Saturday, October 29, 2011

Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I asked that question back in 1999:

Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I still don't have the answer.

Here is the text of that post, with the links updated:


Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I say NO.

I'm grateful that there is an Internet mailing list like this one.
Imagine a carrier-pigeon mailing list a couple of months before
Y1k. The question asked: "Should We Celebrate Constantine Day?"
There were certainly some advantages to Constantine's removal
of Christianity from the list of illegal religions. But it was a
mixed bag. As much good as Constantine may have done, it's
a good thing we got out of the "Holy Roman Empire" biz.
"Reformation Day" is a celebration of Martin Luther.
I'm glad I'm not a Catholic, but I'm also glad I'm not a Lutheran.
Luther is like Constantine. God used him to make progress,
but we're not finished yet.

I received the following email from a Christian organization.
It's an "educational" piece. It appears to be filled with historical facts
of which most Christians are probably not aware.

I'm all for educating Christians, of course. But I'm not sure
this piece is telling us anything important. Let's read it and
then ask some questions.


Subj: 31 October
Date: 10/30/99 8:27:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: (Servant_l)

Hi Servant_L and CHRISED-L folks!

Last year Christian History Magazine sent out the first part of the
following in their newsletter. Further down, separated by dashed lines
and the byline of the new editor, is the rest of the story.

I just thought to send this to you because it truly marks what the
date of 31 October is really all about. While it is true, as noted below,
that we have better issues to distinguish ourselves on, let us continue
to fight prayerfully against the forces of darkness that attempt to exert
tremendous influences on this day as no other.

This story will not be repeated in the monthly SERVANT_L newsletter.

God bless

The Importance of October 31
From Ted Olsen, Assistant editor

October 31. Forget about Jack-o-Lanterns and Trick-or-Treating -- history
took a major turn on this date nearly 500 years ago. Though officially,
most Protestant denominations will celebrate it on Sunday, October 31
is Reformation Day -- the day in Martin Luther walked up to the Castle
Church in Wittenberg, took out a hammer, and nailed his 95 Theses to
the door.

Well, probably, anyway. Luther himself never actually reported engaging
in such an act of protest. The whole nailing story actually comes from
his younger colleague, Philipp Melanchthon--who wasn't anywhere near
Wittenberg in 1517 and who didn't record the event until years after
Luther's death.

According to many historians, Luther probably mailed, not nailed, his
Theses to his fellow Catholics.

But even if his Theses didn't leave a hole in the Wittenberg door,
they certainly left a giant mark on Christianity. It began on when
Luther publicly objected to the way preacher Johann Tetzel was selling
indulgences. These were documents prepared by the church and bought by
individuals either for themselves or on behalf of the dead that would
release them from punishment due to their sins. As Tetzel preached,
"Once the coin into the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward

Luther questioned the church's trafficking in indulgences (though he
did not oppose indulgences rightly practiced) and called for a public
debate of the 95 theses he had written. Instead, his 95 Theses spread
across Germany as a call to reform, and the issue quickly became not
indulgences but the authority of the church.

Pope Leo X soon moved to "quench a monk, ... Martin Luther by name,
and thus smother the fire before it should become a conflagration."

By the time an imperial edict was issued, calling Luther "a convicted
heretic," he had escaped, and would spend the rest of his life as an
outlaw. He elicited so much hostility that it was rumored--and taken
seriously for a time by some respected intellectuals of the day--that
he was the product of a bathhouse liaison between his mother and the
Devil. The church called him a "demon in the appearance of a man."

Still, he was a sensation. In 1520 and 1521, Luther was the rage.
Posters with his picture (single-sheet woodcuts) sold out as soon
as they went on sale, and many were pinned up in public places.

He's a fascinating character, not just for the importance he serves
in Christian history, but in the often strange details about his life.
He was infamous for his vulgar language. Evidence suggests he may have
made his astounding discovery of justification by faith while he was on
the toilet. At his first Mass as priest, he almost dropped the bread and
cup, and was so terrified that he tried to run from the altar. He claimed
that he hadn't even seen a Bible until he was 20 years old. And though he
has contributed several key documents to the church totalling more than
60,000 pages (including an important German translation of the Bible,
the hymn "A Mighty Fortress is Our God"; his Larger and Smaller
Catechism), he hoped that "all my books would disappear and the Holy
Scriptures alone be read."

