they please” — and if they don’t like the bread he is selling, “they can go to another baker.”  Lastly, there is the purely transactional model, where your dealings with your doctor are considered to be no different than your dealings with your auto mechanic.

Regarding this model, Pellegrino says:

To those who argue for the auto mechanic version of the healing relationship, I would suggest that, as distressed as we may be with the carburetor and the perverse things automobiles do to us in cold weather, the illness of our autos doesn’t have the impact on our very existence that illness does.

Indeed it doesn’t!

Pellegrino rejects all of the above and proposes instead a solution to this hodge-podge of disparate medical models: a return to a more “holistic” understanding of the true nature of the “healing relationship” that exists (or should exist) between doctor and patient — one that, historically speaking, according to the author, dates back to antiquity: First Century A.D. physician to the Emperor Claudius, Scribonius Largus, who said that the true nature of medicine can be summed up in two words: humanitas and misericordia.  “Humanity” (love of mankind) and “mercy” or compassion.  These, Scribonius Largus said, were supposed to be the aim of the physician “in the same way that justice was the end and aim of the judge and the lawyer.”

Hmmm…  Humanity (love of mankind) and mercy (compassion).

Sounds like a good CHRISTIAN model for medicine to me!

He goes further.  The emphasis in this healing relationship is to be on obligations and responsibilities that are “mutually incurred by both physician and patient,” not on mutual rights.  In this relationship, a duty is owed by both.  The physician must first possess the knowledge necessary to help his patient, and then he must use that knowledge and the scope of his competence wholly “in the patient’s interest and not his own, for the patient’s good.”   And the patient, though he is the more “vulnerable” party in this unequal relationship (due to his state of illness) and in spite of his obvious disadvantages, is as much a responsible “moral agent” as the physician is.

Pellegrino, in fact, starts his essay by saying that medicine is a moral enterprise, having been conducted as such since Hippocratic times “in accordance with a definite set of beliefs about what is right and wrong medical behavior.”  Ethics, being a branch of philosophy and “a formal, rational, systematic examination of the rightness and wrongness of human actions” comes into play here as a “code” of medical ethics or bioethics.   But, medical ethics, as a distinct area of study, he says, was practically unknown in medical schools as late as 1963, and still remained untaught at about a dozen schools by the time of his writing 24 years later.  By the way, Pellegrino is considered not only a pioneer in medical ethics, he is viewed as the preeminent authority on it.

A couple of other points.  He talks about the need for a fully-informed consent on the part of the patient, acknowledging that “one of the realities of illness is the gap of information that separates the patient and the physician.  Certainly one of the physician’s obligations is to close that gap…”  This, he says, is a “moral imperative” that enhances the patient’s “moral agency” and his capacity “to make his own moral and value decisions based on a knowledge of the alternatives.”

At the end of the essay, Pellegrino deals briefly with how we can find moral and ethical agreement on “specific medical moral dilemmas” such as abortion, euthanasia, prolonging of life, birth defects, genetic engineering, etc., stating flatly that we can have NO agreement on these kinds of dilemmas until we can have agreement on the following:

  1. What we believe about the nature of man.
  2. What we believe about God.

In our pluralistic society, Pellegrino says, Good luck with that!

Still, he is hopeful that we can begin (in 1987) to “reconstruct” our ethics and morality of medicine by returning to the historically understood “true nature” of medicine as being a holistic healing relationship that is based on compassion and a love of mankind, with a clear conception of what the roles and responsibilities are of “those who profess to heal.”

His paper is worth reading.  In fact it is worth downloading, printing and reading.

You can do that here: “Toward a Reconstruction of Medical Morality.”

Toward a Christian Reconstruction of Medicine

Now let me give you some of my initial thoughts on this.

I think the “Christian reconstruction” of medicine goes way beyond merely getting everybody to agree (good luck with that!) on a common system of ethics and morals by which to examine actions in the practice and pursuit of it.

It goes beyond merely populating the medical schools and hospitals and clinics of America (and, while we’re at it, of the world) with “Bible-believing,” theonomically-minded, eschatologically-informed, Kingdom-of-God-driven, Christian doctors, nurses, chiropractors, therapists, practitioners, veterinarians, lab technicians, etc..

What is required in order to “remake” the present medical system (in America, primarily, since ours is the most egregious example of ethical and moral — and medical — failure) is the same thing that is required to remake, reconstruct and “recreate” every other human institution and system that we wish to remake and recreate, be it in education, government, economics or business.

We do it from the ground up, from the grass-roots, bottom-to-top reform, one person at a time, in an organized but decentralized, thoughtful, informed and deliberate fashion.

And we do it like any good Reconstructionist worth his presuppositions would do it.  We apply the five-point biblical covenant model to our study, and we thereby discover and learn: how we got where we are today, how we ended up with the outrageously expensive, inept-but-superficially-successful, bureaucratically-controlled, self-protecting, self-enriching, monopolistic, corrupt and ineffectual system that we have, and how we can replace it, and what with.

That’s definitely a tall order, so I will expand on it further in Part II.  Stay tuned!

Why We Need to DITCH the Public Schools… NOW!

School BusesI’ve been an avid supporter of home-schooling — and an avid opponent and staunch critic of public schools — ever since the mid-1980s, when Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education — the one that he promised to abolish back during his first presidential campaign! — published its report, “A Nation At Risk,” on what was wrong with the nation’s public education system.  That was a watershed event.  At least it seemed like one to me.  It was one to a lot of people who had been fighting the education battle for a lot longer than I was even aware there was one.  That was also 20 years after Rushdoony’s book, The Messianic Character of American Education, had spelled out in great historical and theological detail what was REALLY wrong with the system.

