How Political Landscapes Lead to Spiritual Oligarchy
Originally published January 19, 2013
It may not seem like the present Obama administration could ever have anything in common with the present-day New Calvinist movement. But not only has there been stranger bedfellows in the past, there are always reasons for such alliances.
I’m not much of a political animal, but I also recognize that throughout history politics and religion are never strangers to each other, and again, there are reasons for that. America was an experiment, and the founders of our country had the Reformers on their mind. Why? Because historically, and as coined by philosopher Ayn Rand, faith and force are the destroyers of the modern world. Putting the government in charge of truth has always been a really bad idea, and the Reformers were not the least bit shy about enforcing their truth with a burning stake or hangman’s noose. Let us remember, the Puritans compiled the Westminster Confession at the behest of European government. It was primarily a government document.
Biblically speaking, what is more apparent than the end of the world culminating with a marriage of “church” and state? Hardly anyone disagrees on that point. And a cursory observation of Revelation showcases the slaughter of dissenters that comes part and parcel with such marriages. Always. That information intimidates Reformed types more than their jealously for the numbers who follow Joel Osteen—who they really fear is Ayn Rand types; i.e., thinkers that could be used mightily among the sanctified.
Also, I believe that the final form of faith and force that will destroy the modern world will have feet of iron mixed with clay (per the prophet Daniel), indicating a weaker control over the world than past oligarchies. And the reason for this? Plain and simple: the Information Age. Despotism has always been nourished, and will always be nourished by a tight control of information. That is why our brilliant founders were big on saturating America with information, and the advent of computers and other super-information devices will prevent the former glory of tyranny from experiencing its full potential.
President Obama is obviously not that crazy about the philosophy of freedom that America was founded on. Neither is he crazy about the philosophy of competence in regard to the masses also propagated by the founders. And neither are the New Calvinists. They believe the masses need philosopher kings. Obama believes the masses need welfare and thoughtfare. This is also the philosophical tie that binds Catholicism to the Reformers—a different doctrine to obtain the same results notwithstanding.
Per the usual, when the climate is just right, political tyrants of the day and spiritual despots get together for pizza. Political tyrants need the primary topping that spiritual despots need. Who orders a pizza without pepperoni? Who does that? And the primary topping for spiritual tyrants and dictators is control. All religious movements bring their numbers to the table for a piece of the action and to use the government to tighten the control over their people that they already have which is never enough. This is the way it has always played out. The exception is followers of God who reject caste systems. Spiritual caste and political/social caste have never passed on dining together and never will.
And what is unique about Reformed theology is its attitude towards secular rule. Actually, the more it humbles man, the better. Humbleness is the only means to grace, and the more, the better. More humbleness, more grace. Who is better at humbling man than the array of tyrannical dictators of the ages? So, what I am saying is that people often get confused about strange alliances; say for example, Rick Warren and Barack Obama.
Look for the pepperoni.
paul
Reformed Masters and Blogger Slaves
That’s the consensus. Once again, a situation that is hopeless. A man who stood for what is right came to realize something: the leadership of his “family” church had subtly indoctrinated his wife over time to believe church “polity” and “orthodoxy” trumps his authority in their own home and his wife’s God given ability to think for herself. He never got it, but unfortunately, she did.
“But, they can’t tell her to divorce him, that’s against the Bible!” That’s what I used to say when I still didn’t get it. Now I get it. The Bible isn’t our authority because the masses are not qualified to interpret the Bible for themselves. The spiritual elite must interpret it for us. The agreed upon basic principles by the majority of the elite (certified by a seminary degree in indoctrination) is “orthodoxy.” Church “polity” protects the orthodoxy.
However, most of the spiritually ignorant masses cannot understand orthodoxy, so we have creeds, confessions, catechism, “Daily Bread” devotionals, and of course, books, books, and more books. The totally depraved masses wait at the doors of Christian publishing companies with bated breath for the next divine unction from the who’s who of neo-Calvinism.
On the Protestant side, it’s the “Westminster Divines.” On the Catholic side, it’s popes and cardinals, but there is no difference. The Reformation was a fight between philosopher kings for control of the mutton—nothing more and nothing less. The Reformers saw Rome as immoral philosopher kings. Gee whiz, something had to be done; they were supposedly better suited to rule the totally depraved. The Reformers then came up with a doctrine that was a different twist on the total depravity and utter ineptitude of man. But both parties were, and still are, fundamentality Augustinian in their philosophy.