That hasn't happened. In fact, it has been said that in most libraries,
books by and about Martin Luther occupy more shelves than those concerned
with any other figure except Jesus of Nazareth.

But for all that importance, many Christians today don't use the day to
discuss justification by faith alone. Or whether they're trying to buy
their way into heaven. Or countless other areas that Martin Luther's life
still bears relevance. Instead, it's all about the evils of Halloween.
It seems to me that there are better issues for us to distinguish
ourselves on and say, as Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other."

By the way, both of our issues on Martin Luther, Issues 34 (early years)
and 39 (later years), can be ordered online at or by calling 1-800-806-7798.


Return to Augsburg
from Elesha Coffman, assistant editor of Christian History

It's not often that in remembering the anniversary of a historic event
we can also highlight corresponding "history in the making." But the
ceremony in Augsburg on October 31 will go a long way toward bringing
one story full circle.

This Sunday, representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the
Vatican will sign a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,
thus stating agreement on an issue that has divided Protestants and
Catholics since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg
door on October 31, 1517. The declaration reads, in part, "Together we
confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because
of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy
Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good
works." Dialogue leading to this agreement began after the Second Vatican
Council in 1967, and much of the scholarly work behind it was carried
out in the United States, but no better place than Augsburg could have
been chosen for the signing itself.

In 1518, Cardinal Cajetan met Luther in Augsburg with the goal of
forcing the upstart monk to recant his controversial theses. Luther,
of course, refused, and he immediately fled the city. In 1530, Luther
still couldn't show his face in Augsburg, so it was his friend Philipp
Melancthon who appeared on his behalf to submit the conciliatory
Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V. Melancthon's attempt at making
peace was, however, unsuccessful, and religious conflict continued to

Augsburg was again the site of an attempted compromise in 1548, when the
Interim of Augsburg was proffered as a temporary settlement between
Protestants and Catholics, awaiting a final settlement at the Council
of Trent. But various issues kept the Council of Trent from settling
much of anything that met the Protestants' approval, and it was not
until the 1555 Peace of Augsburg that a long-term solution was accepted.
This settlement recognized the existence of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism and stipulated that people should follow the religion of
their local ruler. This was more a victory for territorialism than for
tolerance (though people could sell their property and move, shifting
their allegiance).

In addition to the ghosts of past conflicts, however, Augsburg features
a visual reminder that peace is possible. On the plot of land where a
Roman temple once stood, the churches of St. Ulrich and St. Afra sit
side-by-side. Built between 1476 and 1500, the structures were once part
of the same ecclesiastical compound. However, after the Peace of Augsburg,
Lutherans took over what had been the monastery assembly hall and
established St. Ulrich's as a Protestant church. A shared crypt houses
the remains of the two namesake saints.

At the end of the 1530s, Luther said, "I am worried that we will never
gain come so close together as we did at Augsburg." His fear was justified
for several centuries, but this weekend, his descendents and those of his
former foes will once again be as close as Ulrich and Afra have always been.


So as I understand this letter, the big issue to be discussed on
"Reformation Day" is "Justification by Faith Alone." The meeting
in Augsburg will undoubtedly have some hard-core Reformed
pundits shouting about "compromise" and retreat from the
"purity" of the Reformed Doctrine of Justification by faith alone.

It seems to me that Luther's ideas were important because
they liberated Christians from liturgical slavery; Luther prompted
revolution against Humanistic ecclesiocracy and man-made
traditions. I suppose this is a good reason to celebrate
"Reformation Day."

But for the most part, the letters above seem to me to be hopelessly

Just a few years after Luther nailed/mailed his theses,
20-30,000 peasants were killed with Luther's tacit approval,
in uprisings which Luther had no small part in fomenting.
Not only was the issue in those uprisings (usury) never
resolved, but Luther (and Calvin), by retreating from a
full Theonomic position, entrenched the economics of
usury, and it is today the central organizing feature of
modern economics and foreign policy, supplanting
constitutional liberties in America and resulting in
the enslavement of millions more peasants in "Third World"

Should we celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I am a Theonomist. My passion is to see God's Law
obeyed throughout the world.