Well, the passage of time hasn’t moved us any closer to any real “reform” in the public schools. At least not in the sense that people living in the real world would define it. And especially not in any biblical sense.  If anything, the situation has gotten worse.  A lot worse.  And not just for Christian families.  For ALL families.  The messianic state with its atheistic, anti-Christian policies and social agenda, has managed to further transform the classroom even more from an incubator of inquiry and learning into an intellectual and moral petrie dish of academic deconstruction, cultural indoctrination and, if I may invent my own oxymoron here, “authoritarian anarchy!”

Still, Christians by the millions continue to take advantage of this “free” education system and are more than willing to let the messianic, atheistic state raise their kids six to eight hours a day, five days a week, year in and year out, while they do what they can to minimize the long-term intellectual, moral and spiritual damage by trying to maximize the “crumbs” of time and influence that they are still left with outside of school hours and outside of school-related, organized activities and events, hoping (and praying) that their child’s SUNDAY and church-related activities will somehow redeem the time and them and offset the pervasive effects.

If I still had young kids — and I don’t since mine are both grown up and married and raising families of their own — I would have an even easier time these days deciding to yank them out of the state’s anti-Christian, anti-liberty-and-academic-freedom school system, and enroll them immediately and instantaneously in something like, oh, I don’t know, the Ron Paul Curriculum, thanks in large part to an almost-daily drumbeat of the chronicling and cataloging in the news, mostly online, about the positively absurd and absolutely insane things that are being done to and with kids and their families who insist on keeping their precious little ones enrolled in the state-run public system.

That’s the beauty of the Internet and the World Wide Web and You Tube and cellphone cameras and wireless connections, free and cheap blogging and online publishing platforms and social media.  Stories about these kinds of things can go viral and get spread all around the world REALLY, REALLY fast!  Good.

Just Say Know

The more we become aware of just how insane (literally unhealthful) the public education system is — not just K-12 but, preschool (“head start!”), college and beyond, wherever our compulsory taxpayer dollars may roam — the less hesitant and the less reticent we will be to finally RESCUE our children, who are in reality GOD’S children, and REMOVE them from the perils and hazards of the ungodly and increasingly hostile and intolerant academic echo chamber and propaganda machine that has been passed off all these years as “education.”

So, to that end, I’m launching a new page on this site: DITCH Public Schools.  (As an alternate I thought of calling it Ditch Our Public Education System and using the acronym “D.O.P.E.S.”  That works, too!)   The page will mainly be a running commentary in the form of links to the latest news articles online about all the escapades, misadventures, mishaps and school-based shenanigans (putting it lightly) that are being foisted on our children (and, for some of us, our grandchildren), victimizing them in the name of “progressive” education, standardization and uniformity in “policy enforcement,” building school curricula around a “common (rotten) core,” plus some good, old-fashioned, organizational/bureaucratic butt-protection (which, obviously, includes tenure and pension protection, too. “Kick that can a little farther now. Yes!”).  I envision the page as a sort of “mini-Drudge Report” exposing the ills and misdeeds being committed on a daily basis within the failing, ailing public school system.

I hope you are as entertained (some of these are absurd to the point of being comical) as well as informed, motivated and challenged by these sordid-but-true tales, as much as you are INCENSED and OFFENDED by them!  They are meant to illustrate the problem, so as to move us in the direction of a solution.

With that in mind, please continue reading on our new DITCH Public Schools page!

BABY-MURDERERS are Confronted Here!

Babies Are Murdered Here signThe covenantally creative folks at Crown Rights Media have released their hard-hitting, anti-abortion/pro-life documentary, Babies Are Murdered Here.

Every Christian needs to watch this film!

Less than an hour long, it is refreshingly frank and candid in its treatment of the lamentable and execrable subject of the wholesale clinical extermination and “blood-sacrifice” of millions upon millions of unborn children in America — since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision 41 years ago — who are being offered up on the modern-day equivalent of the altar of Moloch — by their own mothers and fathers — just like in the wicked old days!

It is also refreshingly non-graphic. There are no images of dismembered bodies and bloody fetuses to evoke visceral emotions and denunciatory cries of “gore-mongers!”

Descriptions, yes.  Depictions, no.  It’s all verbal, not visual.

But that doesn’t mean the results of the “bloodless” documentary production are without impact and effectiveness.  Far from it.  The fervent preaching excerpts interlaced with personal accounts and testimonials of God-and-Christ inspired commitment and conviction and images of large groups of MEN assembled outside the abortion mills, individually and collectively having an immediate influence on the outcome of events inside, give the documentary a more “masculine” — godly, manly masculine! — tone and feel to the effort than we are used to seeing.  What once was the domain of mostly women and youngsters gathered outside, quietly milling around outside the mills praying and being non-confrontational, is now heavily represented by BOTH men and women, courageously and fearlessly yet peaceably confronting and calling out the perpetrators for the egregious crimes they are about to commit.

R.C. Sproul, Jr., gives provocative and challenging commentary on the matter throughout, along with the young men of God who offer their perspectives on their experiences.  Long-time anti-abortion prayer-warriors and rescuer-protesters John Barros and Patti Smith are also featured.

But that is all I am going to say about the film here to avoid spoiling it for you.

Again, the viewing of this important and excellent work — highlighting biblical Christianity in action — thoughtfully and prayerfully, coupled with intentional follow-up and acting on what it is calling the church to do, is mandatory!

Thank you, Marcus Pittman, I V Conerly and Crown Rights!