Where has all of this taken us? Look for yourself. In the South during the pinnacle of slavery, I am sure there was an outcry among the slaves concerning the abuse by masters. How far did it get them? How many masters stood against other masters on behalf of the slaves? I don’t know what the primary conduit for the outcry was in that day, but today, it’s blogging. Where is it getting us in comparison? Look up “same” in the dictionary.
What kind of abuse? Oh, pretty much the same kind we see today: an expectation that you will burn yourself out for the masters, and to the neglect of your family which they will use against you for asking the wrong questions. If a master wanted to break up a slave marriage; done. If a master wanted a slave’s wife; done. If a master wanted to molest a slave’s son or daughter; done. If a master wanted to ruin a slave’s name; done. If a master wanted to deprive a slave of friends; done. If a master wanted to compel a slave to believe something; done. And for certain, if a master wanted a slave to keep their mouth shut; done. In regard to the master controlling what the slave learned and understood; done.
The masters of the South had the law at their disposal to control the slaves. The Reformed masters of our day have to improvise. That’s relatively new for them; in the past, they also had polity with government on their side to enforce the orthodoxy (Google, “Calvin’s Geneva, Inquisition, witch wars, peasant wars, The Thirty Years War, English civil wars 1,2,3, and Salem witch trials” to get you started). Controlling the slaves with polity alone takes creativity, but the Protestants of our day are getting the job done. We are slaves to the formal church by choice through manipulation. And worse yet, unlike the slaves of the South, we are paying good money for it.
And we are slaves. “No we aren’t.” Oh really? Then why do we keep giving our money to abusers and co-abusers who cover for them? Why do we keep going to their churches? “Well Paul, somebody has to be in control.” Exactly. Because somebody “has to be in control,” we are no better off than the slaves of the South—only more pathetic because we are willing participants who pay good money to our abusers. Google, “ABWE Bangladesh Missionary Kids.” As one former member of a Reformed church stated it: “I paid good money to have my marriage destroyed and my family divided.”
It took years, but we have finally been brainwashed into thinking that we need rulers in the church as opposed to leaders. And after all, rulers are never perfect. And after all, if not them, who? And after all, but for the grace of God, there go I. And after all, better that some suffer from elder boo-boos in quietness for the betterment of the whole. And after all, unity and peace are always the best remedy though imperfect in this totally depraved world. And after all, we know it’s bad, but where else can we go? And after all….you fill in the blank.
Far from the psyche of the American church is Christ’s call to value the one as much as the other 99. The Jewish proverb of, “He who saves one life—saves the world” has been replaced with spiritual Marxism and its cult of The Group. Many oppose the cult of group, while holding to the Protestant gospel of progressive justification. Sorry, that doctrine will eventually lead to the cult of group. Some of the Puritans who landed here wanted to shed the oppressive church polity of the Reformers, but retained the same gospel (Google, “Savoy Declaration”)—guess what eventually happened? Doctrine always, in time, dictates behavior; there is absolutely no exception to that rule.
The data that verifies the following formula is not hard to come by: Formula A; God > Bible > Elders > Orthodoxy > Polity > Control > Creeds > Totally Depraved.
Never before in church history has there been more Christian academia in an information age to boot; yet, never before in church history have the saints been more dumbed down. Ignorance =’s control. This is by intention. This is the Reformed endgame. Susan and I correspond with people all over the world about the doctrine of progressive justification, and the continual roadblock is the fact that most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification. How can this be? Answer: model “A.”
Formula B: this is the biblical model; God > Bible > Saints (led by elders) = Christ’s mandate to the church to make disciples.
If one breaks the bondage we are in today, and reads the Bible for his/her self—some amazing things are discovered. In an irony that I cannot even begin to put into words from a contemporary perspective, Jude began to write to a group of believers about the gospel, but instead addressed something more urgent: false teachers. And take note: the letter, like most others in the Bible, is addressed to the saints and not the elders. The saints were to take ownership of the problem. And this was regarding false teachers who were among them—who had “slipped in unawares.”