What has been the effect of the doctrine of "Justification by
faith alone?" Incomparable evil. Half a billion people deliberately
murdered in this century alone (not counting murders unauthorized
by the State), and the big discussion is the doctrine of
"imputation." I hasten to note at this point that I just reviewed
the chapters in the Westminster Confession of Faith on
soteriology (chas. 11-18), and find nothing I really disagree
with. In fact, I still find it to be a remarkably accurate statement
of Biblical doctrines, at least in this limited area of life. But as
a slogan, "Justification by Faith" has proven to be a washout.

The Catechism says man's chief purpose in life is to glorify
God. Our first question should be, "How can I glorify God?"
The "Justification by Faith" slogan has focused men's
attention on the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
**Indirectly,** of course, God is glorified by saving sinners.
But the focus of this question is man-centered: "What
do I have to do to avoid eternal punishment?" "What do I
have to do to make the after-life easier for myself?"
"What can I do for ME?"

Millions of people believe in "Justification by Faith Alone"
and fail the tests of the Justified Man in James 1-2.

The "Vine & Fig Tree" vision of the Prophet Micah does not
focus on "Justification by Faith." Its themes are

1. The Presence of God with us in His Kingdom
2. The World-wide Triumph of His Kingdom
3. The Thirst for Righteousness (Theonomy)
4. The Blessings of Peace
5. Family Values
6. Property
7. Community.

Why have these Biblical Themes been neglected in favor of
"Justification by Faith?" Why are thousands of verses in
the Bible ignored and huge tomes written on just a few
verses in Romans and Galatians?

Why has such a vast amount of theological ink been
devoted to "personal peace and affluence" in the after-life,
while ignoring "True Religion" as James defined it (James 1:27).

Theology by slogan is a strategy of death. It creates
superficiality rather than disciplined learning and wisdom.
But if I had to come up with a slogan to replace "Justification
by Faith," it would be "Justification by Allegiance." Just
as modern retrospective psychoanalysis of Luther has
"discovered" the origin of "Justification by Faith" in
Luther's internal, subjective angst, so "Justification by
Allegiance" comes out of my own wrestling with the
California State Bar in an attempt to become a licensed
attorney. The concept of allegiance is a fundamental
category of federalist or covenantal thought. It expresses
loyalty, willingness to obey orders, and a participation
in the blessings of the commonweal.

None of this is present in any sufficient degree in
"Justification by Faith." (Although it is certainly implicit
in the term "Faith" -- see WCF, 14:2, "Saving Faith" --
"By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is
revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself
speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which
each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience
to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and
embracing the promises of God for this life,
and that which is to come.")

Finally, IMHO, the key to the fulfillment of Micah's
"Vine & Fig Tree" prophecy is the elimination of
the institutions of church and state. "Reformation Day"
gave us little if anything in this direction. As Milton
wrote, "New presbyter is but old priest, writ large."

Again, I emphasize my near-enthusiastic agreement with
everything in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters
11-18. But the time has come for a paradigm shift.

Kevin C.

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

[end 1999 post]

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

10 Years of Secular Sharia Law

Ten years ago today, Congress passed the PATRIOT ACT -- without taking the time to read or debate it.

None of the powers created by the Patriot Act would have prevented the events of 9/11, because everything that the government needed to know to prevent 9/11 was known. No new intelligence powers were needed. These new Patriot Act powers are used against people like you -- who have no rational connection to terrorism.

Not a single person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have voted for the Patriot Act. Go to Downsize DC to learn the following about the Patriot Act, and send a letter to your "elected representatives" to repeal it because:

First, The Patriot Act attacks the First Amendment:
  • Americans can be investigated for what they read and write, and what websites they've visited
  • The Feds can "gag" my bank, my librarian, and my Internet Service Provider, preventing them from telling me if I'm under investigation
Second, it undermines the Fourth Amendment:
  • The Feds do not even have to show "reasonable suspicion," let alone "probable cause," to gain access to my records
  • Because I can be investigated without my knowledge, I have no means to challenge illegitimate searches
Third, there is little reason to believe terror acts have been prevented by the Patriot Act:
  • If the law was used to foil terrorist plots, the Administration would boast about such instances
  • Instead, foiled terrorist plots are frequently sting operations using undercover operatives and informants
Fourth, there is reason to doubt whether protecting the people from terrorism was ever the Patriot Act's real purpose:
  • Expanded wiretap and search authority are used in ordinary domestic criminal investigations, not just in terror cases
  • The Executive branch has a "secret" interpretation of the Patriot Act that is inconsistent with a plain reading of it
  • Meanwhile, the FBI continues to collect data collection through National Security Letters -- some 40-50 thousand are issued per year:
How is it permissible for the Executive to have "secret" interpretations of the law? What is the Executive doing with the information it secretly collects about us, without our knowledge?

Shouldn't citizens of a Republic be ASHAMED of this behavior by their "government?"

The Patriot Act promotes secrecy and prevents accountability in our federal government. It has fostered a Big Brother culture throughout Washington DC that led to similarly egregious legislation like REAL ID and the FISA Amendments Act.

The government consistently trumpets the claim that the Patriot Act is needed to protect our freedoms and our way of life. Actually, laws like the Patriot Act are destroying America.

Consider this alternative history:

One year before 9/11, in the Fall of 2000, "Ayatollah Dagwood," an American-born convert to Islamic Jihadism, was running for President against George W. Bush and Al Gore. His platform called for the abolition of the Constitution, the three branches of government, the FBI, the CIA, and everything else in Washington D.C., and the initiation of the rule of Sharia Law to be carried out by "the Ayatollah" and his supporters.

Of course, that must have been a virtual army of jihadists, to be able to successfully attack the greatest nation on earth on 9/11. Right?

As it turns out, the Ayatollah Dagwood lost the election. The only real support "the Ayatollah" had was from the dozens of 9/11 hijackers and everyone who played a part in the conspiracy that unfolded a year later, on 9/11/2001, which was the act of his supporters in retaliation for this defeat of their candidate.

But suppose he had won the election.

Suppose he abolished the United States. (I have proposed precisely this.) Suppose he abolished:

Department of Education - savings: $72 billion
Department of Energy - savings: $30.8 billion
Department of Agriculture - savings: $131 billion
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - savings: $901 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - savings: $43 billion
Department of Transportation (DOT) - savings: $79.8 Billion
Department of Commerce - savings: $9.2 billion
Department of Labor (DOL) - savings: $116 billion
Department of the Interior (DOI) - savings: $13 billion
Department of Veterans Affairs - savings: $123.7 billion
Department of Justice (DOJ) - Attorney General - savings: $31.3 billion
Department of State (DOS) - savings: $53.8 billion
Department of Defense - savings: $719 billion
Department of the Treasury - savings: $93.94 billion

All the office buildings for these bureaucracies were sold to Apple, Exxon, IBM, Ben & Jerry's, or other corporations. All the federal bureaucrats got jobs with these or other businesses, doing something consumers were willing to pay for voluntarily. All the weapons of mass destruction built and owned by the federal government and ready for deployment on innocent, non-combatant civilians or ready for sale to "allies" like Saudi Arabia were dismantled.

You no longer pay income taxes. Corporate taxes are no longer added to your bill at the checkstand. Your disposable income doubles. Education businesses are promising you kids who are smarter and better-behaved if you enroll them in their schools (which, unlike federally-controlled schools, teach children that the Declaration of Independence is really true). Government roads and government-subsidized petroleum-burning automobiles are being replaced by magnetic hovercraft. Welfare bureaucrats get jobs with churches and non-profits who find jobs for the poor (because federal pro-union labor laws have been abolished) and put an end to perpetual government-subsidized intergenerational poverty.

Now suppose the Ayatollah Dagwood and his jihadist thugs have declared themselves to be the rulers of America, and have decided to impose Sharia Law on America. An America free of the federal government.

Who would carry out the Ayatollah's orders? Who would operate the webcams in every American's bedroom to see if adultery or some other offense against Sharia Law were being committed?

If the federal government were abolished, Sharia Law would be no threat. If the federal government did not have hundreds of military bases around the world, and had not killed a million muslims, terrorist recruiters would not find recruits to threaten retaliation against Americans.

But if the federal government still existed, and still had the power to tax you or print up money to steal purchasing power from your savings, then the federal government could purchase loyalty and promise cushy jobs to those who "just want to feed my family." The federal government could hire these people to open your luggage at airports, read your email, snoop in your medical records, spy on your financial transactions, read the titles of books you check out at the library, and lock the door of your prison cell if you violate Sharia Law and insist on your unalienable rights in the Constitution.

It is U.S government laws like the Patriot Act that are destroying our freedoms and the American way of life. Islamic terrorists are no threat to America. The real enemy of America is the United States.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Mitt Romney: A Competent Muslim?

In a previous post ("Mitt Romney is a Member of a Dangerous Cult") we looked at the controversy over a Dallas pastor who said Mitt Romney was a member of a "cult."

Many respectable Christians (e.g. Chuck Colson) are distancing themselves from the Dallas pastor by quoting Martin Luther, who said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk—that is, a Muslim—than an incompetent Christian.

First, whatever competence Luther exhibited as a theologian and expositor of the doctrine of "Justification by Faith," his competence as a political advisor is less assured. In fact, Luther had dangerous antinomian tendencies, as August Lang, R. J. Rushdoony, and Benjamin Nelson have pointed out. His bad political and economic advice led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people in his lifetime. The roots of our own secular government and usurious economic problems trace back in part to Luther.

Second, the idea of a "competent ruler" is less than Biblical. Jesus said the kings of the gentiles love to be rulers (Gk.: archists), but Christians are not to initiate force or threaten violence to impose their will on others. In this sense, a "Christian ruler" is a contradiction in terms.

Even the idea of a competent judge to resolve disputes cannot find rest in the idea of the "competent turk." Paul told the Christians in Corinth that the most "incompetent" Christian was a better judge of Christian disputes than anyone from the secular government (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).

Finally, why this false alternative? Why am I required to vote for either an incompetent Christian or a "competent" Muslim, Fascist, Mormon, Socialist, Liberal, Communist, or practitioner of any other false religion? Why do I have to vote at all? Please don't give me arcane analysis of your strategic reasons for voting for McCain, Giuliani, or Romney or any other "competent" non-Christian rather than for Ron Paul or some other outside-the-beltway Christian. You are not Biblically required to vote for the "lesser of two evils" as a way of keeping the allegedly "greater" of two evils from winning.

No, you're not.

If Mitt Romney believes that he (and his celestial wives?) gets to be the god of his own little world after he dies, I'll not vote for him. He may want his Mormon rewards in this life and at my expense. Or he may just be silly to believe all that. Call it a "religious test" if you want (it isn't), but I would never vote for someone who obviously lacks good judgment and believes such kooky things. Mormonism is kooky, which is why I automatically assume that no Mormon I know -- nice folks all -- knowingly believes in Mormonism. I initially assume that even Mitt Romney -- who undoubtedly spent a lot of time earning $250 million managing private equity investments -- didn't have the time to learn all about Mormon doctrines. I doubt that we'll ever hear him publicly say, "Oh, no, I know all about Mormon doctrine, I believe it, and I look forward to being the god of my own galaxy after I die." He'll always say his religious "faith" is not relevant to politics. Keep them "separate."

And/or he'll say we're a nation "under God" ("god?" "gods?") and "faith" -- of any kind -- should be welcomed in the public square (see his "defense" video here).

America's Founding Fathers urged Americans to vote for Christians, not for members of False Religions.

Are Mormons Christians? -- from Bulletproof with Brett Kunkle

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Treaty with Tripoli

It seems like every day I receive a letter from someone telling me that the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, and citing a Treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Here is part of a letter I just mailed:

Look at the Treaty and its revision a few years later:

The 1805 Treaty is more DETAILED and EXPANDED
over the 1796 Treaty. Virtually everything in
the 1796 Treaty is retained in the 1805 Treaty

***************** EXCEPT *****************

the line about the U.S "not in any sense founded
on the Christian Religion"

******** THAT PHRASE WAS REMOVED *********

This ** PROVES ** that the United States

******************* IS ********************

Founded on the Christian Religion.