As with Peter, the instruction is clear: one way or the other; separate from them. This isn’t rocket science. But why does that not happen? Because Christians, by and large, operate by formula “A” which leaves them no choice. Supposedly. But think about it; if “A” is reality, what are your choices? You can only start your own church under the authority/approval of the same, and quitting church will get you excommunicated (Google, “Mark Dever excommunicates 256 members”). If leaving the authority of the church would put you in disfavor with God, what choice do you have? Hence, it is what it is; we suck it up and “trust the problem to those who are fully apprised of the situation.” Amen. “Just please trust us as we have the whole picture”; ie., there is dirt in the situation that you don’t know about (but probably not).
That wasn’t Jude’s approach at all. Not even close. He instructed the saints directly on how to detect false teachers. We are not to be associated with false teachers in any regard, period. There are no exceptions. And the premier heresy of our day is progressive justification. And progressive justification is the source of the abuse. And we have simply chosen to enslave ourselves to false teachers.
And model “A” is not our authority, and there is simply no excuse for this. We are owned by Christ, not false teachers. We often cling to model “A” because it’s easy and “safe.” Turning a blind eye to abuse is easier and more comfortable then fending for ourselves and others even though Christ has promised to be with us “till the end of the age.” This is a matter of trusting Christ and not vile men with impressive Reformed pedigrees. Is this what Psychologists refer to as “codependence”? Well then, I might have to give them credit for knowing something. Embracing evil as a way to avoid confronting our fears has never been becoming for anyone who names the name of Christ.
Quitting church is not the answer either. Jude totally missed the memo on that one. But it is high time that the discernment/anti-abuse blogosphere stops the whining, it is rather time to get solution oriented. The outcry of Southern slaves who could do nothing else is understandable, but there are many options available to ministries that deal with abuse. And by the way, “having a place to voice your pain” IS NOT getting the job done. The abusers are getting the job done, but not us. I think it is time to ask why that is.
There is only one thing that can stop tyranny: action. What action? The sky is the limit. The Dohse family will begin doing their part this Sunday. We will begin to hold church in our home with pastor Paul presiding. Maybe some of the spiritual orphans out there will join us. Then there are many options in the future if we grow.
Enough whining and psychobabble already. Form a coalition of bloggers who can organize things like a thirty-day tithing blackout. Do something, but for crying out loud….
Stop whining!
paul
Are Love and Forgiveness Always the Same Thing?
At least in this country, we live in a unique time. I like to preface these kinds of generalizations with “in this country” because our tendency is to see things through a Western perspective, especially the Reformation which was primarily a European thing. That’s why I have begun studying (in preparation for a third book I am writing) the church history of other regions like Africa and China.
But back to the present day in this country; with spiritual despotism being rampant, the subject of forgiveness is heavy in the air. Thinking Christians find themselves in a quandary: how do we hold people accountable with a pure heart void of revenge? Or should we hold people accountable at all? Should we “forgive and forget”? After all, we should forgive the way we were forgiven, right?
Indeed, this is tricky territory, but may I start from a practical standpoint? There seems to be this thing called unresolved conflict that makes “forgiving and moving on with our lives” a lot easier said than done. In fact, I wonder if people who have been wronged with no resolution who say they have “moved on with their lives” have really done so. You can move on, but what is going with you?
Then there is the following question: is it likely that what has been done to you will also be done to others by the same person/people? Now things get really tricky. I don’t think the Bible covers prevention specifically, but it may be a matter of God-given common sense. Not wanting to hold individuals accountable for what they did to you for prevention purposes because it is uncomfortable or not your personality may be deemed selfish. Moreover, it could be argued that you are partially responsible for unhindered future acts.
As one who has had to struggle with this question, let me give you the best answer I have to date: we need to hold people accountable in a biblical way, and there is also some liberty involved. The apostle Peter said that “love covers a multitude of sin,” and I do think we have the liberty to cover offences with love (barring complicity or putting others in danger). But if we find ourselves without the grace to not continually bring up the offence to ourselves, to the offender, and to others, that’s a huge problem. That’s unresolved conflict bouncing around in our minds and refusing to go away.