Congress looked at that phrase, "not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion" and said,
"Wait a minute. Who put that in there? That's
not correct." And they REMOVED IT. The United
States **IS** founded on the Christian Religion.

And the answer to the question, "Who put that
in there?" is "Joel Barlow, an apostate chaplain
who went into the toilet with Thomas Paine."

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that
America is founded on the Christian religion.

On May 12, 1779, in a speech to the Delaware Indian
Chiefs, George Washington advised them:
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life,
and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will
make you a greater and happier people than you are.
Congress will do every thing they can to assist you
in this wise intention.
The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC:
US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55.
Good Advice

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Mitt Romney is a Member of a Dangerous Cult

One thing I like about the Libertarian Party is its opposition to politicians who are members of a dangerous cult.

The word "cult" is a hot-button item. A supporter of Rick Perry recently caused a stir by using the word to describe Mitt Romney's religion.

Evangelical Christians have long used the word to describe Christian-looking groups who deviate significantly from the theology of the historic Christian creeds. The ministry founded by D. James Kennedy says Mormons believe God to be a “man of flesh and bone who lives on a planet called Kolob and sexually procreates spirit children with his harem of wives.” (To which one Mormon left a comment, “Wow I have been a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over 20 years and have NEVER been taught what you wrote in your article.” Probably a majority of mainstream Christian church-goers could not intelligently articulate the tenets of their own religion.) Mormonism and Christianity seem to be very different religions, though the personal names might be similar. Christian theologians have long used the word "cult" to describe the divergent groups, while non-Christians use less pejorative terms, even if they agree on the wide divergence of beliefs.

On the other hand, the word "cult" is also used to describe mind-control programming and loss of personal identity under the sway of an authoritarian personality who can command cult members to pool their personal property under communism or engage in mass suicide. An example that comes to mind is the "Heaven's Gate" cult in Southern California.

Mitt Romney is a member of a "cult" in both senses of the word. While missing the boat on Christian theology can result in eternal consequences after death, being a brainwashed member of a mind control cult is more dangerous in this life.

The basic political philosophy of the Libertarian Party is stated in its Statement of Principles:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Gene Healy at the Cato Institute speaks of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

Another word for being brainwashed by this cult is "patriotism."

The Republican Party is a Cult.

Belief in the promises of cult leaders with regard to "Social Security" results in loss of personal property.

Belief in the promises of cult leaders with regard to "National Security" leads cult members to commit suicidal or genocidal acts.

The "cult of the omnipotent state" does not only engage in brainwashing through its schools, but it uses violent physical force against those who resist its brainwashing, including armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, and genocide using lethal weapons of mass destruction.

Evangelical Christians are supposed to believe that Christ is our Savior. Mitt Romney and Republicans like him (Democrats too!) believe the messianic State brings salvation.

Friday, October 07, 2011

Dominionism and Theocracy

I listen to Janet Parshall's show "In the Market" nearly every day. I seldom agree with everything I hear, but I appreciate intelligent Christian conversation.

Hour 2 of the October 5, 2011 show with Dr. Alex McFarland was disappointing. I think it muddied the waters rather than bringing clarity.


McFarland opposes atheistic or immoral law, but claims that "Christian Reconstruction" goes too far, farther than America's Founding Fathers wanted us to go.

The problem with this claim is that every single state in the union was a Christian Theocracy by ACLU standards, and even by McFarland's vague definition of "theocracy." Adultery and homosexuality were illegal in every state. These laws were taken from the books of Moses. Early American law codes even had the Biblical references to Leviticus in the margins of the statute books.

America was a Christian Theocracy. Maybe not perfectly, but intentionally.

McFarland quoted Harry Truman in defense of a vaguely "moral" government, but not one that comes from Leviticus. According to McFarland, Truman said:
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
Great quote!

Unfortunately for Dr. McFarland, the paragraph that immediately preceded this quote from President Truman was this:
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
Was Truman a Christian Reconstructionist?

More on:



The Constitution is NOT a "Secular Document"

Capital Punishment -- A Theonomic Reconstruction