In such cases, the Bible prescribes a process for resolution; we all know what it is, Matthew 18:15-20. Though only six verses, it covers every conceivable situation. Considering the source, that shouldn’t surprise us. Let me just mention a few. In the first step, we may find out that the offence was just a simple misunderstanding. In the second step, and with the help of the two witnesses, we may find out that we are being petty and making a mountain out of a molehill. However, if that’s not the case and it goes further, there is no guarantee that the church as a whole will see it the same way. I think that is why Jesus refers back to the second step in verse 20. Think about it: the third step involves the whole church, but he refers back to the second step.
Nevertheless, the whole church confronting an individual is very powerful, and will probably yield results, and excludes anything in the process from being behind closed doors. If the results are not favorable, the wronged person receives the support of the whole church. The church states that they will not fellowship with said person or persons until they reconcile with you. Not only that, the person/persons are prevented from doing the same thing to others in the same church, and theoretically, any other church when they disallow membership because of former unresolved issues with another church. Prevention. No?
Now, it is true, the apostle Paul said that we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. That’s the gospel, right? Well, partly. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about this, but if you want to bring the gospel into this, the following is at least a fair question: Did God forgive us without our repentance? Furthermore, Christ said that “IF” the offender “listens to you,” you have gained a brother. In Luke 17 concerning the same subject, Christ said to forgive your brother seven times seventy “IF” he repents. If he repents, you “must forgive him.” In the parable of the unmerciful servant, we find that we are to also forgive if there is repentance, but restitution is not possible. That’s the gospel; we repented, but certainly, the only restitution we have to offer is in Christ. But also, on the horizontal level, we must remember the example of Zacharias when restitution is possible.
So, if we are sinned against, and the offending party refuses to repent, are we obligated to forgive them? I’m not sure about that (while leaning toward, “no”), but I am sure about the following: we are obligated before God to love our enemies. Note that it is interesting that the Lord states that we will have enemies. What is a biblical “enemy”? May I suggest that it is someone that we are not reconciled to? This would seem apparent. In regard to our enemies, we are not to take revenge on them. The apostle Paul is very specific about this in Romans 12. If our enemies have a need that we are aware of, we are to fulfill that need. The Old Testament law stated that if we happened across our enemy’s oxen that had gotten loose, we were obligated to return it to him/her. Paul wrote that if our enemy is hungry, we are to feed him/her. I would imagine that such opportunities are divine appointments that lend great opportunity for reconciliation (as an aside to the aforementioned point concerning the gospel, the gospel is also referred to in the Bible as being “reconciled to God”).
But is holding someone accountable also an act of love? Proverbs states: “The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, but the wounds of a friend are faithful.” And, “Be angry but sin not.” Let me suggest that we may be angry with someone, and not obligated to forgive them without repentance, but obligated to love them. Does not God love many enemies daily by giving them breathe and a litany of other innumerable resources? Being angry at those whom we are un-reconciled with is not revenge. It is interesting to note that in Romans, Paul immediately speaks of being subject to government authorities after instructing Christians to not avenge themselves. I think these thoughts are related. In regard to revenge that is not against civil law: “….bless, and do not curse them.” We are to bless our enemies and conduct ourselves “honorably” (Romans 12) before all in regard to them, but remember, that does not exclude holding them accountable.
There is another point that I am certain of, and unlike the daring assertion that Christians are not obligated to forgive without reconciliation. Christians are not called to a mental/emotional decision to forgive from the heart—it simply won’t work. A true forgiveness from the heart must be solidified by action. Forgiveness and love in the Bible are ALWAYS related to some kind of action. We don’t love our enemies from the mind only. Neither do we forgive them from the mind only. The apostle Paul NEVER stated that we are to, “Forgive and forget, or “forgive and move on with our lives.” We are to not do this (curse), and to do that (bless) instead. We don’t ignore their needs, but rather feed them instead.
But all in all, the vast majority of unresolved conflict in the church today is the non-application of the Matthew 18 process by leaders and for leaders. Hordes of today’s leaders will fellowship with each other, and give each other credibility despite the long list of unreconciled conflict that they have with other Christians. This puts the laity in tricky waters.
But that’s not on us. That’s on them. And I hope these thoughts lend some worthwhile ideas to the chosen direction. However, non-action is not an option, and forgiveness does not always walk with love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment