CHALCEDON

A Monthly Report Report

Dealing With the Relationship of
Christian Faith to the World
Contributors:
R.J. Rushdoony is president of Chalcedon and
Contents: No. 351, October 1994
a leading theologian, church/state expert, and
EDITORIAL 2
author of numerous works on the application of
Biblical Law to society. What Is Man? by Rev. R.J. Rushdoony
Faith by R.J. Rushdoony 2
Otto Scott is the resident senior staff writer for Illusions & Realities by Otto Scott 3
Chalcedon and author of a variety of books and "Devils Also Believe"
essays on historical, cultural, social, and politi- by Mark R. Rushdoony 5
cal subjects. OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON
Dominion or Participation? by John Lofton 6
Mark R. Rushdoony is vice president of Chal- DOMINION W O R K
cedon and director and a teacher at Chalcedon
Subsidizing Sin by Joseph R. McAuliffe 8
Christian School.
Samuel's Yardstick by John Upton 9
Two Shifts I n Consciousness by R.E. McMasters, Jr II
Joseph R. McAulifTe is a Chalcedon staff writer,
publisher of the newsletter Business Gram, po- Justification: The "Principal Hinge O f Religion"
litical leader and senior pastor of a church in by Andrew Sandlin 14
Tampa, Florida. Discipleship!
Training the Next Generation of Warriors
John Upton is on the Chalcedon staff. He is an by Rev. Brian M. Abshire 17
award winning film maker, head of Orphan Aid Biblical Antithesis and Education
and engaged in a number of Christian charities.
by Perry C. Coghlan II 27
Is South Africa Under Communist Domination?
John Lofton is a Chalcedon staff writer. He has
by Erroll Hulse 26
served as a newspaper and magazine editor,
columnist and has written many articles in lead- The Obedience of Faith by Bob Gray 28
ing journals. A Biblical Perspective on William J . Bennett's
The Book of Virtues by W. Gary Crampton 29
R.E. McMaster, Jr. is a economist. He is the editor Scribes and Pharisees by Ina Painter 31
of The Reaper and the author of several books. Dorothy Rushdoony's Comments 32
Geocentricty's Critics Refuse T o Do Their Homework
Andrew Sandlin is pastor of Church of the by Martin G. Selbrede 33
Word, Painesville, Ohio, an orthodox. Re- The Demand for Perfection in the C h u r c h
formed congregation; associate editor of by R J. Rushdoony 41
Christianity and Society; and moderator of
"Awake, Thou That Sleepest" by Rev. RJ. Rushdoony 41
the Reconstructionist Society of Ohio.
P O S I T I O N P A P E R N O . 181
The Mystery Religions by 7?./. Rushdoony 42
Rev. Brian M. Ahshire is the Pastor of Lakeside
Church. Offices at 7259 N. Iroquois, Glendale, B O O K N O T E S by RJ. Rushdoony 43
Wisconsin 53217. Telephone/FAX (414) 228- R A N D O M N O T E S , 39 by 7?../. 7?M.vb£/oo«y 44
1590.

P R E S I D E N T : R . J . Rushdoony Offices:
M A N A G I N G E D I T O R : Grayce Flanagan Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, C A 95251
C I R C U L A T I O N : Susan Walker T e l . Circulation (1-4 p.m.) (209)736-4365
P R I N T I N G : Calaveras Press F a x (209)736-0536

© C o p y r i g h t 1994 Chalcedon • Printed in the United States

Permission to reprint granted upon written request only.

EDITORIAL
WHAT IS MAN?
By Rev, R,J. Rushdoony
The two great facts about man stressed by the Bible
are that, first, man is made in the image of G o d , in
knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion
over the creatures. (Gen. 1:26; Col. 3-10; Eph. 4:24). Sec-
ond, man is now a fallen creature whose original and
essential sin is to be his own god, determining good and
evil, law and morality, for himself (Gen. 3:5).
Now as never before, man is at war with these facts
because he is at war with G o d . A non-Christian writer,
L o r e n Baritz, in The Good Life (1989), cited the new
view of mankind which has become prevalent since W o r l d
War I I : "Playboy's world offered a single, simple mes-
sage: women, like men, are in eternal and overpowering
heat, live truly only through their genitals, and those who
pretend otherwise merely play games designed to add
fleeting and delicious preparatory tension to their inevi-
table surrender. T h e activating principle of life is female
lust, providing everyman relief from a groin in flames"
(p. 190). I have heard even more graphic statements of
human nature. G i v e n the prevalence of D a r w i n i s m , this
should not surprise us, although it does an injustice to the
animals!
Not only man but all things else must be redefined in
terms of the triune G o d . Psalm 8 gives us a magnificent
view of God's definition of man.
The Westminster Catechism gives priority to knowl-
edge in citing Scripture's definition of man. T h e sad fact
is that Christians have been very negligent in furthering
knowledge. Christian scholarship. Man deforms himself
when he neglects knowledge. Over the centuries, the
great champions of the faith have been men of knowl-
edge, men dedicated to learning. It is to be hoped that
the Christian and home school movements will restore
knowledge to its proper place.
Righteousness or justice is basic to the image of G o d in
man. M e n in Christ are those who hunger and thirst after
righteousness or justice (Matt. 5:6). God's law is the law
of justice, and the redeemed of G o d love H i s law (Psalm
119) and delight in it, because the triumph of God's jus-
tice is essential to H i s Kingdom. Fallen man does not
want justice. I f the Christian neglects God's law, there
will be no justice.
Holiness, means separation from sin into a total ser-
vice to the L o r d . Because G o d is holy. H i s people must
be holy. T h e Playboy definition of man sees him as sepa-
rated to sex and consumed by it; we can call this the
Playboy doctrine of separation.
Dominion is basic also to the image of G o d in man.
We are called to exercise dominion and to subdue the
2 -1
earth, to make this world the Kingdom of G o d . T h e
G a r d e n of E d e n was a pilot project in dominion, and man
failed the test. Now the redeemed men in Christ have a
calling to bring all the world under Christ's dominion and
under H i s kingly rule.
Our restored image in Christ gives us a new direction,
life rather than death (Prov. 8:34-36). Christ's people are
the people of life because H e is life (John 14:6).
T o be in Christ is to be in the restored image of G o d ,
the people of life and victory, not of death. T h e restored
image of G o d in the believer means that he belongs to the
triumphant Kingdom of G o d the K i n g .
Knowledge, righteousness or justice, holiness, and do-
minion, this is our nature and also our calling.
FAITH
By R.J, Rushdoony
A t breakfast, Dorothy made a remarkable comment
about Hebrews 11:6: " B u t without faith it is impossible to
please him ( G o d ) : for he that cometh to G o d must be-
lieve that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek h i m . " There are three remarkable state-
ments in this sentence, and the final one is the telling one,
as Dorothy noted.
Firsts we cannot please G o d except by faith, a faith
with works. After all, the devils believe that there is a
God, and tremble (James 2:19).
Second, we must come to G o d believing that He is,
that H e is L o r d and Creator, and our Redeemer and
Judge.
Third, but, above a l l , we must seek believe that "he is
the rewarder of them that diligently seek H i m . " We ex-
pect to be rewarded for the work we do at our work-
place. Similarly, we must believe that G o d is the best and
most faithful Paymaster in all creation. We dare not treat
H i m as a faithless L o r d to H i s people.
John Newton, in one of his greatest hymns, ("Come,
my soul, thy suit prepare,") wrote:
"Thou art coming to a King,
Large petitions with thee bring;
For his grace and power are such.
None can ever ask too much;
None can ever ask too much."
Our life should be one of faithful service and great
expectations. Remember, we do serve the great King of
kings.
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994

ILLUSIONS &
REALITIES
By Otto Scott
T h e idea that there are already too many people in the
world and that a population "crisis" is upon us is not
simply an illusion: it is a manufactured myth. T h e reality
is, according to demographer Jaqueline K a s u n , that "the
developed nations have reached the point of demographic
suicide, with birth rates below the replacement level, that
is, below 2.1 children per woman.'"
T h i s development has overtaken the nations of
northern Europe, white Russia and, especially, the United
States. It is a far from simple phenomenon. D y i n g soci-
eties develop, as do individuals, multiple symptoms.
According to the Census report, based on statistics
gathered in 1988, the U n i t e d States today has the highest
rate of births outside marriage. W e have the highest pro-
portion of children living with oply one parent. W e have
also the highest rate of abortion among young women.
We have the sinister distinction of the highest level of
infant mortality among developed nations, the heaviest
rate of male homicides and the highest rate of divorce
among young couples. We have, as a consequence, the
highest proportion of children who have witnessed the
divorce of their parents, and the highest rate of poverty
for children among developed nations.
A l l these figures are six years old, which means that
each of the trends mentioned have lengthened since they
were taken: the fatherless children, the numbers of poor
children, the increase of single "family" homes, the spread
of abortions, the increase in rates of divorce among the
young, the jump in male homicides. Illegitimate births
now stand at 30 percent, and the increase is greatest
among white women over 20.
Charles Murray recently shocked many by pointing
out that the growth in illegitimacy among white women
presages an increase in the numbers of the underclass
together with behavior patterns formerly associated with
black ghettos. R . J . Rushdoony, among many others, has
constantly called attention to the fact that the Christian
culture is based upon the family. Murray is talking about
what happens when the family dissolves, and young per-
sons appear who have no family, no memory of a family,
and no knowledge of even who sired them.
It does not require a college degree to understand
what this means in terms of self-respect, an unstable
environment and a lack of skills with which to honestly
support oneself. "One of the reasons," writes Patrick
Pagan, "that the U . S . overtook Great B r i t a i n in produc-
tive capacity in the late 1800s was its much higher literacy
rate; its labor pool could operate more effectively in the
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
industrial setting. Today the U . S . literacy rate lags
severely behind other developed nations. T h i s lag is
caused by the low scores of students in the inner cities -
the neighborhoods dominated by out-of-wedlock births.
( I n 1991 the out-of-wedlock birth rate in poor black inner
city neighborhoods was over 80 percent.)
"Other effects that stem from birth outside of mar-
riage include increased rates of poor neonatal health,
higher infant mortality, retarded cognitive development,
lower impulse control, retarded social development, in-
creased behavioral and emotional problems, increased
w e l f a r e dependency and i n c r e a s e d i n v o l v e m e n t i n
crime.
Pagan, in his article on Social Stability in the United
States, cites the fact that "the U . S . has by far the highest
divorce rate among nations for which statistics are avail-
able; the national rate of divorce is 62 percent higher
than in the next closest country. Great B r i t a i n . I n recent
years A m e r i c a n social scientists have demonstrated again
and again the negative effects of divorce on children.
T h e y are similar to those enumerated for out-of-wedlock
birth. . . ."
O n crime. Pagan echoes the overall conclusion made
by a number of close observers that "although crime
rates are much higher among blacks in the U . S . than
among whites, the differences between the races vanishes
when marriage is factored in. Murder rates are the same
— and low — among people both white and black who
live in married, intact families. They are also the same —
and high — among people in single-parent families. Crime
rates are highest when there is a concentration of single
parent families. W h e n one considers the future trends in
out-of-wedlock birth rates, the U S can expect further
increases in its already astronomical crime rate."'
These observations may, however, seem too far re-
moved from the up-close nature of the human scene to
influence many. Twenty-one years ago George Gilder
dove to the heart of human behavior in the U . S . when he
published Sexual Suicided H i s treatment ranged much
farther than the title suggests, and is well worth rediscov-
ering. H e describes, in one section, "the steady erosion
of the key conditions of male socialization" and traces
these through childhood care under females "to a job
that, particularly at the vital entry level positions, is often
sexually indistinct" to the level where his opportunity to
qualify for a family — through becoming a husband and
provider — may be jeopardized. T h e man discovers that
manhood offers few distinctive roles except in the de-
creasingly respected military.' T h e society prohibits,
constructs or feminizes his purely male activities.'"'
" A s he has in every such historic extremity, he turns
away from the family. H e frequents all-male bars and
behaves loudly and abusively enough to keep them that
way. H e watches televised football and other male sports
for hours on end and argues about them incessantly; or
he bombards himself with the music of male sexuality —
3
the aggressive, phallic rock now dominating youth cul-
ture. Otherwise he is obsessed with women. . . ."
" H e turns to pornography, with fantasies of sex
and violence. H i s magazines . . . are preoccupied with
barren copulation, or with war, perversion and crime. . . .
H e is an exile: an outlaw under the sexual constitution.
Often he becomes a legal outlaw as well. Such single
males . . . constitute our major social problem. T h e y are
the murderers, the rapists, the burglars, the suicides, the
assailants, the psychopaths. What they are not is
powerful oppressors, with hypertrophied masculinity.
T h e y are impotent figures, and as R o l l o May asserts,
violence is the product of impotence grown unbearable.
T h e i r problem is a society inadequately affirmative of
masculinity: a society seduced by an obsessive rational-
ism and functionalism — a cult of efficiency and a fetish
of statistical equality — to eliminate many of the male
affirmations that a l l human societies have created
throughout history to compensate for male insecurity
and female sexual superiority. T h e women's movement
seems determined to create more and more such exiled
"chauvinist" males, all the while citing their pathetic of-
fenses as a rationale for feminism."
" T h u s society both provides for its own disruption
and leaches itself of positive male energies. F o r male
insecurity is also the ' d i v i n e unease' that in social-
ized males . . . has produced our greatest achieve-
ments of industry, art and science."'
" I t is ironic," Gilder said, "that a movement advocat-
ing the interests of women should encourage a movement
based on misogyny: the fear and hatred of women. B u t
that is the dead end of the myth of the androgynous male.
T h e fact is that he is not oppressed by a sexist society; it is
the world of bipolar sexuality that makes it possible for
him to indulge feminine impulses. R e m o v i n g the
structure of sexual identity leaves him vulnerable to
sexual self destruction." G i l d e r cites Patricia Sexton,
author of a book on feminized males** who argues not
that our society is too masculine, but that it is too
feminine. "She believes that the home dominated by the
mother, schools dominated by women, and by technol-
ogy that emasculates work has that effect. She stresses
particularly the feminine character of education: schools
that focus on such virtues as obedience, regularity, pas-
sivity and submission, and verbal skills at a time when
boys' bodies are raging with testosterone and their minds
are preoccupied with sports and mechanics."'
" T h e result," according to Mrs. Sexton, who assembled
reams of testing data to prove it, "is that the most femi-
nine boys prevail in schools and tend to go on to college
and into the best jobs. Meanwhile the most aggressive
and masculine — the ones who cannot sit in one place for
more than ten minutes without severe nervous strain,
relieved only by dreams of cars and football games —
these boys tend to drop out and take the lowest-paying
w o r k . " Y e t it is Sexton's plausible contention that the
4 CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
mechanical interests represent no less intellectuality than
the more verbal orientation of the others. Potentially
valuable technical skills are lost because the educational
system does not know how to deal with masculinity."*"
Education was, of course, better for boys when schools
had male teachers. T h e ages of Christianity provide
ample proof that boys educated by men emerged
whole in spirit as well as scholarship. T h i s civilization
was not constructed by 'feminized' men. What is more,
the level of scholarship during the ages of faith and later,
when this was still a Christian civilization, was more wide-
ranging and achieved higher peaks than it has since. E u -
rope had then an international elite of the learned, which
wrote and spoke L a t i n , whose correspondence and pub-
lications erased national and ethnic boundaries, and
helped keep Christians united.
T o say that the Christian situation is different today is
not to change G i l d r e ' s and Sexton's subject, but to make
the obvious point that a feminized Christianity has done
much to assist in our overall decline. A Southern pastor"
of my acquaintance told me that he ascribes many of the
failures of the Church today to what he termed "the
inordinate influence" of women. This may strike many
Christian women as a terribly misplaced charge, espe-
cially those who believe that they have to drag their
husbands to church. B u t it contains a realistic core.
Just as women after the C i v i l W a r had much to do with
the emasculation of A m e r i c a n literature" and the arts, so
have they done much to reduce Christian concepts to
malted milk. T h i s tendency is not restricted to Protes-
tantism or Catholicism: it hardly needs citations to make
the point. W e are all now familiar with female Episcopal
Bishops, altar girls for the Catholics, female ministers in
various mainline Protestant denominations, female rab-
bis in reform Judaic circles, remarkably soft-voiced cler-
gymen across the board and a widespread feminization of
A m e r i c a n religious circles in general.
R . E . McMaster once wrote an interesting essay in
this publication, mentioning the feminization of A m e r i -
can foreign policy, with its stress on humanitarianism,
shock over foreign wars and arguments against the use
of force when it results in casualties(!)
Some may consider these observations, like the others
cited, far afield from the breakdown of the family and
the rise of abortion in modern life, but they are very
much allied. W e do not live in single issues. A national
culture is a vast arena of inter allied, interconnected
ideas, actions and institutions. A n y nation that permits
abortion, for instance, fails to recognize that abortion
has traditionally been a woman's deepest and most
insulting rejection of a man. T o legalize abortion is to
encourage such a rejection; to place it amid a swamp of
economic and convenience decisions, like having cos-
metic surgery, or — as it has transpired — getting a
divorce.
This trend in the United States started in the beginning
of this century. Prior to World W a r I a child out of
wedlock was the worst fate that could overtake a young
girl. It meant a betrayal by a man at a time when most men
in such a situation automatically chose to marry as a mat-
ter of honor. ( I n B r i t a i n this was so true that a fiance
actually moved into his future bride's home.) T h e post
World W a r I generation maintained much of this, but the
facade did begin to show cracks. Religion, for the first
time in A m e r i c a n history, came under open attack.
Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry launched an anti-Christian
flood. Hollywood promoted "flaming youth,"
T h e Thirties Depression halted some of these trends,
but accelerated others. T h e birthrate dropped steeply
and contraception — even among Catholics and ortho-
dox Protestants — became commonplace. Weimar
G e r m a n y launched a great campaign in favor of legalized
abortion, citing "back alleys" and "coat hangers" as
great dangers to women, but even degraded B e r l i n would
not go that far — then.
A l l these trends, which really began in E u r o p e , culmi-
nated in total state controls: by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin
and a gang of their imitators in the Balkans. W e claimed
to go to war against these, but opened our arms to Stalin
as an ally, which vitiated our claims of virtue. A n d after
the war, our wartime indoctrination with all its drills and
lectures and rations and rules conditioned the A m e r i c a n
people to accept the maze of regulations and controls
under which we now live.
B y now abortion is hailed as one of our governmental
benefits: a sacred right of women. T h e absent father, in
such a situation, seems less surprising than the fact that
most men are still fathers, still providers, still supporters.
But, as I wrote previously, the government of the
U n i t e d States is seeding sterilization around the world.
On his first full day in office. President Clinton signed
several executive orders in favor of abortion.
Space does not permit a recounting of all the efforts
that the U n i t e d States will seek to impose upon the world
at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development
in September, 1994, but there is every reason to believe
that they will have the overall effect of hastening our
civilizational decline. T h a t this has already proceeded
far is attested by the statistics at the beginning of this
article: let it suffice that these trends show every sign of
continuing, here and abroad.
E x p e r t s estimate that legalized abortions now amount
to 7.5 million a year in the United States alone. I f the 31
Million aborted A m e r i c a n s had lived, there would
today be no Social Security "crisis" — these young
people would give birth to many more, and there would
in the next century be more than enough young workers
here to care for the elderly.
A l l this may sound as if there is no hope: that catastro-
phe is inevitable, but that is not so. I n my view the rise of
the H o m e and Christian School movements constitutes a
silent resistance to the trends toward death fostered by
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
the governments of the U n i t e d States and northern E u -
rope. Y o u n g parents, intelligent enough to recognize that
public education is a distorting experience, have with-
drawn their children from the public schools by the mil-
lions. These A m e r i c a n children are learning right from
wrong, facts from fictions, with the guidance of the faith.
These young adults will not only resist the State, hut
will know how and why they do so. T h e i r numbers will be
too large to ignore, and too great to suppress. T h e y will
raise new political movements and parties, new argu-
ments based on old truths, and they will prevail. History
has many times shown that the hackneyed argument that
"you can't turn back the clock" is false. People can — and
have — turned the clock to any timing they choose, be-
cause it is their clock. T h i s people was not created for a
government: the government was created by the people.
Despite what western governments hope to impose upon
the world at the Cairo Conference, the fact remains that
informed millions are now awake, and making plans to
change the pattern of events. Despite surface indications,
the new Reformation is not only underway, but far along.
• The Plot Against Life & Family, by Rev. Rene Bel and Adolfo
Castenada, The Catholic Report, August/September 1994, p.
19.
' Patrick Pagan is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Department of Health and Human Services; the citation is
from The Catholic World Report, op. cit., p. 39.
' Ibid.
" Sexual Suicide by George F . Gilder, The N.Y. Times Book
Co., N.Y., 1973.
' A sector where the government has intruded, and insists upon
expanding, the roles of women.
«Ibid., pp. 103-4.
' Ibid., p. 106.
' The Feminized Male: White Collars and the Decline of Manli-
ness, Random House, N.Y. 1969.
' C/f Gilder, op. cit, p. 228
K'/Wd., p. 229.
" I shall not name him, lest it create further difficulties for him.
"See: Ann Douglas: The Feminization of American Culture,
Avon Books, paper. 1979, passim.
"DEVILS ALSO
BELIEVE"
By Mark R. Rushdoony
"Yea, a man may say. Thou hast faith, and I have works:
shew me thy faith without thy works,
and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God: thou does well:
the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:18-19)
5
 James here rebuts those who make a profession of
faith yet whose works do not give evidence of conversion.
H e had told them their faith was dead (v. 17) because it
was "alone" or all they had. H e is talking of false profes-
sions of faith. T h e y may be false because they are merely
shallow and empty words, or they may be hypocritical
confessions.
Here, James say " a man," that is, a believer, has the
prerogative of asking such a person for tangible evidence
of his faith in action. It is important that we remember
the value of the name of G o d — not everyone has the
right to claim the name of Jesus Christ, and we must not
tolerate abuse of H i s name by those who show them-
selves to be faithless.
I n demanding that false professors show their faith
without works, James is asking the impossible . Faith can
only be seen by its fruits. A believer is regenerated by the
H o l y Spirit — changed from within. T o say you are a
person of faith but show no evidence of regeneration is to
depreciate the efficacy of the H o l y Spirit of G o d .
T o o often when this verse is discussed, the issue is
diverted to whether or not a non-believer can do good
works. T h e answer often given is no, using the reasoning
that even proper actions do not make a man morally
acceptable to G o d . B u t this is not what James is talking
about. H e is talking about fruits of conversion necessarily
following faith. Good works never make any man. Chris-
tian or not, morally acceptable to G o d . I f G o d is Good
and G o d ' s W o r d is T r u t h , then, if we obey G o d , we have
done that which is morally good in that specific point of
behavior. Good works may be done by the unregenerate;
they are then no more or less than good works. More-
over, there may be instances where good works cannot be
evidenced in deathbed conversions, such as the thief on
the cross. James is not saying good works are an infallible
evidence of faith; he is saying that a lack of good works
proves a profession of faith to be false.
W h e n James turns to the nature of this false profession
of faith (v. 79), he makes clear that it is a false faith by
comparing it to what "the devils" believe. Believing in
G o d is not the essence of Christian faith. Men can have
cherished feelings and high regard for the things of G o d
without having saving faith. Such an "opinion" of G o d ,
C a l v i n said, "no more brings G o d and man together than
looking at the sun, lifts us up into the sky." E v e n devils
believe, says James. T h e y are evil and at total enmity
with G o d , but they believe. T h e y believe H e is one G o d
in three Persons; they believe that Jesus is the Son of G o d
and Messiah (Luke 4:34-41, Acts 19:15), and they believe
the ministers of the gospel are H i s representatives (Acts
16:17). E v e n though the devils recognize all this, it is
absurd to suggest they have saving faith. B u t James does
give even demons one bit of credit, he does not allow
those with empty professions of faith. These evil beings
tremble in fear before G o d . Compare this reaction of the
devils to those James speaks of — they claim faith in G o d
6 CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
but show no works or fruit of conversion. I n this respect
they are less aware of their sad state than the devils.
C a l v i n said:
"So any who despise the God they recognize are in even
worse degree. Thou doest well is a kind of compliment, as
if to say: this is really an achievement, to sink lower than
devils."
This is the position in which much of our culture and
many of our churches find themselves. They acknowledge
God and think that their opinions of G o d constitute faith.
B u t to wrongly claim faith is to wrongly claim Christ as
our Savior and L o r d , the Father as ours, and the Holy
Spirit's indwelling. False professions thus take God's name
in vain and tempt His mercy. It is absurd to claim the
demons have faith, but at least they do know enough of
G o d to know they must fear His deserved wrath. D o we?
OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON
DOMINION OR
PARTICIPATION?
By John Lofton
"We don't want to dominate. We just want to oarticipate. And
our policy is one of inclusion, not exclusion. We've never said we
are a majority, by ourselves." —Ralph Reed, head of Pat
Robertson's "Christian Coalition," on A B C ' s "World News
Tonight," July 23, 1994.
Shortly after watching Brother R e e d say what he said
on the T V evening news, I laid me down to sleep: and, as
I slept, I dreamed a dream (a nightmare, actually). I
dreamed how different Scripture would be if G o d had
commanded H i s people to exercise participation, not do-
minion. I call my dream (nightmare) " T h e Pilgrim's R e -
gress."
First, the beginning would be very different. I n Gen-
esis 1:26 and 28, G o d would have told us: " A n d G o d said,
L e t us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them participate with the fish of the sea, and with the fowl
of the air, and with the cattle, and with all the earth, and
with every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Obviously, with man merely a participant, he would have
been simply an equal of all other creatures.
I n Genesis 27:40, G o d would have had Isaac say to
E s a u : " A n d by the sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve
thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt
participate, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy
neck." How, exactly, participation would achieve the
stated result here is, admittedly, not clear.
In Genesis 37:8, Joseph's brothers would have said to
him, re: his dream: "Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or
shalt thou indeed participate with us?" T o which Joseph
would have, obviously, replied: "No, I do not wish to
dominate you. M y policy is one of inclusion, not exclu-
sion. I've never said I am a majority, by myself."
I n Numbers 24:19, G o d would have said: "Out of Jacob
shall come he that shall participate, and shall destroy him
that remaineth of the city." B u t , again, admittedly, just
exactly how simple participation would have achieved
this result, is not clear.
I n Judges 5:13, in the Song of Deborah, we would,
instead, read G o d as saying: " T h e n he made him that
remaineth be a participant with the nobles among the
people: the L O R D made me a participant with the
mighty." A participant with the mighty? Y e p , that's what
it would have said. I know, it does kinda take the edge off
the passage.
I n Judges 14:4, G o d would tell us how the Philistines
"participated with Israel."
Kings 4:24, G o d would have,told us of the splendor of
Solomon and how "he had participated with all the region
on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to A z z a h ,
participated with all the kings on this side of the river: and
he had peace on all sides round about him." Peace through
participation! Y e s , that's what this verse would have said.
I n I K i n g s 9:19, G o d w o u l d have told us about
Solomon's possessions and desires in all of that area
where he "participated."
Ditto, I I Kings 20:13. G o d would have told us about
Hezekiah's doings in that area where he, too, "partici-
pated."
I n I Chronicles 4:22, G o d would tell us of the "partici-
pation" of J o k i m , and the men of Chozeba, and Joash,
and Saraph, in Moab, and Jashubilehem.
In I Chronicles 18:3, G o d would tell us how D a v i d
"smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he
went to stablish his participation by the river Euphrates."
T h i s "participation," incidentally, resulted in D a v i d tak-
ing thousands of chariots, horsemen and footmen. I mean,
when D a v i d "participated," he really "participated."
I n I I Chronicles 8:6, G o d would tell us, again, about
Solomon and the "land of his participation."
I n I I Chronicles 21:8, G o d would tell us how the
"Edomites revolted from under the participation of Judah,
and made themselves a king."
I n Nehemiah 9:28, we would read of those who were
left "in the hand of their enemies, so that they partici-
pated with them. . . ." A n d , in verse 37, we would read of
those who, because they sinned, were subjected to having
kings "participate with our bodies, with our cattle, at their
pleasure, and we are in great distress."
I n Job 25:2, G o d would have Bildad the Shuhite say-
ing: "Participation and fear are with him, he maketh peace
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
in his high places."
A n d in Job 38:33, G o d would, instead, have asked Job:
"Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set
the participation thereof in the earth?"
In Psalm 8:6, speaking of man, G o d would say: " T h o u
madest him to participate in the works of thy hands; thou
hast allowed him to participate in all things under (oops!,
I mean) participating with his feet."
In Psalm 19:13, D a v i d would ask that presumptuous
sins not be allowed to engage in participation with him.
I n Psalm 49:14, we would read about how the upright
would "participate" with fools and brutish persons.
I n Psalm 72:8, we would read how the formerly sover-
eign G o d will now "participate from sea to sea, and from
the river unto the ends of the earth."
In Psalm 103:22, we would be heartened by David's
magisterial description of G o d , and H i s command: "Bless
the L O R D , all his works in all his places of participation:
bless the L O R D , O my soul."
In Psalm 119:133, we'd read the anguished cry: "Order
my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity participate
with me."
A n d , in Psalm 145:13, our breath would be taken away
as we would read about how God's kingdom is "an ever-
lasting kingdom, and H i s participation endureth through-
out all generations."
I n Isaiah 26:13, we would hear the great prophet say:
" O L O R D our G o d , other lords beside thee have partici-
pated with us: but by thee only will we make mention of
thy name." G o d as "participant." Awesome, no?
I n D a n i e l 4:3, we would hear God's Word exclaim:
" H o w great are his signs! and how mighty are his won-
ders! H i s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his
participation is from generation to generation."
A n d in I Peter 4:11, we would be commanded to glo-
rify G o d in all things through Jesus Christ, "to whom be
praise and participation for ever and ever. A m e n . "
B u t , enough already. Y o u get the point.
I suddenly woke up — realizing that, literally, thank
G o d ! — God's W o r d was still God's Word, and that we
are called to exercise not "participation" but "domin-
ion," in God's Name and through H i s Word. We are, on
earth, as in heaven, to do H i s W i l l , not "our policy." A n d ,
as regards who, exactly, is to be included, or excluded,
well, this is God's decision, not ours. H e is the "majority"
of One who rules for ever and ever. A m e n .
John Lofton is presently speaking on: ' T h e Spiritual
War W e A r e I n and H o w G o d Commands U s to
Fight It: W h y Christians A r e So Numerous yet, A l a s ,
So Powerless in A m e r i c a Today.' T o negotiate di-
rectly with John regarding a speaking date, you can
fax him at: (301)953-3423, or write him at:
313 Montgomery St.
L a u r e l , M D 20707
7

SUBSIDIZING SIN
By Joseph R. McAuliffe
"The major flaw of the modern welfare state is not that it's
extravagant with money, but that it's stingy with the help that
only a person can give: love, time, care, and hope." Marvin
Olasky — The Tragedy of American Compassion.
Olasky's point is only half right — the modern welfare
state is extravagant with money. George Mason Univer-
sity economist Walter Williams has stated: " T h e money
spent on poverty programs since the 1960's could have
bought the entire assets of the Fortune 500 companies and
virtually all the U S farmland.'" Wall Street Journal edito-
rial writer John Fund notes that "since 1965, the U S has
spent $5 trillion on means tested welfare.'"
Lyndon Johnson's first welfare budget was a scant $2
billion. When Jimmy Carter left office it had escalated to
$150 billion. T h e welfare budget doubled during the puta-
tive "decade of greed." T h i s year the federal, state, and
local governments will spend nearly $400 billion — a 10,000
percent spending increase since the W a r on Poverty's
founder declared that "this investment would return its
cost to our entire economy.'"
L e t ' s consider the cost of investing in welfare. Heritage
Foundation analyst Robert Rector states that welfare
spending has amounted to "more than the full cost of
W o r l d W a r I I after adjusting for inflation." Not only did
all that spending fail to end poverty, rather it appears to
have institutionalized it. Most of the money hasn't gone to
the poor people, but to what P . J . O ' R o u r k e calls the
poverty pests — the professional welfare-dispensing class
of bureaucrats, consultants, academics, social workers,
institutes, and "community action" groups. Wisconsin
Governor T o m m y Thompson laments: " T h e tragedy of
the Welfare State is not how much it costs, but how little
progress it has bought.'"
Welfare roles have ballooned from two million families
in 1970 to over five million today. Nearly sixty-five per-
cent of the people on welfare at any given time will be on
the program for eight years or longer. Michael Tanner,
Director of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Insti-
tute, says that "Welfare is increasingly inter-generational.
Children raised in families on welfare are seven times
more likely to become dependent on welfare than are
other children.'" New Jersey lawmaker Wayne B . Bryant,
a black Democrat from Camden, says, "Welfare is a mod-
ern-day form of what I call slavery.'""
Recently the Maryland N A A C P concluded that the
"ready access to a lifetime of welfare and social service
programs is a major contributory factor to the crime prob-
lem we have today." Tanner notes that welfare contrib-
utes to crime by destroying the family structure and break-
ing down the bonds of community: "Welfare contributes
8 CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
to the social marginalization of young black males by
making them irrelevant to the family. Their role has been
supplanted by the Welfare State.'"
The impetus behind B i l l Clinton's campaign cliche to
"end welfare as we know it" is its role in fomenting the
defining lifestyle of the underclass: illegitimacy. I n 1960,
only 5.3 percent of births were out of wedlock. Today,
nearly 30 percent of births are illegitimate. Thirty years
ago. New Y o r k Senator D a n i e l Patrick Moynihan warned
that the 25 percent illegitimacy rate among African A m e r i -
cans was reaching a critical mass that would lead to disas-
trous social pathologies in black neighborhoods through-
out the country. Welfare has contributed to the explosion
of gangs, drugs, unemployment, violence, the fatherless
family, and the present 65 percent illegitimacy rate in
black neighborhoods.
Charles Murray, the noted author of Losing Ground,
which documents the abject failure of the welfare system,
wrote in a Wall Street Journal article this year: "Illegiti-
macy is the single most important social problem of our
time, more important than crime, drugs, illiteracy, wel-
fare, or homelessness, because it drives everything else."
Murray cites that the illegitimacy rate in the white com-
munity today is where it was among blacks when Moynihan
blew his trumpet. O f the 1.2 million illegitimate births in
the U S last year (up from 225,000 in 1963), more than
700,000 were to white women. T h e survey statistics show
that the overwhelming majority of these mothers are no
Murphy Browns, but poorly skilled, low income women.
A household headed by a single mother is six times as
likely to live in poverty than a two parent household.
Steven H a y w a r d , Research Director for the Pacific R e -
search Institute in San Francisco, remarks, " I t is no longer
in dispute that illegitimacy is the gateway to long term
welfare dependency."
" R a c e is not the issue," editorializes the Tampa Tri-
bune, "consider this significant but overlooked fact: T h e
crime rates for blacks and whites raised in two parent
households are virtually the same." However, the federal
government welfare system rewards unmarried teenage
girls who have babies with A . F . D . C . monies, food stamps,
housing, health care, and other social services. A l l the
benefits are contingent upon remaining unmarried. W e l -
fare subsidizes sin. Jack K e m p has said that " i f you want
more of something — subsidize it; if you want less — tax
it." Perhaps in our welfare reform talks that equation
should be considered.
Welfare effects and abuses are so disheartening that
Charles Murray's proposal to "terminate welfare" has
gained considerable ground from thoughtful liberals, such
as Charles Krauthammer, Clarence Page, and Mickey Kaus
who recently wrote in the New Republic: " T r y this. Don't
reform welfare. Don't reinvent it. When it comes to ille-
gitimacy, abolish it." George W i l l recounts the story
Charles M . Sennott of the Boston Globe reported on the
extended family of Eulalia Riviera who moved from Puerto
Rico in 1968 to the Boston housing project. She has four-
teen children ranging in ages from their early 20's to 48,
who all are also on welfare. Riviera has seventy-four grand-
children, and fifteen great-grandchildren "virtually all of
whom have come of age in the welfare system, and many
are beginning to apply for welfare themselves."
One of Riviera's daughters, Clarabell, was arrested af-
ter the scalding of one of her six children. When asked the
whereabouts of the five fathers of those children, one of
Clarabell's brothers (he says he is on welfare because of a
"nervous condition") said, " O h , wow. I have no idea." A t
the home of another R i v i e r a son who is on welfare be-
cause of "bad nerves," Sennott says that two of Riviera's
grandchildren, age 11 and 16, sat watching M T V at 1:30
P M on a school day. T h e R i v i e r a family of about one
hundred may be costing the taxpayers up to $1 million a
year. One of Riviera's daughters, who does not work
because of what she calls "anxiety attacks," gets $820 per
month, plus Medicaid, plus a subsidized apartment. When
Sennott informed her of taxpayers' anger over welfare
abuse, she said, "Just tell them to keep paying" and then
slammed down the phone.*
Nearly thirty years to the day after L B J launched his
War on Poverty, B i l l Clinton released his eagerly antici-
pated welfare reforms. Despite the campaign tough talk
— "two years and out" — his plan consists mostly of half-
hearted work programs yoked to increased spending. E v e n
liberal Iowa Senator T o m H a r k i n scoffs at the proposed
public sector job scheme: " T h e whole idea of government
jobs for everyone. What kind of nonsense is that? W e
don't have the money for that.'"
The nub of the Clinton proposal is to require welfare
recipients to agree to education, job training, or place-
ment. Welfare mothers under age 25 who refuse would
face a reduction or cutoff in cash benefits, generally after
two years, with exemptions for new mothers or those
unable to work. U n l i k e businesses or individuals who
attempt to reform something by cutting costs, the Clinton
welfare plan costs $9.5 billion over five years. However,
Mark Greenberg, an attorney with the Center of L a w and
Social Policy, estimates that the cost could be nearly that
much in a single year. L i b e r a l critics are demanding that
welfare moms receive wages high enough to lift their
families well beyond the poverty range. Representative
Harold E . F o r d ( D . T e n n . ) favors a $9 an hour wage for
public sector jobs: " W e can't expect welfare recipients to
flip hamburgers at $5 an hour.'""
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every
welfare created job will cost $3,300 in monitoring costs
alone. Recent history provides us with two examples of
government " w o r k f a r e " programs. T h e Congressional
Employment and Training A c t Program employed 750,000
people in the 1970's. Y e t Congress, acting entirely out of
character, actually abolished C E T A in 1982 because of
the rampant corruption and waste. T h e n in 1988 R o n a l d
Reagan enacted a "workfare" reform that subsequently
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
has provided work for only one percent of the welfare
population. T h e program has cost $13 billion instead of
the promised $3 billion and the number of families on
A F D C rose to 5 million by 1993 instead of 1998 as the
experts had predicted."
Compounding the government's inane welfare policies
is its studied antagonism toward religious faith which is
the central component in changing a person's life. Wash-
ington Post columnist, William Raspberry recently wrote:
"the most successful programs for dealing with the
underclass have less to do with technique than with trans-
formation of a specifically religious k i n d . . . . T h e problem
is that the funders of social programs for the poor — the
government, of course, but also foundations — have a
built-in resistance to funding religion."
I f government would extricate itself from the poverty
industry, it could lower taxes and not concern itself with
funding religion. Churches, families, private associations,
and other religious and charitable organizations are ex-
ceedingly more efficient in helping the poor than the
faceless secular governments. Mr. Olasky cites the success
of nineteenth century social workers: "they held that com-
passion required both warm hearts and hard heads. They
believed anti-poverty programs worked only when local
communities were actively involved and that such pro-
grams were truly compassionate when they stressed per-
sonal responsibility."
' William J . Bennett, "The Moral Origins of the Urban Crisis,"
Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1992 A8.
' John H . Fund, "Welfare: Putting People First", Wall Street
Journal, June 14, 1994, AS.
' "Punting on Welfare", Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1994, A8.
** Steven Moore, National Review, May 11, 1992, p. 36.
' Michael Tanner, "Just Abolish Welfare", USA Today, July
27, 1994, 12A.
^ Paul Magnusson, "Reforming Welfare", Business Week, June
13, 1994, p. 59.
' Tanner, USA Today, 12A.
* George Will, "Orwell in New Jersey", Newsweek, March 24,
1994, p. 84.
' Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1994, AS.
'"Magnuson, Business Week, p.60.
""Sensible Welfare Reform is Unlikely", Tampa Tribune, Feb.
25, 1994, p. 13. .
SAMUEL'S
YARDSTICK
By John Upton
"Man strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully
as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship
9
 what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would
agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are
concerned not only to find what one or the other can
worship, but to find something that all would believe in
and worship; what is essential is that they all can be to-
gether in it. This craving for community of worship is the
chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity
from the beginning of time." Dostoevsky, THE GRAND
INQUISITOR
"Now, here is the king you asked for; you chose him
and the LORD has set a king over you. If you will revere
the LORD and give true and loyal service, if you do not
rebel against His commands, and if you and the king who
reigns over you are faithful to the LORD your God, well
and good; but if you do not obey the LORD, and if you
rebel against His commands, then He will set His face
against you and against your king. " (I Samuel 12)
Samuel's conflict with the Israelites imparts a very
important lesson to us. I t contrasts individual service and
loyalty under God's with the ugliness of human correct-
ness. I t illustrates God's affection for his imperfect ser-
vant, and God's disdain for the herd Samuel was given to
lead. It provides men today with a model of conduct that
so few of us emulate, contrasted with a "community of
worship" that G o d regards as a vile abomination. T h e
community of the herd appeals to man naturally, the
challenge to go it alone, under G o d , is one that, in most
cases, goes unanswered.
God and Samuel were talking one day. I n the back of
Samuel's mind the town gossip was raging. T h e pious
elders and judges were murmuring that old Samuel was
washed up. T h e women cackled and carried tales about
Samuel's sons. T h e pundits lusted after the ideal of a
political state, one that was administered by the elite, and
the correct. " W e ' v e had enough of the loner Samuel!"
" W h a t does he k n o w ? L o o k at how w e l l our enemies
are doing! L o o k at the sins of a l l those other people!
We need government! A king! T h e n things w i l l be dif-
ferent . . . T h e r e w i l l be new laws to force those sinners
into compliance, the government can take care of those
needy beggars, those war widowed and orphaned, we
need new programs . . . and if it means paying more in
taxes, so be i t . . . give us a king!" Dostoyevsky gives us a
view of the hell that the Israelites clamored for:
"We shall show them that they are weak, that they are only
pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of
all. They will become timid and look to us and huddle close to
us in fear, as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at us and be
awe — stricken before us, and be proud of our being so proud
and clever. They will tremble impotently before our wrath,
their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears
like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign
from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing. Oh, we shall allow
them to sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us
10
like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them
that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission,
that we allow them to sin because we love them." ( T h e
Inquisitor's Utopia, T H E G R A N D I N Q U I S I T O R )
How foolish we are when we turn our backs to God,
and seek our own wisdom as a substitute. H o w vile it is
when we judge and attack others who don't measure up to
human understandings. H o w frustrating it was for our
hero Samuel, to endure the withering attacks and judge-
ments of the apostate Israelites. Martin Selbrede, a bril-
liant Chalcedon man, has shed some light on the character
(men like this have none — they are cowards) of people
like the Israelites who make a career out of harping on the
shortcomings of others. I n his A M I C U S C U R I A E ,
Selbrede quotes Alfred Plummer, c. 1903. "No man who
habitually considers his own transgressions will be eager
to be severe upon the transgressions of others . . . Indul-
gence in the habit of prying into the acts and motives of
others leaves us little time and less liking for searching
carefully into our own acts and motives . . . H e who con-
stantly expresses his detestation of evil by denouncing the
evil doings of his brethren is not the man most likely to
express his detestation of it by the holiness in his own life;
and the man whose whole life is a protest against sin is not
the man most given to protesting against sinners." Mea
Culpa. Let's all beg G o d to mature us out of that type of
behavior.
"There are many who know theologically the way of salvation;
they could answer satisfactorily many questions in theology;
they know the difference between falsehood and truth; yet
their feet are set in the broad way, and their faces are towards
the City of Destruction. What they (need) is another heart.
Your life requires to be set on fire with the love of God. 'With
the heart man believeth in righteousness' 'My son, give Me
thine heart!' We shall not be saved by the number and excel-
lence of our intellectual ideas, but because we have cast our
whole heart at the feet of the Saviour of the world, who came to
teach men the love of God." ( P a r k e r ) L e t us all beg G o d for
a new heart.
G o d a n s w e r e d S a m u e l . G o d too had h e a r d the
grumblings and from His vantage point, unlike Samuel's,
He knew the exact cause. Parker paraphrases for us:
" Y o u are quite mistaken, my excellent son, Samuel. T h e
matter is not as you see it; looked at from your vantage
point, the elders of Israel seem to have a very strong and
excellent case against you. B u t Samuel, the elders of
Israel have rejected me, they have not rejected you. They
are making a tool out of you; to them you are merely a
convenience, a scapegoat. They claim to be very deeply
concerned about the moral apostasy of your sons, (and
the slippage of the culture); they don't care one pin point
about it; they are overjoyed to be able to seize upon
anything that will seem to give a good coloring to their
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
case. Samuel, Israel has cast off its G o d . I s it a wonder
then, that Israel should cast off the servant?"
So the question arises . . . what should we do when
faced with unbelieving, foolish and rebellious dissenters?
What should we do when attacked by people who claim
they have our best interest at heart, and are doing it for
our own good, i f only we weren't blind, we'd be able to
see? What do we do with rebellious and dissenting loved
ones when they claim that we have "changed", and are a
part of some "cult"?
O r some church friends who "likes you personally",
but feel your "interpretation" of things is a bit off? What
you do is you pull out Samuel's Yardstick. Samuel said.
Here I am. Lay your complaints against me in the presence
of the Lord . . .
Number one: B e honest enough to admit to the fact
that you are a sinner and are apt to wrong people natu-
rally. Number two: Put your detractors on notice that
they are bringing the case before Almighty G o d , who will
see, hear, and judge in perfect righteousness, all matters,
and w i l l , it is promised, judge you according to the way
you judge others. "Whose ox have I taken . . . " Number
three, have your detractors be specific. What in concrete
terms have I done? "Whom have I wronged!" What part
of the L a w have I not kept concerning you? "Whom have
I oppressed!"
I f your detractors are your children, have you bur-
dened them with the cruel and unjust restraints and im-
positions of your selfish whims and emotions, or have you
yoked them to God's law? I f your detractor is your wife,
have you harshly exercised your physical, intellectual, or
financial power over her? H a v e you threatened her secu-
rity, or have you treated her the way you would want G o d
to treat you if you were in her position? "From whom
have I taken a bribe!" I f your detractor is under your
authority, have you been corrupted by something? Has
something you value or covet been offered to you that
you've taken, which has compromised your ability to
provide the service or function they depend upon you
for? H a v e you left a job undone because it's become
tedious and boring? H a v e you forgotten the responsibili-
ties you have agreed to perform? Y e a r s back, I was con-
tacted by an anti-abortion enthusiast who sought to im-
press me by the fact that he was imprisoned for two years
for habitually harassing an abortion clinic and defying a
court order. " O h how I suffer for the F a i t h " , he bleated. I
asked him about his employment. " O h , I lost my job, but
G o d provides." H o w , I asked, are your wife and three
children being supported? " O h they get handouts from
people in the church."
"To whom have I turned a blind eye!" T h i s is a fright-
ful question. Was there need that you pretended did not
exist? H a v e you ignored a person who could benefit from
your wisdom or service? H a v e you enabled a person to
harm himself or sink further into sin because you were
remiss to correct him? Were you too meek? L a z y ? I n this
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
time of great need and misery, have you done all you can
for others, keeping in mind that what you don't do for the
needy you don't do for G o d Himself? H a v e you allowed
an injustice, or listened to gossip without protest? W e all
have . . . let's stop it! "Tell me, and I will make restitu-
tion." Samuel points out that there is protection from the
attacks of subjective emotionalism. This protection is his
yardstick. B u t duty comes with the protection. I f you
haven't measured up, you must make restitution! When
you make it right it heals two wounds . . . the victim and
the perpetrator. I f your hands are empty, as Samuel's
were in this case, you can continue on and not look back
at the jackals biting at your heels. I f you are at fault . . .
it's time to pay up.
TWOSfflFTSIN
CONSCIOUSNESS
By R.E. McMasters, Jr.
B o t h the individual and collective levels of awareness
are dependent upon how people subjectively interpret
objective phenomena. Put differently, a l l of us interpret
the objective world subjectively based upon our vocabu-
lary, categories of understanding, frames of references
and experience. One of the overwhelming influences of
technology is that technology establishes, indeed dic-
tates, the way in which people generally interpret their
world. F o r example, we are living at the end of the
Mechanistic A g e , brought on by the advent of the auto-
mobile. Industrial nomenclature, the verbiage of the fac-
tory, is still the primary mindset the majority uses to
describe its political and economic processes. It perme-
ates our contemporary news. E v e n our schools still main-
tain the design and methodology of the industrial fac-
tory. B u t a shift is most definitely and definitively taking
place. The shift is from a mechanistic (mechanical) world
view to that of a computerized world view, and more
specifically, a bio-computerized, virtual reality world view.
The explosive growth and widespread use of com-
puter technology, filtering into the mindset of the gen-
eral public over the past two decades, has led to this
change in perception of the world in which we live and
the way it works. Couple that with the fax machine, fiber
optics, and holographic reality, and the result is we are
now beginning to "see" the world differently. B u t these
shifts take place slowly, and normally take at least a
generation (40 years) to become primary. W h e n the shift
reaches the explosive exponential point of mass human
consciousness, a significant alteration will take place in
all our institutions. W e are approaching such a thresh-
old, as the Information A g e expands.
One of the painful fallouts of this massive adjust-
ment/readjustment is that the synergy between comput-
ers and mechanization is eliminating jobs, permanently.
People, workers, are becoming increasingly unnecessary.
U n t i l the "Nasty Nineties," it was widely held to be true
that the level of a person's income and status in life was
dependent upon his level of education. Education was
the economic god, so to speak. T h i s god has now been
slain. W e are learning what the Argentineans learned by
economic fire in the 1980s, that it is the demand of the
marketplace in a chaotic (feminine) economy that de-
termines economic wherewithal, not formal, factory like,
status-based education. ( H e r e , by the way, is where the
Clintonistas miss the boat. T h e y are still living in the old
paradigm, the status-based, fascist/socialistic, educa-
tional expert, immoral paradigm. It is bringing on cha-
otic disaster.)
Who makes it economically in today's world? Those
who have demand-side, hands-on education, avant-garde
education, and experience in providing goods and ser-
vices demanded by the marketplace. T o d a y ' s world of
speed-of-light communication (fiber optics/satellites)
goes to those who are visionaries, entrepreneurs, risk-
takers, those on the cutting edge who deliver the de-
manded goods and services, as well as those who are
long-term and service oriented, who supply the basics of
life in a state-of-the-art way. T h i s "new world disorder"
in which we live, requires — nay even demands — a yin
and yang, positive/negative, acid/alkaline, clockwise/
counter-clockwise, masculine/feminine balance. It re-
quires an integrated linear vector and a cycle, vortices —
spirals if you will — to achieve in a balanced way the
demands of the age. T h e pre-creation void, the black
hole of space, the energy-rich charged potential of the
womb, so to speak, needs the directional, life-bringing
masculine linear vector to frame it with laws, give it
direction, and anchor its creativity so it can be produc-
tive and progressive. I n a world struggling to find the
balance between the one and the many, between the
collective and the individual, between the feminine and
the masculine, recognition of this truism is vital. Without
the horizontal balance and the simultaneous vertical hi-
erarchy of authority, chaos and anarchy reign. W h y ?
Because we are already too close to the edge of the dark
abyss of total chaos (feminine). It takes a real juggling
act today to maintain balance, direction, and creativity
in life.
Few can conceive of the importance of the Eastern yin/
yang balance and of the simultaneous Western direc-
tional/hierarchal/masculine lead vector. It is the emphasis
on diversity, individuality, a masculine impulse, which
leads to risk-taking, progress, the multiplicity of richness
of the marketplace, progress, and eventually unity in soci-
ety. Y e s , diversity produces unity because the diversity of
specialization in the division of labor yields to coopera-
12
tion in the exchange of goods and services and thereby
harmony. T h e many voluntarily become the one. A t the
same time, without the gentle, kind and collective chaotic
feminine impulse to balance, the marketplace becomes
cutthroat and warlike, legalistic, harsh, destroying itself.
Thus the acid legalism of the masculine impulse, by itself,
kills. It needs the alkaline feminine offset.
While this overemphasis on masculinity has been a
primary issue in earlier Western civilization, it is not the
primary issue today. Today the pendulum has swung too
far the other way, toward the collective, the democratic,
the feminine, where the focus is on security, acceptance/
approval and control. These natural basic biological in-
stincts, when not held in check, destroy the very essence
of themselves, resulting in chaos and anarchy, a dark
empty economic womb, if you will. This tragically is where
we are rapidly moving today, at a time when the effort to
stop time, call an end to history, kill progress, establish
total control, security, and politically correct approval, is
at its height. W e would expect as much, with lesbian-
based witchcraft, the extreme of the feminine democratic
collective principle, running the country today.
The ruling natural occult sequence is to cycle from
order to chaos in the fulfillment of the Hegelian dialec-
tic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. B u t cycles are, by
definition, non-progressive. Thus, out of the emerging
chaos and anarchy we should expect to arise, in the
natural order of things, a compensating hyper-masculine
figure, our version of a pharaoh if you will. It will be an
ugly synthesis for the freedom-loving, but then again,
freedom is an open system, and the primary mindset
paradigms in operation today remain Newtonian, closed
system.
T h i s brings us to the second major shift of conscious-
ness which is just emerging among those who think, live
and work at the cutting edge. This perspective has not
even yet begun to dawn on the mass consciousness. It is
this: It is the now-proven spiritual, scientific, economic
reality that the "field" electromagnetic phenomenon, not
only influences but determines — is prior to — physical
Newtonian reality. Living energy, energy as information,
determines matter. I am convinced that the reason the
likes of honest money, true free markets, free energy
machines, energy and alternative medicine are brutally
persecuted and shut down by the closed system-loving
establishment is because such bring about a radical trans-
formation in the conceptual thinking of the mass mind,
literally a paradigm shift. I f open system thinking be-
came widespread and generally accepted in mass human
consciousness, it would shortly render the establishment
powerless. T h e establishment, after a l l , depends on a
comprehensive expensive campaign of ongoing decep-
tion through public education and the mass media to
maintain power. T h e New World Order establishment
can maintain its control, its elitism, and get filthy rich as
long as the public is trapped in the lie of an exclusive
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Newtonian closed system, its second law of thermo-dy-
namics entropy, and its modus operandi of conflict,
change, cycles poverty, and death. After all, if the masses
can remain convinced that we live in a world of scarcity,
of conflict, of chance, etc., then the ruling elite can jus-
tify its existence by being referees (in a token w a y ) , and
doling out in some inequitable fashion, so-called scarce
resources. T h e r e is never enough to go around in a closed
system. Therefore, someone has to referee the conflict.
T h a t ' s the establishment, the New W o r l d Order govern-
ment, the global parasite.
On the other hand, with a massive shift in conscious-
ness from a closed to an open system, from death to life,
from a dark spiral down to a plentiful open-ended light
spiral up, the Newtonian closed system philosophy of
conflict, chance, cycles, poverty, and death, wilts. T i m e
and time again, in brief flashes of history, where the
open system methodology of freedom generally free mar-
kets, free energy machines, the open system of energetic
health, of honest, open, free market money in an open
system of self-governing (supernatural) law is allowed to
manifest, mankind flourishes with the parasitic bureau-
cratic government and ruling elite diminishing accord-
ingly. T h i s is what is emerging presently. I t is a l l the
insider establishment can do to keep the lid on it pres-
ently. There either has to be total control now, a com-
prehensive suffocating, bureaucratic New W o r l d Order,
or the international banking system and its ilk which has
plagued us for nearly 500 years, and its ruling elite, are
dead in the water. Thus, the urgency of the New W o r l d
Order. It is a race against time, against the computeriza-
tion and dissemination of knowledge and information,
bringing about knowledge, understanding and wisdom,
of the many ways in which man can better himself
through the open system's abstract and following con-
crete reality.
The primary contradiction (so designed) of the New
Age, with its emphasis on the natural earth-based reli-
gion of environmentalism, is that it focuses in large part
on open system technology, while maintaining a closed
system (natural) philosophy of government, religion and
economics. A g a i n , this is not accidental. It is deliberate,
purposeful. F o r example, "Hillary the Hippie," as she
was known in the '60s, established her values in the
radically chaotic 1960s when G o d was officially pro-
nounced dead. This spiritual void was attempted to be
filled in the '70s, but in the '80s particularly, by material-
ism, of which R o n a l d Reagan was the foremost propo-
nent. T h u s , the egregious expansion of debt (death) oc-
curred in the 1980s. T h i s orgy of materialism (debt-based
death) proved to be unsatisfying, empty, to the human
spirit and so the pendulum has now swung back toward
spiritualism. B u t this time, since G o d is officially dead, it
is a neo-pagan spiritualism, a return to the "natural"
Newtonian earth-based religions with their fallen spirits
of antiquity. I t is the religion of empire, of B a b y l o n , of
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
ancient Egypt.
In this neo-pagan framework, one is either in the elite,
or part of the ruling bureaucracy, or one loses. It is as
simple as that. Power accrues at the top. Thus, that strat-
egy of the New W o r l d Order banksters is to bring about
global crises, resulting in chaos, from which the New
W o r l d Order can emerge, with a world central bank, a
world court, effectively a world parliament, a global reli-
gion, a one-world military, and all the rest of it. T h e n ,
once in total control, probably aided and abetted by a
high-tech sound and light show of U F O s (which have
been around since at least the early 1950s), the ruling
elite of the New W o r l d Order can take the lid off all of
this quantum, open system-based reality and give the
masses free energy, open system energetic medicine,
gold-based money, and on and on, which paradoxically,
they would seek to totally control, but only after the
global population has first been dramatically reduced by
at least 2 billion. After all, in a world of computerized
technology, what in the world are we going to do with all
these useless people? "Mother E a r t h " must be cleansed.
I n the New A g e of D a r k Enlightenment, since "God is
dead" who gets to rule religiously? T h e biblical concept
that "God is light" has been replaced by the New W o r l d
Order elitists. I t is about to be resurrected in a new form,
by a new god. W h o indeed but a substitute "light bearer"
will fill the bill? A natural, created angel of light? T h e
logical candidate to fill this "light" void is Lucifer. It is
thus no accident that for the past several centuries,
Luciferianism has been the guiding religion of what has
now evolved (sic) into fascist New W o r l d Order elitism.
W i t h the breakdown of the earth's magnetic field, and
the resultant boundary between open and closed systems
becoming increasingly indistinct, expect New Age magi-
cians to shortly begin "wowing" the masses in prepara-
tion for the neo-pagan spiritualist New W o r l d Order.
The old paradigm, which is dead at the cutting edge, is
the old theory of evolution, as we were taught it, the
concept that we all evolved meaninglessly by chance out
of the primordial mud and slime. T h e new reality is that
the "field," energy as living information, light, created
the physical Newtonian world in which we live. W e ' r e
back to spirit preceding matter, sans Creator.
I n Spring of 1994, the Luciferian white magic of the
New Age began linking up with the Satanic black magic
of voodoo in Boulder, C o l o r a d o . . . . It is no accident that
the Rolling Stones new album, Voodoo Lounge, was re-
leased J u l y 12, followed by an August 1 world tour be-
ginning, of course, in Washington, D . C . T h e number of
R o l l i n g Stones concerts in the U . S . ? Thirteen, of course.
Witchcraft is basically the self-willed humanistic ma-
nipulation of energy for personal power and control over
matter. Environmentalism is witchcraft based, because
witchcraft worships "Mother E a r t l i . " T h e environmen-
talists love of wilderness is the opposite of God's per-
spective of man having dominion over a garden.
13

JUSTIFICATION: THE
"PRINCIPAL HINGE
OE RELIGION"
By Andrew Sandlin
Introduction
What is justification? It is the legal declaration of
righteousness. Theologically, it is the act of G o d ' s de-
claring a human being righteous and therefore entitled
to eternal life. I n the words of C a l v i n , " H e is justified
who is considered not as a sinner, but as a righteous
person, and on that account stands in safety before the
tribunal of G o d , where all sinners are confounded and
ruined.'" T h i s doctrine has been given the clearest and
most extensive treatment and expression in historic Prot-
estantism. T h e Protestant doctrine of justification has a
certain biographical background. A s an A u g u s t i n i a n
monk, Martin L u t h e r struggled with the meaning of R o -
mans 1:17. H o w could the gospel ("good news") reveal
the righteousness of G o d ? H e knew himself to be an
abject sinner. H o w then could there be good news in the
revelation of God's righteousness? L u t h e r knew G o d
was impeccably holy, while he himself was deeply sinful
— this is bad news, not good news. G o d ' s righteousness
offered little hope to Martin, because it only magnified
his own sinfulness. L u t h e r later came to understand that
the righteousness of which Paul writes is not G o d ' s i n -
herent righteousness — that is, G o d ' s righteousness in
Himself — but rather the righteousness of Christ that is
freely given to us sinners.'
Legal righteousness
Central to L u t h e r ' s — and St. Paul's — understanding
of justification is its strictly "forensic" or legal character.
Justification is a legal reckoning — it changes the sinner's
standing before G o d , but not his internal condition. T h i s
dimension is easily demonstrated from our own experi-
ence: because human justice is imperfect, there have been
many cases in history of the judicial exoneration of a
truly guilty individual. T h e verdict "Not G u i l t y " alters his
legal standing; it in no way alters his depraved condition.
L i k e w i s e , many truly innocent individuals have been
wrongly convicted of crime. T h e " G u i l t y " verdict alters
their judicial standing, but it in no way alters their actual
upright behavior.
Tangent to this forensic idea is the conviction that the
righteousness by which we are justified is "alien"; that is,
it is outside ourselves, it is another's righteousness at
which G o d looks when H e justifies sinners. T h u s , L u t h e r
could contend that the converted are simultaneously sin-
ners and righteous. E x p e r i e n t i a l l y they are sinners
(though, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, progres-
14
sively less sinful); they continue to sin in life. I n the
throne room of heaven, however, they are righteous.
Covenant Theology
T h e Calvinists of the seventeenth century developed a
coherent theory as to how this relation between G o d ,
man, law, sin and eternal life works. It is called covenant
theology — comprised of the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace. According to this view of confessional
Calvinism, " T h e first covenant made with man," in the
words of the Westminster Confession, "was a covenant of
works, wherein life was promised to A d a m , and in him to
his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obe-
dience"' I n the covenant of works, unflinching adherence
to God's law entitled one to eternal life, while violation
of God's law elicited eternal death and condemnation.
Because of man's sin, however, G o d introduced a second
covenant, the covenant of grace, according to which it
pleased G o d to send his Son to conform Himself infalli-
bly to the law, and to suffer the penalty of death for its
violation. T h e entire scheme was vicarious: since eternal
life is granted only to the individual who lives in flawless
conformity to divine law, and since mankind had sinned
in A d a m , it was necessary for Christ to keep the law and
suffer its penalty on their behalf.
Ci
The law of God
T h e vital function of God's law in this scheme cannot
be overemphasized. Impeccable righteousness that re-
sults from infallible law-keeping is the only title to eter-
nal life. B u t since man in his federal head A d a m forfeited
his infallible lawkeeping, it was necessary to establish a
second federal Head, the Second A d a m , Christ {Rom.
5:12-21). T o assert that flawless conformity to the law
does not entitle one to eternal life is to make a mockery
of God's pre-fall covenant with A d a m . T h e numerous
texts in Scripture which declare that salvation is not by
law-keeping (e.g., Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:16) must be under-
stood within the context of the covenant of grace. F o r the
elect, the covenant of works was superseded precisely
because man's sin rendered him incapable of the legal
obedience of which eternal life is the reward. I n the
covenant of grace, Christ becomes the substitute for sin-
ful man: H e conforms Himself infallibly to God's law
because the elect sinners cannot. H e bears on the cross
the penalty for law-breaking — not H i s own, but the law-
breaking of elect sinners. I n this manner, the integrity of
the law is not compromised. Indeed, it cannot be compro-
mised, for it is a reflection of God's perfect character.
T h i s refusal of G o d to compromise the claims of his law
in the covenant of works, and more specifically in the
justification of sinners, was expressed plainly by one the
p r i n c i p a l seventeenth-century C a l v i n i s t theologians,
H e r m a n Witsius:
[Paul] in many places proves that a sinner cannot be
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
 justified, that is, lay claim to eternal life, by the works of
the law; but never by this argument, because the law had
no promises of eternal life; but because man is by the
law brought to the acknowledgement of sin, and the
confession of deserved damnation, Rom. Hi. 19, 20. He
insists on this point with great labour and pains, though
otherwise he might have very easily cut short the whole
dispute, by just saying, that a title to eternal life was to
be sought for by faith in Christ; that it is in vain to rest
upon any law, though kept ever so perfectly, in regard it
has no promises of eternal life annexed to it. On the
contrary, the apostle teaches, that the commandment,
considered in itself, was ordained to life, Rom. vii. 10.
that is, was such as by the observance thereof life might
have once been obtained. . .
The scheme of salvation in the covenant of works is
the essential prelude to the scheme of salvation in the
covenant of grace. We will never comprehend the neces-
sity of Christ's active obedience in life and passive obedi-
ence in death if we do not do justice to the covenant of
works. It is difficult, in fact, to understand Scriptural
statements like those in L u k e 10:25-28;18:18-25; and R o -
mans 2:13 apart from an acknowledgement of the cov-
enant of works. Indeed, the depiction of the attempt to
gain eternal life by legal obedience in the covenant of
grace as detestable {Phil. 3:4-10) rests on the integrity of
the covenant of works — when sinful man attempts to
obtain eternal life by law-keeping, he flouts the impec-
cable law-keeping of Christ. H e says, in effect, " M y im-
perfect law-keeping (and, therefore, law-breaking) is su-
perior to Christ's perfect law-keeping."
Although the covenant of works is superseded by the
covenant of grace for God's elect, the covenant of works
is not thereby abolished. F o r , as A . A . Hodge suggests, in
its capacity in binding A d a m ' s natural posterity, it con-
victs the unregenerate of their law-breaking:
This Covenant [of Works[ having been broken by
Adam, not one of his natural descendents is ever able to
fulfill its conditions, and Christ having fulfilled all of its
conditions in behalf of all his own people, salvation is
offered now on the condition of faith. In this sense the
Covenant of Works having been fulfilled by the second
Adam is henceforth abrogated under the gospel.
Nevertheless, since it is founded upon the principles of
immutable justice, it still binds all men who have not fled
to the refuge offered in the righteousness of Christ. It is still
true that "he that doeth these things shall live by them,"
and "the soul that sinneth it shall die." This law in this
sense remains, and in consequence of the unrighteousness
of men condemns them, and in consequence of their
absolute inability to fulfill it, it acts as a schoolmaster to
bring them to Christ.^
Both the regenerate and the wicked are bound to obey
the law of G o d — on penalty of eternal judgment. T h e
difference between them is that the regenerate have cred-
ited to their account the impeccable law-keeping of
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Christ, and thus stand on his merits alone, while the
wicked must stand on their own (flawed merits — their
law-breaking). T h e title to eternal life rests on confor-
mity to the law: in the Person of Christ, the regenerate
possess such a title. T h e wicked stand under eternal con-
demnation because their works are found wanting {Rom.
3:19) — they are law-breakers, and will suffer the penalty
for law-breaking {Rom. 2:12-16).
Imputed righteousness
The mechanism by which legal righteousness becomes
the property of the elect is justification. T h e righteous-
ness (and therefore justification) of Christ is imputed to
the elect, just as the sinfulness (and therefore condemna-
tion) of A d a m is imputed to his posterity {Rom. 5:12 f . ) . ' '
Imputed simply means "credited to." A s noted above, it
does not involve a change in one's actual nature or condi-
tion. T h e imputation of our sins to Christ obviously no
more rendered him an actual sinner than the imputation
of Christ's righteousness to the elect renders us actually
righteous. T h e reformers were therefore intent to set
forth the Biblical doctrine of justification as entailing a
strictly forensic or imputed righteousness, for they were
convinced the medieval R o m a n church had incorrectly
confused the imparted righteousness of regeneration that
progresses in sanctification with the purely imputed righ-
teousness of justification that is a judicial act and there-
fore neither increases nor diminishes in force.
Both Rome and Protestantism agreed that the ground
of justification is the merits of Christ, but they differed
widely over the definition ("imputed" or "infused" righ-
teousness?) and the means or "the instrumental cause"
(faith alone, or faith along with other virtues?) of justifi-
cation. T h e Protestants argued exegetically and dogmati-
cally that justification comprehends only imputed righ-
teousness. It does not involve infusing righteousness into
the sinner. Protestants in no way denied the fact of regen-
eration in which sinners are born anew and receive the
seed of divine righteousness and are thus "made partak-
ers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). B u t they were
diligent to distinguish regeneration from justification. I n -
deed, among their chief criticisms of Rome's soteriology
was the latter's willingness to collapse regeneration into
justification. It is not hard to comprehend why the re-
formers objected to this confusion, quite apart from the
Biblical grounds themselves. I f we hold that G o d has
respect to Christ's righteousness within the believer when
He justifies, we may easily conclude that it is some qual-
ity within man that motivates our being declared righ-
teous. A n d in Rome's complex doctrine of justification
this is precisely what happens. T h e reformers argued that
that to which G o d has respect in justifying the sinner is
the active and passive obedience of Christ — H i s law-
conforming life and atoning death. G o d has no respect to
any righteousness of the regenerated sinner when H e
justifies.
15
The role of faith
H o w does one subjectively appropriate this justifica-
tion? R o m e argued that understanding of sinfulness, re-
pentance, faith, love of G o d , detestation of sin, peni-
tence, and baptism are all instruments by which justifica-
tion may be appropriated.' T h e reformers countered that
too often in Scripture (e.g., Rom. 4:1-8; Gal. 3:1-9; Eph.
2:8-10) does the appropriation of justification depend on
the exercise of faith exclusively — quite apart from any
other virtues — to posit some "instrumental cause" in
addition to faith. G o d grants the gift of faith, by which
alone the regenerated sinner appropriates justification.
Justification, Sanctification, and Antinomianism
T h i s Reformed forensic idea of justification and its
appropriation by faith alone came in for criticism by
those who were convinced the doctrine would lead to
antinomianism, the view that since the converted are
freed from the demands of the law as a means of salva-
tion, they may disregard the law altogether. T h i s criticism
was met masterfully by the reformers, and no more inge-
niously than by Calvin himself. H e argued that justifica-
tion — though absolutely foundational — is only one
benefit of salvation. In addition to justification, redeemed
sinners receive the gift of sanctification (7 Cor. 1:30).
B o t h justification and sanctification confer righteousness
— justification, the impeccable righteousness of Christ's
active and passive obedience imputed to the sinner's ac-
count; and sanctification, the progressive righteousness
implanted by the Spirit at the new birth. Because justifi-
cation and sanctification are both benefits of union with
Christ, C a l v i n suggests, it is impossible to possess one
without the other:
"Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith
we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which is the
only medium of our reconciliation to God. But this
[justification] you cannot attain, without at the same time
attaining to sanctification. . . . Christ therefore justifies no
one whom he does not also sanctify. For these benefits are
perpetually and indissolubly connected, so that whom he
illuminates with his wisdom, them he redeems; whom he
redeems, he justifies; whom he justifies, he sanctifies. . . .
Since, then, the Lord affords us the enjoyment of these
blessings only in the bestowment of himself, he gives them
[justification and sanctification] both together, and never
one without the other. Thus we see how true it is that we are
justified, not without works, yet not by works; since union
with Christ, by which we are justified, contains
sanctification as well as righteousness. "*
Calvinists are thus able to defend against, on the one
hand, the heresy of Judaism (salvation by human merit)
w h i l e , on the other, the e q u a l l y f a t a l heresy of
antinomianism (lawless living). A n d thus they have con-
tended historically that faith alone justifies, but the faith
that justifies is not alone, for it is invariably accompanied
by all other saving graces. Because of Christ's atoning life
16
and death, the redeemed man is consequently freed from
the law as it functioned in the covenant of works as an
instrument of justification and a penalty of wrath for
disobedience, but he is never free from the law as a
standard of sanctification. It forever binds him as a per-
fect reflection of God's character and as the rule of
sonship in the Father's house (7 Jn. 3:4-6).
In fact, it may be fairly argued that any view other than
the historic Protestant view tends to antinomianism, for
all other views posit conformity to some "relaxed" view
of the law of G o d as the standard for entitlement to
eternal life. F o r this reason, a defective or misguided
view of the law of G o d leads almost inevitably to a defec-
tive or misguided view of justification.
B o t h justification and sanctification militate against
antinomianism; justification assumes the perfect con-
formity to the law as entitlement to salvation (a confor-
mity accomplished definitively by Christ and imputed to
God's elect), and sanctification assumes the perfect con-
formity to the law as the standard of holiness (a confor-
mity accomplished progressively by the operation of the
Spirit in the life of the Christian and definitively in our
glorification).
Conclusion
Calvin called justification the "principal hinge by which
religion is supported.'" It is a doctrine worth discussing
and contending for. It is not a notion merely for ivory-
tower dispute. It is the very heart of the gospel. It demon-
strates equally the incomparable love and justice of G o d
— love, in his willingness to offer his very Son, the second
Person of the Godhead, as the incarnate substitute to pay
the indescribable penalty for the sin of the wicked; and
justice, in his unwillingness to suspend his law in the
execution of our salvation.
' John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John
Allen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949,
3:11:2.
' Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1972), pp. 151,152.
' Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian
Publications [1646] 1976), 7:2, p. 42.
^ Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between
God and Man (Escondido, C A : den Dulk Christian
Foundation [1693]1990), pp. 73, 74, emphasis added.
' A . A . Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Edinburgh: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1886), p. 314, emphasis in original. The
framers of the Westminster Confession identified the content
of the law of the covenant of works with the Mosaic law: "This
law [given to Adam], after his fall, continued to be a perfect
rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God
upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two
tables . . . ," Westminster Confession of Faith, 19:2, p. 80.
The inconsistency of many Arminians on this issue is both
amusing and pathetic. They deny that man stands condemned
because of Adam's sin, but assert that the saved are justified
because of Christ's righteousness. In other words, they want
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
 the benefit of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but
not the judgment that attends the imputation of Adam's sin.
But this is impossible. I f the elect stand justified by the
righteousness (law-keeping) of another (Christ), the
unconverted stand condemned by the unrighteousness (law-
breaking) of another (Adam).
' Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House [1931], 1990), p. 93.
* Calvin, Institutes, 3:16:1.
' Ibid., 3:11:1.
DISCIPLESHIP!
TRAINING THE NEXT
GENERATION OF
WARRIORS
By Rev. Brian M. Abshire
A hot topic in the business world is called "mentoring."
It seems that business has "discovered" that the most
effective way of passing on the skills, knowledge and
insights of the older generation is through developing an
intimate, personal relationship with young hopefuls. I t ' s
not just business acumen that is important, but the entire
life-style of the mentor. T h e hit films Wall Street in the
eighties and The Firm in the nineties both show young
college graduates being indoctrinated into the " R e a l
World." O f course, this also required mentoring the young
men into sin, vice, greed, corruption and godless living.
Many "user friendly" churches, taking their cue from
the business world, are also talking about "mentoring"
these days. T h e r e are several popular books available, all
offering unique "insights" on how the Church can adopt
this secular model of training. A s I began this article, I
had intended writing a penetrating acerbic and (hope-
fully) witty critique of "mentoring," exposing yet another
humanistic infiltration into the church. B u t after reflec-
tion and prayer, I am going to resist temptation. Y e s ,
excesses, apostasy and sin must be exposed. T h e r e is a
desperate need for critical thinking among Christians.
W e live in a "crooked and perverted generation" and The
Chalcedon Report is the best of a very few publications
that has the courage and wisdom to expose the crooks
and perverts Biblically. B u t an old friend once said the
best way to show that a stick is twisted is by laying a
straight one beside it.
Thus I ' d rather focus on what the Bible teaches we
should do, rather than just criticize what we too often do
(or don't do). T h e simple fact is that we desperately need
trained men for the cultural battles we are facing. Sadly,
seminaries can't do it and churches won't do it. Most of
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
the best warriors we have are self educated (reminding
one sometimes of the movie Stripes where a group of
army misfits finishes their own basic training, with pre-
dictable results). I f we are to raise up a new generation
of "valiant men," we must get serious about training
them for battle. T h u s this article will focus on one of the
most neglected aspects of Christian ministry: disciple
making. T h e term is often used, but seldom understood.
Reclaiming this vital ministry from a Biblical perspective
may well hold one of the keys to long term Christian
reconstruction.
Basic Definition
I n its most basic sense, the term "disciple" simply
means " a student." T h e word "student" though often
carries certain conceptual baggage that confuses the is-
sue. Some of us remember our student days with less than
fond reflection (and if schools had memories, they might
regard us the same way . . . ) . Others, especially if edu-
cated in the public school system, may remember their
experiences as a time of fun and frolic, meeting new
people and generally having a good time. I n this sense
being a "student" was the price one paid in order to
'party hearty.' B o t h of these concepts obscure the signifi-
cance of the word "student" and thus can color our un-
derstanding of the term "disciple."
The Disciple as an Apprentice
T h e word translated "disciple" in our English Bibles is
the G r e e k term mathetes. T h e word "mathetes" was used
in several different ways at the time of Jesus. Mathetes
was sometimes used much like our word "apprentice."
T h e first century G r e c o - R o m a n world did not send its
young people to technical training colleges in order to
equip them to be craftsmen. Instead, a young man who
desired to learn an honest trade would be apprenticed to
an older, skilled craftsman who took him into his house,
made the lad a member of his family and instructed him
in the skills of his craft.
T h e young man often lived in the craftsman house,
swept his floors and cleaned his tools. A s the lad showed
faithfulness and diligence he would be allowed greater
and greater responsibility. T h e senior craftsman taught
the young man more than just the technical skills he
needed to perform his job. A vital part of an apprentice's
education would be to learn the value system of the
members of his profession. T h e craftsman taught the ap-
prentice to be a responsible and careful worker, giving
good value for money. H e was taught diligence, honesty
and craftsmanship. T h e results of such an education can
be seen in the quality of the ancient craftsman's work.
T h e prolific remains of ancient G r e e k and R o m a n civili-
zation abound throughout Europe. T o be the mathetes in
the sense of being an apprentice meant to be trained into
the complete world view of his master. It meant to learn
more than just the skills of the craft. It required the
17
disciple to become like the master.
The Disciple as a Philosophy Student
T h e word mathetes was also used of one who accompa-
nied a philosophical teacher in order to learn from him.
Perhaps some individual had gained a reputation for wis-
dom or understanding and a young man wanted to learn
from him. I f the master was agreeable (for masters a l -
ways chose disciples, though the free market operated
here) then the young man would commit himself to some-
thing very much like slavery. H e might wash the master's
clothes, cook his food, cut his grass, wax his chariot. This
was not exploitation of the student class or the dangers of
working without a disciple's union. T o the contrary, the
purpose was primarily for the disciple's benefit.
T h e purpose of the relationship was for the disciple to
become like the master. I n order to do so the disciple had
to be as near to the master as possible. While serving the
master, the disciple was able to see how the master's
philosophy worked itself out in every area of his life. A
disciple then was taught more than just how to think, but
also how his philosophy was to affect the way he lived.
T h e G r e e k s also used the w o r d mathetes in a technical
sense of one who held to one of the great schools of
philosophy they were so famous for inventing. I f one
studied the works of Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Socrates,
Diabetes (sorry) one was considered a mathetes of that
philosopher. I n this sense of the word, a disciple was not
necessarily a student any longer. H e might well be able to
teach all of the philosophical implications and permuta-
tions of the master's thoughts. However, as long as he
followed that philosophy he was still considered a
mathetes of the master because his own ideas and life
practices were drawn from the ancient master.
T h e r e was thus a very real reverence for the great men
who developed the systems of philosophy. A disciple was
never considered to be above his master (sound famil-
i a r ? ) . It was considered a matter of honor and privilege
to be called a disciple of one of these men. A disciple was
never an unwilling student and discipleship was never
something one simply endured until one could get out of
the house and find a job. A disciple was someone who
conformed his life to his master's teachings. H e was some-
one who lived closely with his master, either physically or
spiritually in order to learn how the master's philosophy
worked itself out in every area of his life. H e was willing
to pay the price of humility and even personal service in
order to learn these things.
The New Testament Disciples
T h i s then is the cultural context of our Christian word
"disciple." I n the New Testament this same word was
applied to Christians in two primary ways. First, the word
disciple was used to describe the twelve men who fol-
lowed Jesus and were later called "apostles" or messen-
gers. T h e T w e l v e formed the leadership of the church
18
after the resurrection and ascension of Christ until the
Scriptures were written. However when Jesus still walked
the earth, they were called his disciples. Regardless of
what they were later to become, the gospels paint an
interesting picture of their initial training period. One of
my colleagues says that the twelve disciples were "the
world's dumbest Bible class" because of their propensity
for confusing and misunderstanding Jesus' statements. It
seems that there was nothing special about them. G o d
did not choose them for their wisdom, power, intelligence
or even spirituality. B u t they did give up everything to
follow Jesus. T h e y spent three long, hard years living
with H i m , learning H i s teachings, watching H i s life, learn-
ing the basics of the Christian faith. T r u e , much of what
they learned was incomprehensible until after Pentecost.
B u t Jesus did more than just teach them doctrine. He
loved and invested H i s life in them as well.
However, what we sometimes forget is that Jesus had
more than twelve disciples. T h e Twelve might have been
his graduate students but we know that during his earthly
ministry there were at least seventy who followed Jesus
and were called "disciples." After Pentecost, the word
"disciple" clearly meant anyone who followed Jesus {Acts
6:lff, 9:36, 11:26, 19:1-4). This becomes vital to our un-
derstanding of just what discipleship is all about. T h e
disciples of Jesus were not just the 12 men tried and true
who led the church from a small sect of uneducated Jews
to the religion that conquered the R o m a n empire within
200 years. T o the contrary, initially, all Christians were
disciples. T o be a Christian meant to be a disciple. A n d
the inference is clear, if you were not a disciple of Jesus,
then you were not a Christian. I n the early church there
did not exist the distinction so prevalent among many
churchmen today between those who are simply believ-
ers and those who are "committed Christians." I n the
early church a believer was someone who learned the
Master's teachings and ordered his life accordingly. I f he
did not do this then by definition he was not a disciple.
A n d if he was not a disciple, then he was not a Christian.
The Modern Church
T h i s does much to explain the impotence of so many
believers today and therefore of the church in general.
Y e s , many people have a faith of some sort (or at least
they have given their verbal assent to a series of doctrinal
statements), but they lack the training and the commit-
ment to live their lives according to the Master's teach-
ings. I n the A m e r i c a n evangelical church there is consid-
erable emphasis placed upon making Jesus L o r d after He
has become one's Savior. T h e "lordship" element refers
to being committed to Jesus. I f we could transport a first
century believer to a modern evangelistic service, he
would be very confused. " H o w , " he might ask, "can you
say you are a Christian (i.e., be a disciple) if you are not a
disciple?" T h e division between Lordship and faith would
be incomprehensible to him. F o r the first century be-
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
liever being a disciple (with all that entails) was being a
Christian.
T h e problem lies in how much we allow our culture to
influence our perception and understanding of the Chris-
tian faith. Our culture differs from the first century's and
therefore so also do our practices. While cultural values
may be relative, their effect on spirituality seldom is. T o
the first century believer, steeped in the rich understand-
ing of discipleship we have just discussed, new converts
were nurtured in the faith using the role model that pre-
dominated in his society, i.e., discipleship. While the mas-
ter remained Jesus, an older brother would have assumed
responsibility to train the new believer. While Paul be-
came a Christian, Barnabas came along side to help him
(Acts 4:36). While G o d Himself taught Paul through spe-
cial, direct revelation, there was also a real live human
being encouraging, challenging, supporting and holding
him accountable.
The Apostle Paul
Discipleship required a considerable personal invest-
ment of the discipler's time and resources. T h e discipler
would train the new disciple,by sharing his life with him.
I n 1 T h e s s a l o n i a n s 2:8 P a u l reminds the c h u r c h at
T h e s s o l o n i c a how he ministered to them after their
conversion. H i s statement is the B i b l i c a l model for
nurturing new converts. H e says; "We were delighted to
share with you not only the gospel of God, but our very
lives as well. ..."
Paul's concept of nurturing new believers was to share
more than just academic or theological information with
them. It was more than starting a program in a local
church. H e shared with them his very life. H e goes on to
remind them that his discipling the Thessalonians re-
quired a considerable investment of his time, money and
emotional resources. T h e H o l y Spirit chose the cultural
model of discipleship and H i s basic means of training
new believers. T h e y were instructed in Christian doc-
trine, held accountable for what they were taught, and
given a real life example of what mature Christianity was
to look like (see 1 Cor 11:1 and Phil 4:9).
Contrast Paul's approach with our modern ways of
training new believers. I n our busy, education oriented
society it also becomes second nature for us to nurture
new believers in a way compatible with our culture. O u r
culture places a high priority on simple solutions to com-
plex problems. T h u s when an individual expresses a de-
sire to become a follower of Jesus, we take him through a
short prayer, perhaps give him some literature to read,
shake his hand warmly and send him on his way with a
smile and a "See you next Sunday!"
I f we are a dynamic, creative, and well-organized
church we may even have a "New Believers" class where
we instruct the convert in whatever theological or doctri-
nal issues we emphasize (but this instruction usually lasts
only a few short weeks). W e then happily admit him to
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
membership in the church and put him on a church com-
mittee. After that, he usually sinks or swims according to
his own resources. F e w people are taught God's laws,
fewer still are given a living example of how to apply
those laws to real life situations. A t the one time when
new believers are the most open for the radical transfor-
mation that G o d requires, very, very few are ever taught
what to do next. Stop smoking, drinking, carousing, go to
church activities regularly and in a few years, if you
haven't grossly offended someone, we'll make you an
elder or deacon!
There is then a considerable difference in cultural mod-
els and their effects in the life of a new believer. I n the
first century a new convert received daily instruction in
living the Christian life from an older, more mature be-
liever. T h e relationship would be an extremely intimate
one. T h e new believer would not only receive doctrine
and theology from the older brother, but would as well
have a living example of just how those things were
worked out in real life. H e would receive teaching, re-
proof, correction and training in righteousness. H e would
then be exhorted and encouraged to change his attitudes
and actions accordingly. Today we give simple answers,
Bible B a n d A i d s and little else. O f the two approaches to
nurturing and training a new believer which seems most
effective?
Modern Day Discipleship
O u r understanding of the term "disciple" does not end
however with the first century church. There has been an
attempt to recover the concept of discipleship in modern
Christianity. I n contemporary parachurch ministries, the
term "disciple" refers to an individual believer who has
committed himself to be trained by an older and presum-
ably more mature believer. T h i s is a fairly recent attempt
(about 50 years) to regain a Biblical approach to Chris-
tian growth and training. Many parachurch organizations
have developed training programs for new believers.
Sadly, the programs are simplistic, theologically naive
and often lead to gross abuses. Y e t even so, simply teach-
ing new believers that they are supposed to have quiet
times, memorize Scripture, complete fill in the blank Bible
studies and share their faith often results in dramatic
differences in people's lives. When I became a Christian
in the military 21 years ago through one such parachurch
ministry, I knew nothing about Biblical Christianity. So
when I was told to meditate and memorize Scripture, do
regular Bible study, and share the gospel with my friends
and coworkers, I simply assumed that this was what all
Christians did. Meanwhile, certain men took the time and
trouble to get involved in my life and help me clean up
the mess I had made of it. Imagine my surprise when I
discovered that the average Christian who had spent a
lifetime in church activities never meditated on Scrip-
ture, never did real Bible study, never shared his faith!
Y e t many Church leaders actually think that i f they
19
challenge a new believer to obey Jesus they might lose
him! Heresy! A n d even i f we leave aside the theological
implications of this belief, simple studies in learning and
motivational theory point out the inherent fallacies of
such a view. Research shows that people are more com-
mitted to those things for which they have paid a high
price. Individuals are more likely to internalize values
that challenge them. I n short, if we want a person to be a
committed Christian, then we have to give him something
to be committed to!
The Price Which Needs To Be Paid
Perhaps the reason why discipleship has not become
popular in the church is because of the price that needs to
be paid. F r o m the discipler's perspective, discipleship is
the personal investment of his life in the spiritual well
being of another. T h u s discipleship carries a heavy cost.
It requires considerable time, care and a willingness to
develop relationships that go beyond superficialities. D i s -
cipleship requires commitment from both parties. T h e
relationship w i l l continue until the new convert is firmly
established in his walk and begins to think as a Master
thinks and acts as the Master acts.
Furthermore discipleship means that whatever you are,
will be what your disciple becomes. Paul was unabashed
at saying this: "the things you have learned and received
and heard and seen in me, practice these things and the
God of peace will be with you {Phil 4:9, NASB)." H e was
confident that his converts had a good role model in him.
Christianity worked in his life, and he was not afraid to
say so. T h i s was neither arrogance nor pride. Paul was
simply recognizing a truth concerning the way people
learn.
Discipleship and Modeling
Psychologists have studied a phenomena known as
conformity behavior. Conformity behavior is the ten-
dency of the individual to change his behavior to re-
semble that of others. I n the negative sense, we talk
about teenagers giving in to peer pressure. B u t adults
exhibit exactly the same tendencies for conforming to
group norms. Some studies suggest that up to 70% of all
our behaviors and attitudes are learned through model-
ing on someone else's example.
A colleague of mine, D a v e A m e s , uses a personal ex-
ample to illustrate modeling. K e related that he was fifty
years old before he realized that he did not have to lay a
strip of toothpaste along the entire surface of his brush in
order to clean his teeth. H e had done so for years simply
because whenever toothpaste was modeled on television,
the advertisers made sure that the maximum amount was
used. Having seen no other model, he simply assumed
this was the correct amount of toothpaste. ( Y o u mean
you don't have to cover the entire brush? H m m m m . . . ) .
D a v e is an unrepentant punner and suggests that you
only need a little bit for a good paste in the mouth.
20
Regardless of the quality of D a v e ' s humor, his illustra-
tion demonstrates the effects of modeling. Modeling is a
very real dynamic that affects us whether we recognize it
or not.
W h e n Paul says, "be imitators of me just as I also am of
Christ" (1 Cor 11:1) he is simply stating a truth he recog-
nized two thousand years before psychologists had labo-
ratory rats to experiment with. H e never said that he was
perfect {Rms 7:Iff). H e was still a sinner who needed to
repent. B u t he was confident that he was living in the way
that Jesus taught and was thus able to offer his life as a
model to others.
Furthermore he recognized that people were a lot more
likely to do as he did, rather than do as he said. H e
therefore made it his ambition to please G o d in all ways
(2 Cor 5:9). People will tend to conform to what they
perceive to be group norms. Jesus said exactly the same
thing when he said, " T h e disciple is not above the teacher
(Matt 10:24)." Perhaps discipleship has not become popu-
lar in many churches simply because so many Christians
realize that they have so little to offer.
Many churches experience a vicious cycle of defeat. A
lack of personal discipleship results in believers who lack
spiritual vitality and maturity. This then results in an
inability to train others. Consequently, there is no one to
train the next generation of believers resulting in new
generations of immature and i l l equipped believers ad
nauseam.
Conclusion and Application
The solution is not of course to rush right out there
and start making disciples! We must begin with a commit-
ment to rediscover just what the Christian life is really all
about, even i f it means discarding some cultural baggage
concerning the church along the way. I f the church is
weak and impotent, we must be willing to take some hard
looks at what we are doing wrong. W e must also then
take the proper corrective steps. There are two heavy
theological terms for this; they're called, humility and
repentance.
God's goal for Christians is that they become "con-
formed to the image of His Son, that He might become the
firstborn among many brethren" {Rms. 8:29). Disciple-
ship is the B i b l i c a l process of helping individual Chris-
tians become what G o d wants them to be. Discipleship
requires challenging training in the Christian life that
involves an intimate relationship and a personal invest-
ment of one believer's life in the spiritual well being of
another. It rests on the foundation that those who under-
stand and live the Christian life effectively are personally
responsible for sharing that life with younger believers.
Discipleship begins with the family. Christian fathers
must lead their families in consistent, regular worship.
T h e y must teach their children God's law and then live
that out before them. Children will follow the example
set by Mom and D a d . E v e r y Christian household is al-
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
ready making disciples. T h e question is, what kind?
But there are also new converts who did not have
godly parents. There are also thousands of spiritual or-
phans who have been abandoned by their churches. We
can minister to such people if we care enough to make
them a part of our lives. Y e s , it means opening our homes,
investing time, some inconvenience, and getting involved
with the "nitty-gritty" of sanctification. No, it is not as
easy as setting up a program or teaching a class. It's about
loving Jesus and loving your brother enough to bring
God's law to bear on specific life situations. B u t it's also
the way that G o d raises up and trains the next generation
of warriors; warriors the church desperately needs for the
coming battles. Good preaching and teaching, though
vital and important, are not enough. T h e r e are skills in
living and ministry that can be learned only by the ex-
ample of a godly, older person. Otherwise we never learn
from the mistakes of the past.
Discipleship has been called the lost ministry of the
church, but a church does not disciple; individual believ-
ers do. Christians who love God's law are often disen-
franchised from key leadership positions in today's anti-
nomian Church. B u t that dops not mean that we have to
be e x c l u d e d f r o m effective m i n i s t r y . L e t b r o a d
evangelicalism play its mindless church games while we
get on with the real work. T h e true test of leadership is
service. A n d we can best serve by reaching out to people
in love, bringing them into our homes, investing our lives
in them, letting them learn firsthand from our experi-
ence. We can disciple them in a full orbed Biblical world
view. A l l it takes is knowing what G o d requires and a
w i l l i n g n e s s to help w o r k those r e q u i r e m e n t s into
another's life. A r e you willing to help change a life and a
world for Christ?
BIBLICAL
ANTITHESIS AND
EDUCATION
By Perry C. Coghlan II, pastor
(Presented at the J u l y 1994 meeting of the C h r i s t i a n
Reconstrnctionist Society of O h i o . )
The ideological and institutional battle for the control
of American culture, (and against the Christian family), is
clearly evident in the realm of education. T o suggest, as I
do, that a cultural war against true Christianity is being
waged is, I believe, no overstatement. It is to accurately
describe the reality of our society's condition and in fact
describes the totality of the human condition, at all times
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
and in all places.
Consider the vehement response of the national media,
(which is overwhelmingly and self consciously anti-Chris-
tian to its secular humanistic core), to the observation by
Pat Buchanan, at the 1992 Republican National Conven-
tion that what we are involved in is a "culture war . . . a
battle for the heart and soul of American society. . . ."
Realizing that this "culture war" is a war over ultimate
values and ethics, not, as so many have suggested, some-
thing as innocuous as "traditional family values".' The
anti-Christian media attacked Buchanan and those who
agree with him, with all the furor of an enemy seeking to
utterly vanquish a foe. T h e media recognizes what most
professing Christians have yet to realize, we are in a cul-
ture war. We must recognize that one adversary always
triumphs over another. Just as light always and inescap-
ably replaces darkness, so opposing cultures, worldviews,
and faiths are inescapably antithetical to and subversive of
one another.
This cultural hostility should be no new news to any-
one who reads the Bible or has received good instruction
from the Bible. Beginning in Genesis 3:15, one recog-
nizes that this culture war is the inescapable condition of
all men, at all times, in all places, and encompasses the
entirety of human life and history, and in fact transcends
human history.'
Gen. 3:15 states; " A n d I (Jehovah) will put enmity (hos-
tility) between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and
between thy (the serpent's) seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The English translation does not give the force of the
Hebrew text. I n the Hebrew text the word translated en-
mity (hostility) comes at the beginning of the sentence.
The force of the statement, in the Hebrew is this way,
"enmity will I (Jehovah) put between the . . . (seeds)" T h e
focal point of this statement is that there is an irreconcil-
able hostility, judicially instituted by G o d Himself between
the two fundamental Biblical classes of men.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen, describing the crucial nature of the
implications of this text {Gen. 3:15) for theology in general
and apologetics in particular stated:
" . . . the antithesis is explicitly declared by God in verse
fifteen, where He said that He "will put enmity (emp. in the
original) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the
serpent, between the children of God (who are united with
their Savior, the Messiah: cf. Gal. 3;16,29) and the children of
the devil (cf. John 8:44). It is worth noting that the emphasis
falls upon the word "enmity" as the first word in the Hebrew
of Genesis 3:15 ("Enmity will I put"). And God Himself is
said to constitute, establish, and deliberately impose (emp.
added) this enmity between men."
"The opposition and antithesis between followers of God
and followers of Satan is not simply predicted by God and is
not simply commanded; it is,sovereignly inflicted (emp. added)
as God's judicial curse. The distinction and antipathy between
21
 the two seeds must and indeed will be maintained. Only in that
light do we properly understand and hope in the Messiah's
crushing defeat of the tempter. Where that antithesis is disre-
garded, diluted or dispelled, the very meaning of the gospel of
salvation would be lost..."'
While the conflict between the kingdom of light and the
kingdom of darkness is always engaged, at all times and in
all places, the escalation of the implementation of the
secular humanistic-anti-Christian, institutional, social, j u -
dicial, and political agenda began in earnest after the W a r
between the States with the so-called period of "recon-
struction". T h e defeat of the Confederacy by the philo-
sophically and theologically deistic, unitarian, transcen-
dentalist, and romantically driven North, diluted and dis-
persed the last culturally concentrated opposition to anti-
Christianity in our society.
I would, as an aside, highly recommend Otto Scott's
book entitled The Secret Six and Robert Dabney's book A
Defense of Virginia and the South for further study of these
matters."
T h e so-called period of "reconstruction", after the W a r
between the States, was in fact a period of cultural
deconstruction and reconstruction. It was the beginning
of the s y s t e m a t i c and self c o n s c i o u s societal
deconstruction of the influence of Christianity and B i b -
lical L a w upon this culture. A t the same time, it began
the systematic and self conscious reconstruction of this
nation, and its institutions, upon self conscious anti-
C h r i s t i a n presuppositions.' T h i s anti-Christian recon-
struction sought the implementation of a dynamic (and
utterly relativistic), but self conscious anti-Christian social
theory. This secular humanistic reconstruction concen-
trated civil, judicial, and educational authority in the hands
of the anti-Christian theoreticians and jurists and provided
for the accelerated application of the anti-Christian socio-
political and educational theories and agendas. It may have
assured the judicial and political overthrow of the U . S .
Constitution, an already compromised document, thus pro-
viding for the cultural entrenching of a radical and self
conscious secular humanistic social theory and the contin-
ued systematic supplanting of a Christian worldview and
consensus by capturing the institutional leadership of post-
w a r between the States, American society.
T h e anti-Christian leaven was now leavening the whole
lump.
Since the beginning of this self-conscious anti-Christian
reconstruction, non-Christians have worked diligently, and
even feverishly, to solidify their institutional, judicial, and
political hold on America. They have understood for a long
time, what many Christians have not yet understood; there
is an inescapable hostility between the Christian worldview
(and social theory) and the anti-Christian worldviews. This
conflict is a "winner take a l l " battle. It involves all of the
institutions and individuals of every society. It will mean
the vanquishing of all rival worldviews, both intellectually
22
and institutionally. This conflict is in terms of both social
and political theory and the applications of those theories.
This conflict is inescapable and perpetual. It is a conflict
which began outside of human history, encompasses the
whole of human history, and will only be fully and finally
ended after the final consummation of human history.
T h e sad fact is, that because of a defective theology and
worldview. Christians have not been either aware of this all
encompassing warfare or, if to some degree aware of it, not
self consciously engaged in it.
The late Christian apologist and philosopher Cornelius
V a n T i l made the following observations regarding the all
encompassing nature of the conflict between Christianity
and anti-Christianity and its particular implications for
education;
"There is not a square inch of ground in heaven or on earth or
under the earth in which there is peace between Christ and
Satan. And what is all important for us as we think of the
Christian school is that, according to Christ, every man,
woman, and child is every day and everywhere involved in this
struggle. No one can stand back, refusing to become involved.
He is (emp. added) involved from the day of his birth and even
from before his birth. Jesus said: 'He that is not with Me is
against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth
abroad.' I f you say you are involved in the struggle between
Christ and Satan in the area of the family and in the church,
but not in the school, you are deceiving yourself. In that case,
you are not really fully involved in the family and the church.
You cannot expect to train intelligent, well-informed soldiers
of the cross of Christ unless Christ is held up before them as
the L O R D of culture as well as the L O R D of religion. It is the
nature of the conflict between Christ and Satan to be all
comprehensive.""
Douglas Jones, managing editor of the periodical
Credenda/Agenda, authored an article entitled. Constant
Total War. I n his article, Jones makes similar observations
to V a n T i l when he wrote:
"To be a Christian is to be in constant, total war. We have
no say in the matter, and no one is exempt from serving. This
war is not just some sideline feature of the Christian life. It is
the Christian life. Every step toward seeing "every knee bow"
before the L O R D of glory is an act of war, whether in faithful-
ness or hatred. Until that point, the war is ruthless and relent-
less. The horrific enemy onslaught never ceases.
"This war is not only constant but total, unconfined, and
overwhelming. It is not limited to the daily fight against our
own sin but encompasses everything within and without. It is
not limited to our own or any one time but rages in every
corner of history. It is not limited to our own flesh-and-blood
world and history but is driven by dark clashes in heavenly
places.
"And as this battle moves us all along, killing, maiming,
crushing, and roaring, much of contemporary Christianity
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
 fights with bumper stickers and self-esteem seminars. As the
enemy smiles and schemes to ravage our children and decapi-
tate our churches, we try to play down our differences with our
attacks and use their institutions as models for our own. As
they mock Christ to His face, we learn to relax, take a joke,
and create a more entertaining worship atmosphere.
"The only thing worse than being cut to death in the middle
of a war is having it happen without realizing it."'
T h e late Christian apologist and philosopher Francis
Schaeffer wrote concerning the inescapable antithetical
consequences of worldviews. I n his book The Christian
Manifesto, Schaeffer wrote:
"The basic problem of the Christians in the last eighty years
or so, in regard to society and in regard to (civil) government,
is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.
"They have very gradually become disturbed over permis-
siveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of
the family and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a
totality — each thing being a part, a symptom of a much larger
problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come
about due to a shift in worldview — that is, through a funda-
mental change in the overall way people think and view the
world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a
worldview that was at least vaguely Christian in people's
memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward
something completely different — toward a worldview based
upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or
energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance.
They have not seen that this worldview has taken the place of
the one that had previously dominated Northern European
culture, including the United States, which was at least Chris-
tian in memory
"These two worldviews stand as totals in complete antith-
esis to each other in content and also in their natural results —
including sociological and governmental results, and specifi-
cally including law. ( I would add also in their educational
results.)
"(i)t is not, that these two worldviews are different only in
how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They
also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative
word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring
forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they
will bring forth different results.
"Why have Christians been so slow to understand this?
There are various reasons but the central one, is a defective
view of Christianity".*
Schaeffer then goes on to describe the influence of the
neo-platonistic G e r m a n Pietist movement of the seven-
teenth century. L e d by P . J . Spener, Pietists sought to
limit the Lordship of Christ to a very narrow aspect of
Christian experience. Its effect upon post-Reformation
Christianity is still felt today. T h e Pietists separated hu-
man experience, and the Christian life, into two sharply
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
divided compartments. T h e so-called " s p i r i t u a l " and
"secular" realms of Pietism were defined in terms of a
neo-platonic dualism. Christians affected by Pietistic pre-
suppositions could not adequately deal with the entire
range of human life and experience. Christian experi-
ence, which dealt with and related to the material world
was given little or no importance. A s Schaeffer himself
points out, "(t)he totality of human existence was not
afforded a proper place. I n particular it neglected the
intellectual dimension of Christianity.'"
Pietism, and other theological errors'" combined to lead
the Christian Church to implicitly, and in the some cases to
explicitly, deny ihe Commandment to "love C o d with all of
our mind". When our society in general embraced intellec-
tual antinomianism (lawlessness) it was, as Schaeffer de-
scribed, "inevitable" that our society would embrace insti-
tutional lawlessness. T o begin with intellectual hostility
toward the triune C o d and H i s L a w , as the unregenerate
mind inescapably does," is to guarantee visible societal,
cultural, and institutional hostility and lawlessness. T h e
20th century, government-controlled, tax-funded schools
have been erected upon a self conscious foundation of
intellectual lawlessness. It should be no surprise that the
same institution is the incubator for individual, cultural,
and institutional lawlessness.
The apostle Paul makes this point, (the relationship
between intellectual rebellion and lawlessness and prac-
ticed, habitual rebellion and lawlessness) in Romans 8:5-8,
Paul writes, " . . . For they that are after the flesh (the
unregenerate) do mind the things of the flesh; but they that
are after the Spirit (the regenerate) the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually
minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity
(hostile) against C o d : for it is not subject to the law of C o d ,
neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh
(unregenerate) cannot please C o d . "
When considering the implications of the apostle's
words, for analyzing our current cultural and educational
conflict, one can only conclude that Christians who con-
tinue to support an educational institution which is self-
consciously founded upon and driven by anti-Christian
presuppositions, anti-Christian philosophy, and anti-Chris-
tian methodology, support an institution committed to war-
ring against the triune C o d and to "death"."
The government-controlled schools have been formally
declared, both judicially and philosophically, anti-Chris-
tian schools. I n the words of the apostle Paul it therefore
"cannot please C o d . " Because such institutions are con-
structed in terms of the hostile intellectual and theoretical
presuppositions of the unregenerate mind, they are intel-
lectually and visibly irreconcilably hostile toward C o d and
His moral requirements. A p a r t from the regenerating work
of C o d the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate mind leads to
death. T h e unregenerate are wholly unable to find "life
and peace" and are wholly and inescapably in rebellion
toward C o d and His law, and therefore can only create
23
institutions that are the same.
Dr. G r e g Bahnsen, was the featured speaker at the 1987
V a n T i l Lectures, at Westminister Seminary in Philadel-
phia, P A , when he made these observations about the
intellectual rebellion of the unregenerate:
"Consider the words of Paul in Romans 8:7: "the mind of
the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law
of God, neither indeed can it be." The mentality of those who
are unregenerate (those who are in the flesh) cannot subject
itself to the truth of God's Word. There is then, no peace
between the mindset (emp. added) of the unbeliever and the
mind of God (which believers seek to reflect, (cf. 1 Cor. 2:16;
John 15:15). They are rather at "enmity" with each other.
"Paul similarly describes the unregenerate, unreconciled
spiritual condition of unbelievers in Colossians 1:21, when he
says "they are alienated and enemies in their mind" (enemies
in their mind) and against God. The "enmity" is specifically
one which is worked out "in the mind" or thinking of the
unbeliever. The unbeliever is unable to be subject to the law's
greatest command which is "to love the Lord your God with
all your heart, with all of your sou! and with all of your mind"
(Matt.22:36-37). Instead, the unbeliever "hates the wisdom
and instruction" of God as Proverbs 1:7 puts it. Although the
fear of the Lord is the beginning — the very starting point —
of knowledge, there is no fear of God before the unbeliever's
eyes (Row. 3:18). He is, as such, kept from realizing any of the
"treasures of wisdom and knowledge" which are deposited in
Christ (Col. 2:3). The unbeliever's intellectual enmity against
God is simultaneously his epistemological undoing " terms of its institutions and its problems, results from the
Bahnsen goes on to say,
"The defender of the (Christian) faith who is faithful to the
Biblical faith he defends, will not seek to abandon or diminish
the crucial antithesis which exists between the philosophical
reasoning of the regenerate mind and the self-destructive
reasoning of the unregenerate mind. He will, as Paul says in 2
Cor. 10:5, "cast down reasonings and every lofty thing exalted
against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to
the obedience of Christ." The antithesis must be central and
indispensable to the work of the apologist (and 1 might add the
Christian educator) as an ambassador for Christ in the intel-
lectual arena, who beseeches men to be reconciled to God (2
Cor. 5:20)....
D r . Bahnsen ended his presentation at Wesminister
Seminary by quoting from D r . Cornelius V a n T i l ' s book
Toward a Reformed Apologetic. D r V a n T i l wrote,
"Finally it is my hope for the future, as it has always been
my hope in the past, that 1 may present Christ without com-
promise to men who are dead in trespasses and sins, that they
might have life and that they might worship and serve the
Creator more than the creature . . . Rather than wedding
Christianity to the philosophies of Aristotle or Kant (or John
24
Dewey, Horace Mann, Edward Thorndike, or Rush Limbaugh,
P.C.), we must openly challenge the apostate philosophic
constructions of men (including the educational ones) by which
they seek to suppress the truth about God, themselves, and
the world.""
The suppression of Biblical truth to which V a n T i l re-
fers, is the self conscious daily program of the anti-Chris-
tian, government-controlled schools.
We must, as Christians, embrace self consciously two
fundamental Biblical presuppositions. These two presup-
positions, among others, must frame everything we think
about society, in general, and frame how we think about
education in particular. First, Christianity is inescapably
locked in a God imposed conflict against ail non-Christian
ideas and institutions." This conflict,/mpo^ed by the triune
C o d , cannot be disengaged until C o d Himself ends it;
either by the regenerating work of C o d the Holy Spirit or
at the final consummation of human history. This hostility,
conflict, and war is both inward and outward. That is, at its
root, the unregenerate mind of the unbeliever is engaged in
intellectual rebellion and lawlessness toward C o d and
therefore is visibly engaged in a mortal combat with C o d
and His Kingdom. T h e fruit of that combat is seen in the
things the unbeliever does, personally corporately, and
culturally.
This leads to the second presupposition. There is an
inextricable connection between what men believe and
how men live and act. A l l that any society is, visibly, in
inescapable connection between the ideas men embrace
and the manner in which men implement those ideas. A i l
men consciously or unconsciously live in terms of some
standard of authority. The question is never, does an indi-
vidual or society have an ultimate epistemological and
moral authority which directs them, the question is always
what authority, and from where does it arise.
The current educational crisis evident in our society is
an inescapable consequence of the anti-Christian presup-
positions, the inteiiectuai lawlessness which has fueled the
construction of a now self consciously anti-Christian insti-
tution, the government-controlled schools. A s we watch
the deconstruction of this anti-Christian culture and soci-
ety, we need to be reminded of the warning our C o d had
given us in Proverbs 8:32-36. I n these verses C o d , speaking
in the personification of wisdom, warns us about the conse-
quences of ignoring or neglecting the self conscious em-
bracing and application of wisdom, as defined by C o d in
Job 28:28.
(Pro. 8:32) Now therefore listen to me (wisdom), O ye
children: for blessed are they that keep (not just know) my
ways (that is to apply wisdom's presuppositions). (33) Hear
instruction, and be wise, and do not refuse it. (34) Blessed
is the man that hears me, watching daily at my gates,
waiting at the posts of my doors. (35) F o r whoever finds me
finds life, and shall obtain favor of the L O R D . (36) B u t he
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
who sins against me (wisdom) wrongs his own soul: all they
that hate me (wisdom) love death.
The apostle Paul wrote the same thing in this way, "to be
carnally minded is death.""
The death of a society and its institutions is the inevi-
table result of the inteiiectuai rebellion of the unregenerate
mind. It is the "house built on the foundation of sand"
Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:24-27. It is a "house" which
can N E V E R stand and will certainly collapse upon itself as
a visible indication of God's judgment. I f we are to avoid
the inescapable consequences of inteiiectuai and institu-
tional rebellion, we must call upon the visible Christian
Church to "come out from among them and be ye separate,
saith the L o r d , and touch not the unclean thing."" B e it
inteiiectuai uncieanness, in terms of our presuppositions or
philosophy, or institutional uncieanness, in terms of the
models of the schools we create.
Christians who deliver their children to the inteilectu-
aiiy and institutionally lawless government-controlled
schools are engaging in a form of B a a l worship. They have
succumbed to the idolatry of our culture and are participat-
ing in "whoring after another god".
In seeking to develop and implement a rigorous Biblical
philosophy and methodology in education we have a two-
fold task to undertake; we must repair and repel. W e must
be like the Hebrews who, upon returning to Jerusalem
under Nehemiah's leadership, set about to repair the dam-
aged wail surrounding the city. T h e Scripture records
Nehemiah's observations in Nehemiah 4:16; " A n d it came
to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants
work at construction, and the other half of them held both
the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the a r m o u r . . . . "
I f the triune C o d is willing to grant Christians in this
society, and around the world, the opportunity to repent
and seek continued general societal and educational refor-
mation and reconstruction, we must carry out this effort
with both "swords and trowels". We must never again
allow ourselves to relax, because we are in a C o d imposed
conflict; a war with enemies that seek to conquer and
vanquish us. We must engage in the conflict at every level
and at every opportunity (not wait for the enemy to engage
us at our Churches, schools, and homes!). We must "cast
down vain imaginations" by engaging in the philosophical
and ideoiogicai battles. We must continually demonstrate
that those who presuppositionaly reject the authority of
the Scripture and the Christian worldview are building
upon "sand" and are guaranteed destruction. W e must
argue that only in terms of a Bibiica! view of reality and life
can we ever derive any inteiiigibie meaning in life.
We must be engaged in both the political and judicial
sides of this conflict, as well as the other fronts of the battle,
seeking to use the remaining liberties we possess to erect a
righteous, Cod-fearing, T e n Commandments keeping po-
litical, judicial, and educational house, while seeking to
repel and overthrow our anti-Christian enemies.
It is the role of C o d ' s people, according to the Scripture,
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
all of C o d ' s people, to seek and do justice, as C o d defines
justice, toward and on behalf of ail men in every institution
and relation in society. T h e Scripture declares in Ps. 89:14
that "Justice and judgment are the habitation of ( C o d ' s )
throne: mercy and truth shall go before ( H i s ) face. Con-
sider that the very foundation of Cod's throne ( H i s rule) is
grounded upon true justice. It should be no surprise then
that C o d would command H i s people to seek the imple-
mentation of true justice. I n Ps. 82:3, C o d admonishes H i s
covenant people to "Defend the poor and fatherless: do
justice to the afflicted and needy."
Cod's comments in Genesis 18:17-19, about Abraham
as his descendants,'* are quite insightful: C e n . 18:17 " A n d
the L O R D said. Shall I hide from Abraham that thing
which I do; (18) Seeing that A b r a h a m shall surely become
a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth
shall be blessed in him? (19) For I know him, that he will
command his children and his household after him, and they
shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;
that the L O R D may bring upon Abraham that which he
hath spoken of him."
In Prov. 21:3, we read: " T o do justice and judgment is
more acceptable to the L O R D than sacrifice". Our liturgy
stinks in C o d ' s nostrils when we neglect the full application
of Cod's L a w .
Proverbs 28:4 warns us that, "Those who forsake the law
praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with
them." I f we are not contending with the Law-breaking
wicked, we are cooperating with them. Worse than that, we
join in the praise of the wicked.
This warfare against injustice, as C o d defines injustice,
is an offensive battle to be engaged by ail Christians at all
times. We must be on the offensive seeking to overthrow
injustice, and the enemies of C o d , always and everywhere.
At the same time we must work to build Christian institu-
tions in general, and work to erect rigorously Biblical
educational institutions, in particular. These institutions
must be founded upon and guided by the instructions of
"wisdom" as described in Proverbs 8. We must work in the
confidence that the Kingdom of C o d , the new and visible
Christian civilization, as made clear in the parable of the
mustard seed, will grow until it fills the earth.
The Scripture indicates that the wheat and the tares
grow together until the final resurrection, so we must be on
guard against the tares who would seek to "tear" apart the
Kingdom and its work. Y e t we can work in the full confi-
dence of the victory of the gospel of the Kingdom of Christ,
the victory of righteousness over unrighteousness, both
inwardly and outwardly, personally and corporately, indi-
vidually and culturally.
My objective has been to lay before you two fundamen-
tal propositions. First, there is no neutrality in educational
theory or practice and therefore, secondly, to paraphrase
the words of the biblical writer James, a "bad root always
brings forth bad fruit".'*' There is an inescapable connec-
tion between our ideas and our practice. That is why we call
25
men to repent and believe the gospel. First, they must be
changed inwardly before they will change fundamentaiiy,
outwardly.
W e must call upon the visible Christian Church to reject
the he that there is educational (or cultural) neutrality
between the Kingdom of light and the Kingdom of dark-
ness. It was one of the lies of the serpent in the beginning
and continues to be propagated and embraced to this day.
D i d not the serpent chaiienge the instruction given by the
first "Teacher" Jehovah to his "students" the first man and
woman by offering a "vaiue-free/neutrai" alternative edu-
cation? Was not the chaiienge of the serpent to the woman
that, as the "student" she had the right to make her own
choices based upon her own "values"? Was not the "educa-
tion" of the kingdom of darkness driven by the deceit of
the myth of neutrality?! A r e not the government-con-
troiied schools in this later half of the twentieth century
offering the same philosophy and pedagogy "wrapped" in
a different "package"? Therefore our chaiienge to other
Christians must be that of Joshua, "Choose this day whom
you will serve", and that of Elijah (in 1 Kings 18), " i f
Jehovah be C o d follow H i m , but if Baai be god then follow
him."
F o r Christians to continue to turn their children over to
the Satanic, government-controiied, anti-Christian schools
is to ensure C o d ' s continuing chastisement upon the
Church and H i s merciless judgment upon our society. It is
to ensure the continued "wilderness wanderings" that cor-
porate unbelief always brings. C o d will set aside this, and
every other generation, who will not visibly commit them-
selves to loving C o d with all our minds and who refuse to
bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. I f
you have your children in the satanic, anti-Christian, gov-
ernment-controiied schools, repent. Change your mind and
your behavior. C e t them out and begin to give them a
Christian academic education.
B u t , it is not enough to only get out of the anti-Christian
schools. W e must seek to repaice them. We must seek to
replace Law-breaking institutions and the construction of
C o d fearing. Law-keeping institutions. W e must do this for
the good of our neighbor, whom we are commanded to
love as we love ourselves and because Biblical justice de-
mands it. W e must seek the overthrow and replacement of
ail educational institutions which are built upon inteiiec-
tuai iawiessness. Because bad (philosophical and peda-
gogical) fruit always comes from a rotten root, we must
seek to up root and cast down ail the institutions con-
structed upon inteiiectuai iawiessness. We must recognize
that the message of the gospel begins with the repentance
of individuals ( i n both thought and act) and continues with
the visible repentance of societies and their institutions.
T h e warning of the gospel, to ail men and the institutions
they create, is that of the Psalmist in Psaim 2:11-12; "Serve
the L o r d with tear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son
(submit yourself visibly to H i s Lordship) lest H e become
angry in the way and H i s wrath is kindled but a little.
26
Blessed are ail they that put their trust in H i m . "
C o d ' s common and electing grace enlists us in this con-
flict. T u r n not away from the moral obligation we have to
be engaged in it. T o do so is to commit insubordination of
the worst kind against the Leader of the armies of heaven
and earth, who is N O W , right now, overthrowing the king-
dom of His enemies.'"
I conclude by reminding us ail again of the warning of
Proverbs 28:4, "Those who forsake the law praise the
wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them." Rise
up, you men of C o d , and contend with the lawless.
' The question is rarely asked "whose tradition?"
' Matt. 4:1-11; Eph. 6:12; Jude 9
' Dr. Greg Bahnsen, "At War with the Word: The Necessity of
Biblical Antithesis," Antithesis, vol. 1, no.l, (January/Febru-
ary 1990), p. 7.
" The Secret Six, is available from Ross House Books, P.O. Box
67 Vallecito, California, 95251; The Defense of Virginia and
the South is available from Sprinkle Publications, P.O. Box
1094, Harrisonsburg, Virginia, 22801.
' Byron Snapp, "Interview with Lloyd Sprinkle of Sprinkle
Publications," Chalcedon Report, August 1994, pp. 27-33.
" From a handout provided to the author, (primary source
unknown).
' Doug Jones, "Constant Total War," Credenda-Agenda, vol. 6,
no.l, p. 14.
* Francis A . Schaeffer, The Complete Works, vol. 5: A Christian
View of the West (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books,
1982), pp. 423-424.
" Ibid.
"'Such as anabaptistic antinominianism, docetism, Marcionism,
and dispensationalism, premillennialism.
"Romans 8:7; Eph. 4:17-18; Col. 1:21.
"Proverbs 8:36.
"Bahnsen, Antithesis vol. 1, no. 1, p. 8. , ^
"Ibid., p. 5 4.
'•'Gen. 3;15;2 Cor. 10-4-6.
"Rom. 8:6.
"2 Cor. 6:17.
"*Who are, according to Galatians 3:16 and 29 Christ and the
Christian Church.
"James 3:12.
"'Psalm 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:24-25; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:8.
IS SOUTH AFRICA
UNDER COMMUNIST
DOMINATION?
By Erroll Hulse
Appreciated in Chalcedon Report is the article on South
Africa by B r i a n M . Abshire in which he seeks to get to grips
with the complex factors of that muitiraciai country. Dur-
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
ing February while in the U S A I was given a cassette by
brother Calhoun of the Mount Olive Tape Ministry. I n this
recording a South African now residing in California was
interviewed. A fairly dismal prognosis of the future of
South Africa was given. M y fellow born South African
gave a bleak description of the decline in standards and
spoke in particular of the Durban beaches. I have relatives
who live close to the beach in Durban and they confirm
that there has been a mini-war to keep standards up, but
report that the City Council has succeeded. There are four
beaches in the famous golden mile of Durban beaches. It
was not possible to visit them ail but I and my friends found
nothing amiss when we took time for a swim. T h e facilities
were well kept and spotlessly clean. T h e black people on
the beach were exceptionally friendly. F r o m up-to-date
reports life in Durban is marred more by spoiled white kids
rather than by non-whites.
I begin with a reference to Durban beaches because that
illustrates something that is foundational to life every-
where. City Counciiiors universaiiy have to be ceaseless in
their vigilance. Sin is endemic and sin is the same every-
where Levels of common grace vary and economic re-
sources vary but the battle against crime, dirt and vandal-
ism is essentially the same. I also visited missionaries in
Lesotho (Basutoiand). There has been a lot of unrest in
Lesotho and in economic terms that country trails far
behind South Africa. I wonder how long it will be before
South Africa takes the lead in moving toward an A F E E
( A n African South Economic U n i o n ) along the lines of the
one we have here in Europe in the E E C (European E c o -
nomic U n i o n ) now simply referred to as the E U (European
Union)?
It has been claimed by some, the New South Africa has
been taken over by Communists. A letter by a South A f r i -
can to this effect was published in the August 1994 issue of
Evangelical Times in England. That rumour about Com-
munism is fairly widespread. Hence I would like to exam-
ine this question in a little detail. This is particularly impor-
tant in A m e r i c a where few Americans seem able to distin-
guish between different types of socialism and different
kinds of communism. F o r instance it is almost certain that
the next Covernment in Britain will be Labour (socialist)
but there is not one Communist M P in the House of Com-
mons!
Before the recent first democratic election in South
Africa, some writers forecast civil war in that country. This
has not been the case. When Nineveh was spared Jonah
was angry. T h e L o r d rebuked him for it. Those guilty of
false prophecies do not make it their duty to apologize but
sadly seem to seek their own vindication by painting an
exaggerated and distorted picture. One device that has
been used is to claim that the election was rigged. Irregu-
larities were not of an order to annul the result and that was
accepted by ail the main parties involved.
Of 19 political parties that contended in the South A f r i -
can election the P A C is miiitantiy Communist but that
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Party was humiliated by receiving only one percent of the
vote.
Is the A N C Communist? That party must be judged by
its pre and post-election actions. It now forms about 60
percent of the new coalition government. T h e A N C is seif-
confessediy pragmatic. After the euphoria of the inaugura-
tion of the New South Africa the new coalition government
is now facing the reality of administration. These are criti-
cal times. Our responsibility is to pray for those who gov-
ern (1 Tim 2:1-4).
So what of the allegation that South Africa is Commu-
nist? Having read from cover to cover the new constitution
which took years to shape I can find no trace of Commu-
nism. On the contrary it is a charter of freedom, outstand-
ingly so compared with totalitarian nations. After the in-
justice of apartheid we should not be surprised at its double
emphasis on human rights.
Marxist-designed Communism calls for the 'old order'
to be overthrown by the 'proletariat' by violent means —
that is by revolution! It is true that Nelson Mandela and the
A N C resorted to violence, but only after the Nationalist
Covernment refused to renounce apartheid. When accused
of criminality, Mandela's response was that apartheid was
violent and criminal. H e was absolutely right.
I n Communism, a new political and economic system is
called to replace the old, based on total equality. Owner-
ship of land or any other resource is regarded as iiiegai. I n
the New South Africa, legitimacy of ownership has been
guaranteed. T h e new cabinet appointments assure that
there is no intention to interfere with property ownership.
Some important government economic positions have been
occupied by former nationalists. A r e we to believe that ail
the leaders, F W de K l e r k included, have failed to spot the
conspiracy?
Communism demands that ail 'means of production'
(land, factories, credit, transport, etc.) be taken into public
ownership. A i l production must be state controlled and
planned. Under Communism, income differentials disap-
pear and inheritance is outlawed. B u t the coalition govern-
ment of the A N C is not embarking on mass nationaliza-
tion. T h e passing of a bill to install the new two ceiiuiar
telephone systems in competition (won by British firms)
were regarded as a litmus test as far as policy is concerned.
In Communist systems only one party is permitted. U n -
der Communism the press is controlled by the state and
close guard kept on religion. I n contrast to this the New
South Africa coalition government is most proud of the
'new democracy' which has not outlawed other parties.
The press is free and would soon make a meal of any
'Communist conspiracy'. T h e new constitution is religiously
syncretistic. W e should note that Nkosi Sikelel'i Afrika
( C o d Bless Africa) composed by a Methodist minister is a
Christian hymn which could be adapted for any church
service. That hardly resembles atheistic Communism.
Before the birth of the New South Africa I expressed my
optimism to many relatives in the country and to friends;
27
Z u l u , Afrikaans, English speaking. My optimism is based
firstly on the fact that there is a solid core of Bible believers
in South Africa, who for ail their shortcomings are a pray-
ing people; on God's mercy and forgiveness; and on eco-
nomic pragmatism which the L o r d uses in his common
Grace. Somehow the cash to fuifiii the promise to build a
million new houses has to be found. T h e only conceivable
way toward the fuifiiiment of these dreams is by encourag-
ing the business community. Mr. Mandela visited the syna-
gogue in Cape T o w n recently to reassure the Jews. I n that
address he said that the only time he missed the weekly
Christian services in the 27 years on Robben Island was
once through illness. Regular attendance does not make a
person a Christian no more that going to a witch doctor's
meeting (out of deference to a group of peopie-and alas
there all too many such groups in Africa) makes you a
witch doctor. Nelson Mandela does not claim to be a Chris-
tian. During the past few weeks (and I write this in August
1994) Mr. Mandela attended a Dutch Reformed Lord's
D a y morning service in Pretoria. Such was the warmth of
the welcome he received that he only got home at about
midday!
Many with substantial reasons are very pessimistic about
Black Africa, as though black majority rule is an automatic
formula for disaster. My optimism for the New South A f -
rica is also based on my knowledge of neighboring Namibia
which experienced extreme turbulence before indepen-
dence but has subsequently experienced remarkable buoy-
ancy. I f Namibia why not New South Africa?
Formidable problems and dangers lie ahead, not least
the forming of a new constitution within five years. T h e
fact that the Communist Party received only one percent of
the vote and yet has been given a profile of ten to fifteen
percent is a cause of concern. This is probably the principal
reason for the rumours to which I referred at the begin-
ning. T h a t disproportion is alarming, but to claim that
South Africa is already Communist-dominated is to ignore
the realities and also surrender prematurely to a minority
without going to battle.
Surely this is the time for Christians in South Africa to
take the initiative and contend lovingly yet firmly for B i b l i -
cal principles that will continue to safeguard the nation. A s
in most Western nations the real enemy in South Africa is
Post-Christian evolutionary humanism, the breakdown of
marriage and the family, and secular hedonism. T o me the
greatest tragedy is the slide into Modernistic theology of
the N C K e r k which is the largest and most infiuentiai of the
denominations which has a great history. A s in the U K and
the U S A , South Africa is living on the fast receding capital
of past revivals.
The economic problems, even for an economy which for
sound reasons has been regarded as the most robust in the
Southern Hemisphere, are as perplexing as they are in
most Western nations, where deep recession and high lev-
els of unemployment continue. (About 300,000 with B r i t -
ish passports are employed in South Africa.)
28
A n extraordinary volume of prayer ascended prior to
the election. That apartheid should go like a puff of smoke
and the mood of a nation be transformed overnight is
regarded by most South Africans, Christian and otherwise,
as miraculous. T h e dominant Dutch Reformed Church
( N C - Nederduitse Cereformeerde K e r k ) apologized for
the injustice of apartheid but is it noteworthy that it is often
the case that those who downgrade South Africa as Com-
munist have never expressed genuine regret about the
damage apartheid inflicted.
Involved in the transition to a New South Africa is the
reality that the Black people of South Africa have to a
great extent been Christianized. Characteristic of them as a
whole is a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation which
shames us whites.
T h e subsidence of political violence has been dramatic.
I n the worst affected area of K w a z u i u there has been a
tenfold diminishment of killings from 300 a month to 30.
A s in the U K and the U S A the crime rate is too high but
it is to be noted that most crime is now not poiiticaiiy
motivated.
In our pagan world it is unusual to find Bible believing
Christians praying in unity. With them I say. Thank you
L o r d for the New South Africa!
E r r o l l Hulse, editor of Reformation Today, is an
associate pastor of the Leeds Reformed Baptist
Church, England. He was born in South Africa and
graduated at the Pretoria University. He visits South
Africa regularly.
THE OBEDIENCE OF
FAITH
By Bob Gray
" L e t ' s go; this is it!" he said to his huddled teammates. It
was the N F L playoff game between the Broncos and Oil-
ers. T h e Broncos were down by one with two minutes left
to play, 98 yards to go, and no time outs.
While the downcast bronco offense listened to their
quarterback John E i w a y encourage them to " . . . go . . ."
they observed, as one player put it, the "adrenalin going
through him . . . his eyes got real big, I mean saucers . . . It
was great." E i w a y managed to propel his team to an in-
comparable 90 yard-drive and victory.
What inspired the Broncos in those final moments?
Confidence! Confidence in a person, i.e. Eiway. The Bronco
coach said of him, "When you've got No. 7 anything is
possible." (emphasis added).
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
 That's what faith is, confidence in a person. T h e Bronco's
faith for that moment was in a man; a man who could fail.
The believer's faith is in the person of Jesus Christ, Who
conquered death and heii, and is C o d the Son. H e never
fails.
The Bible defines faith as " . . . the assurance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1)
A n d we read also that what is hoped for is what was
promised. (Acts 26:6) I n other words, faith is basically a
confidence directed toward the future in which C o d will be
and do everything H e has promised in H i s Word.
First, we see, faith is believing that C o d is C o d , and that
He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek H i m . {Heb
11:6) the Larger Catechism states:
"God is a spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory,
blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, un-
changeable, incomprehensible, every where present, al-
mighty, knowing all thing, most wise, most holy, most just,
most merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant
in goodness and truth." ( L . C . Q#7)
Secondly, faith is knowing that C o d will do what H e has
promised in H i s Word. What is notable about Cod's cov-
enant with H i s people are H i s promises. T o A b r a h a m H e
promised:
" . . . I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you:
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I
will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I
will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through
you." (Gen. 12:2-3)
A b r a h a m believed and was justified. We can be assured
as A b r a h a m was, that C o d will keep what H e ' s promised
— H e guarantees them with an oath. (Heb. 6:17) W e can
be confident that through faith, what is promised, will be
done. (Rom. 4:21)
In Romans we read that obedience comes from faith
(Rom. 1:5; 16:26) and that disobedience (sin) is a symptom
of unbelief. (Heb. 3:12,19)
W h e n the 12 spies returned from Canaan (the promised
land), ten reported only on the enemy's strength vs. Israel's
weakness. Counting only the giant men and fortified cities,
they became fearful and defeated, as did ail the people.
They trembled, not believing the promise that C o d would
make them conquerors, driving out the enemy as they
possessed the land.
Only two spies, Joshua and Caleb believed C o d and
tried to encourage the people with the good report (gos-
pel) saying, " W e should go up and take possession of the
land, for we can certainly do it." (Numbers 13:30) That
whole generation died in the wilderness except Joshua and
Caleb, who received the promise and entered the land.
Faith on Israel's part would have resulted in their going
to battle and taking dominion. I n the same way, faith in
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Cod's promises results in obedience to the Law.
For example, if one believes the promise that C o d will
supply ail his needs (Phil. 4:19), then a man will not need to
resort to theft (commandment #8) in order to attain a
happy future. Neither will he be covetous or jealous of
what others have, (commandment #10)
C o d has also promised that "vengeance is mine, I will
repay." (Rom. 12:9) O n the basis of such a promise. C o d
therefore commands, " Y o u shall not take vengeance or
bear any grudge . . . you shall love your neighbor as
yourself." (Lev 19:18)
T o hold a grudge against another is hoping for ven-
geance and is tantamount to saying " C o d is a liar and H i s
promise of vengeance and justice are not true." A n un-
forgiving heart is an unbelieving heart, (commandment
#1 & 2 )
A s we can see from the preceding examples, obedience
indeed, comes from faith.
Faith is also directed toward the future and what C o d
" w i l l " do for H i s people. Concerning H i s elect H e says, " I
will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will
redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your
plagues?" Where, O grave, is your destruction?" (Hosea
13:14) Concerning the nations His promises (decree) are
for redemption and the success of the gospel. Thus the
people of C o d have reason for hope. We will know that
His name will be exalted among the nations. (Ps. 46:10)
and H i s enemies will be subdued, and His Word and righ-
teousness will reign throughout the earth.
Therefore, we need not despair over the present. We
should be confident that our C o d , in the person of Jesus
Christ, will not fail. H e gives us victory. F o r H e has prom-
ised, " I will never fail you nor forsake you." (Heb 13:5)
Thus we can say with confidence, " T h e L o r d is my helper; I
will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" (Heb 13:6)
A BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON
WILLIAM J.
BENNETT'S
THE BOOK OF VIRTUES
By W Gary Crampton
W i l l i a m J . Bennett is a well educated, R o m a n Catho-
lic, neo-conservative. H e holds a bachelor of arts degree
in philosophy from Williams College, a doctorate in po-
29
litical philosophy from the University of Texas and a law
degree from H a r v a r d . D r . Bennett served under Presi-
dent Reagan as Secretary of Education and Chairman of
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and as D i -
rector of the Office of National D r u g Control Policy
under President Bush.
D r . Bennett has authored several books, one of the
latest of which is The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of
Great Moral Stories (Simon & Schuster, 1993). T h e book
is an anthology: a collection of political extracts, poems,
myths, short stories, fairy tales, and fables, which are
edited and commented on by the author. There are some
ten chapters, with headings such as "Self-Discipline,"
"Perseverance," "Honesty," " L o y a l t y , " and " F a i t h . "
The Book of Virtues has been an amazing success. It
has been on The New York Times best-seiier list for
months. It has received praise from various conserva-
tives. According to R u s h Limbaugh: " I t belongs . . . in
every home. [It] is a superb collection, certain to fortify
you and yours for a lifetime of morality, goodness, and
right thinking." C a i Thomas writes: " A m e r i c a has long
been in need of a C . S . L e w i s . . . W i l l i a m J . Bennett . . .
may be as close in inteiiectuai likeness to L e w i s as
A m e r i c a has had at the national level." E v e n Margaret
Thatcher says: " T h i s is an uplifting and diverting book.
Parents will buy it to read to their children, and find
themselves dipping into it out of pure pleasure."
What are Christians to think of The Book of Virtues!
D r . Bennett's "Introduction" is telling. H e writes: " T h i s
book is intended to aid in the time-honored task of the
moral education of the young." T h i s , of course, is a wor-
thy goal. T h e author goes on: " M o r a l education . . .
involves many things. It involves rules and precepts —
the dos and don'ts of life with others — as well as explicit
instruction, exhortation, and training . . . T h e purpose of
this book is to show parents, teachers, students, and chil-
dren what the virtues look like, what they are in practice,
how to recognize them, and how they work." A g a i n , this
is a worthy purpose. What then is the problem? Simply
this: the author never tells us how we are to know what
truly moral virtues are and why we are to practice them.
H e even has the audacity to say that "we have a wealth of
material to draw on." A n d in the balance of the book
Bennett reveals where this "wealth of material" comes
from, as he quotes freely, w i t h approbation, from
Aristotle, D a v i d H u m e , Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and a
host of other non-Christian thinkers, as well as from the
H o l y Scriptures.
F r o m a Christian perspective, however, we do not
have a "wealth of material to draw on." W e have only
one source from which to draw: the B i b l e . T h e Bible
has a monopoly on truth. A n d the fact of the matter is
that i f there is not an immutable standard behind the
moral virtues, the virtues themselves are meaningless.
Bennett does not seem to recognize this. O r if he does,
he does not ever say so. E v e n though his book is larded
30
over with Christian stories, there is never a distinction
made between G o d ' s W o r d and other writings. When
Aesop's fables and the teachings of Buddah, Confucius,
Aristotle, and Plato are ail put on the same level as
biblical revelation, we have a real dilemma. Where do
we go to l e a r n truth? I s Confucian teaching G o d -
breathed truth? H o w about A r i s t o t l e or Plate? D r .
Bennett no where distinguishes between biblical truth
and non-Christian platitudes.
T h i s is noticeable in some of his "comments" under
the various chapter headings. Under "Self-discipline,"
for instance, Bennett writes: " I n self-discipline one makes
a 'disciple' of oneself . . . the problem is one of the soul's
proper balance and order . . . B u t the question of the
correct order of the soul is not simply the domain of
sublime philosophy and drama. It lies at the heart of the
task of successful everyday behavior . . . A s Aristotle
pointed out, here our habits make ail the difference. We
learn to order our souls the same way we learn to do math
problems or play baseball well — through practice."
Now no Christian should deny that we must practice
seif-discipiine. Paul clearly teaches this in 1 Corinthians
9:24-27. B u t we must ask D r . Bennett: B y what standard
do we practice self-discipline? B y what is self-discipline
to be governed? What is a seif-discipiined person to be
like? A r e we to follow the moral imperative of Immanuei
K a n t , the teachings of Aristotle, or the infaliibie Word of
C o d ? Sadly, even though according to the Bible the an-
swer to these questions is a matter of eternal conse-
quence, Bennett does not give us an answer.
Further, have there not been many seif-discipiined non-
Christians through the centuries of time? Peiagius, the
early heretic and arch-enemy of Augustine, for one, was
extremely self-controiied. Is Peiagius the example we
want our children to follow? T o o , the prophets of B a a l
that we read about in 1 Kings 18 were so seif-discipiined
that they were willing to shed their own blood in behalf of
their god (v. 28). Is this the form of seif-discipiine we
should emulate?
T h e n is his chapter on "Perseverance," Bennett writes:
"How do we encourage our children to persevere, to
persist in their efforts to improve themselves, their own
lot, and the lot of others? B y standing by them, and with
them and behind them; by being coaches and cheerlead-
ers, and by the witness of our own example." Now some
of what D r . Bennett says is true. B u t there are unan-
swered questions. W e must ask: H o w do we know what to
encourage our children to do? H o w are the children to
know what it means to improve themselves? H o w do
parents know what to coach their children to do? With-
out an infaliibie standard, we simply don't know. A n d I
will go so far as to say that it would be impious for anyone
to teach his children that this is what they "must" do
without an infaliibie standard behind the "must."
The Bible is very clear on this point. T h e C o d of the
Bible is sovereign over H i s creation {Psalm 24:1). A s
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
sovereign, G o d alone is the lawgiver {Isaiah 33:22; James
4:12), and ail men are under H i s law {Romans 3:19). T h e
reason one is required to obey the T e n Commandments
is because they are C o d ' s laws {Exodus 20:1,2).
Perhaps the chapter on " F a i t h " is the most instructive.
Bennett comments: " F a i t h , hope, and love are formally
regarded as 'theological' virtues in traditional Christian
doctrine. . . . There is nothing distinctively Christian,
however, in recognizing that religious faith adds a signifi-
cant dimension to the moral life of humanity worldwide."
This is an incredible statement. Is it true that "there is
nothing distinctively C h r i s t i a n " about the view of "faith,"
as taught by Christ and H i s apostles? Was it not Jesus
that taught that ail other "faiths" were damning?: " I am
the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through M e " {John 14:6). Martin L u t h e r
considered the Christian doctrine of justification by grace
through faith alone to be the doctrine by which the church
would stand or fail. Calvin said that this doctrine was the
"hinge of the Reformation." D r . Bennett demurs. A c -
cording to him, "the moral life of humanity worldwide"
may be benefited by one's faith, no matter what one's
faith is in. Simply stated, this iS sub-Christian thinking.
Secondarily, D r . Bennett has a faulty view of the hu-
man mind. H e denies the teaching of Scripture when he
avers that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank tablet) at birth.
He writes: " B u t because children are not born with this
knowledge [of the moral virtues], they need to learn what
these virtues are."
Now it is true that children do need to learn the vir-
tues. B u t it is not true that they are not born with a
knowledge of moral concepts. I n Romans 2:14-15 Paul
teaches that ail mankind has an innate knowledge of the
law of C o d . T h e Westminster Confession of F a i t h (4:2)
says it this way: "After C o d had made ail other creatures.
He created man, male and female, with reasonable and
immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness,
and true holiness, after H i s own image, having the law of
God written in their hearts." Bennett's concept of the
mind of man being a tabula rasa at birth is founded in the
Thomistic teachings of R o m a n Catholicism, not in bibli-
cal revelation. According to Paul, the very reason that
man is held accountable to C o d is that he knows the truth
and suppresses it {Romans 1:18-21). A n d the only reason
mankind is able to learn is because the inteiiectuai equip-
ment to understand is already there. T h e T e n Command-
ments, the epitome of moral virtue, can be comprehended
by man only because the idea of morality is innately
present in man.
What D r . Bennett's book is ail about is "moraiism."
Moraiism is a form of conservatism which teaches that
there are certain moral standards that must be main-
tained. B u t it never tells us why. Moraiism is not Chris-
tianity. Many non-believers are "outwardly" moral. Christ
condemned the moraiism of H i s day when H e said: "Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! F o r you are like
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful out-
wardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and ail
uncieanness" {Matthew 23:27).
Robert Dabney once wrote: " A m e r i c a n conservatism
is merely the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves
forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never re-
tards it, and always advances near its leader. This pre-
tended salt hath utterly lost its savor . . . Its impotency is
not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the con-
servatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.
It intends to risk nothing for the sake of truth" {Lofton
Letter, July 1994). Dabney clearly recognized that con-
servatism without Christianity is mere "moraiism." It is
salt that has lost its flavor. It is impotent.
Sadly, this is the state of A m e r i c a n conservatism to-
day. Most conservatives are not Christians, or at least
they do not apply biblical principles to ail of the issues of
life. Christians who continue to iocaiize C o d to the arena
of the church, as R . J . Rushdoony {Systematic Theology
1:180) has stated, are like the Syrians of old, who claimed:
" T h e i r [the Israelites] gods are the gods of the hills; there-
fore, they were stronger than we; but let us fight against
them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than
they" {1 Kings 20:23). This is polytheism. T h e Christian
C o d is L o r d of ail, and H i s W o r d is to govern ail.
William J . Bennett's The Book of Virtues contains a
number of good moral stories — stories which Christian
parents may use in the training of their children. B u t no
Christian should read his children this book without do-
ing what Bennett fails to do: explaining to the children
why these moral virtues are to be followed. What makes
virtues moral is the law of C o d . <
SCRIBES AND
PHARISEES
By Ina Painter
"For I say unto you. That except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20.^
T h e Scribes and Pharisees
were swayed by their own selfish craving
and desire to dominate others.
They were known for their ^
struggle for power among themselves
lusting for empty glory
and attempting to secure,
by any means.
31
 their giorious and expected due.'
T h e i r pridefui ambitions were mocked
by Christ in Parables,
and they were shamefully abased
and resisted.'
T h e Scribes and Pharisees sought notoriety
and human praise
which nuiiified any semblance
of a charitable spirit."
T h e y were mere performers,
acting the part of a
true worshiper of C o d ,
but in their hearts
they courted the applause of men.'
1.
L e t us not be as the Scribes and Pharisees,
masking our own sins,
while glorying in C o d ' s goodness,
as if ail that we have were
conferred upon us as the rdward
of our own merit.
T h e truths of the scriptures
were written for our
admonition and reproof.'
We should avoid yielding to our natural
thinking that we are more improved
in our sins, than were they,
while overlooking Christ's application
of the Scribes and Pharisees "righteousness" to us,
and our natural inclination toward
Phariseeism in our day.
" H e hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what
doth the L o r d require of thee, but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy C o d ? ' "
" F o r I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man
that is among you, not to think of himself more highly
than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as
C o d hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."*
"Humble yourselves in the sight of the L o r d , and he shall
lift you up.""
"By humility and the fear of the L o r d are riches, and
honour, and iife."'"
" A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall
uphold the humble in s p i r i t . " "
' Joseph Addison Alexander, The Gospel According To
Matthew, [1861], (Lynchburg, Virginia: James Family Christian
32
Publishers, 1979), p. 131. "The form of expression is
intentionally paradoxical, requiring explanation of the terms
before it could be fully or correctly understood. The prima
facie meaning seemed to be, that they must imitate the Scribes
and Pharisees, and go beyond them in the same direction, or
they could not be admitted to the kingdom. The meaning, as
afterwards explained, was that the Pharisees and Scribes,
instead of having too much, had too little, nay had nothing, of
the quality required, so that instead of trying to be like them,
they must seek in this respect to be as different as possible."
' John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: A
Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, [1555] vol.
I I , by T . Parker, eds. David W. Torrance & Thomas F .
Torrance, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B . Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1979), p. 103.
' James 4:6b.
" Calvin, op. cit., p. 167.
' Ibid., p. 168. p
' I Corinthians 10:11.
' Micah 6:8. ,
* Romans 12:3.
" James 4:10. f
'"Proverbs 22:4. ,
"Proverbs 29:23.
DOROTHY
RUSHDOONY'S
COMMENTS
T h e r e is only one good thing about the 1994 O . J .
Simpson case and that is the fact that it is pushing people
to rethink marriage. T o most people, including Chris-
tians, marriage is a necessary condition for the procre-
ation and rearing of children. B u t the Bible does not
make this central. Marriage became necessary when C o d
said. It is not good for man to be alone. Man was created
to have dominion and to subdue the earth to the glory of
C o d , and woman was created to be man's help-meet in
that task. T h a t they would have children was a command
of C o d and is a part of that task. Y o u don't have children
for the fun of it, but as a command of C o d , as a duty and
a privilege. B u t , this is a temporal thing, or is it? Christ
ascended into heaven, and now He is preparing His people
to be His bride , H i s church. Here in this temporal life we
are living a type or pattern of an eternal state. This being
the case, we should look at marriage very differently than
the unbeliever does. Being part of something with eter-
nal significance is far different than entering a purely
personal relationship. Basic to marriage is not a man, a
woman, and children, but C o d and H i s eternal purpose.
W e must not reduce marriage to a humanistic relation-
ship.
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Geocentricity's Critics Refuse To Do Their Homework
A Special Chalcedon Position Paper by Martin G. Selbrede
©1994 Chalcedon
In a surprising Uim of events. Dr. Gary North hired Dr. Michaei
Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, to analyze alleged fatal flaws and defects in geocentric
cosmology from the standpoint of an astrophysicist. Dr. North paid
Dr. Nieto for the resulting essay, entitled "Testing Ideas on
Geostationary Satellites," which is incorporated as the bulk of the
publication bearing the superscription, "Geocentrism: An
Astrophysicist's Comments."
Dr. Nieto interacted with virtually no relevant geocentric
material, although it was not only available to Dr. North, but actually
forwarded to him in 1992. Dr. North saw fit to return the most
technically-oriented and complete videotaped lecture on
geocentricity available at that time, without having ever watched it.
The video provided up-to-date technical references in answer to Dr.
North's many challenges, but he refused to view it. He could have
saved himself the money, and Dr. Nieto the trouble, had he not
inflicted such blindness upon himself. The response to Dr. Nieto is
contained in that video, and we need merely rehearse it here to
refute Dr. Nieto's and Dr. North's papers. The fact that Dr. North
held that very video in his hands and yet refused to view it, reflects a
tragic breakdown of academic and intellectual integrity on his part.
The great irony of Dr. Nieto's essay is his complete reliance on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The irony obtains from the
fact that general relativity stipulates that any observer can consider
himself to be at rest - and that solving Einstein's field equations for
his position will properly and satisfactorily describe all phenomena
observed from that vantage point. When Drs. North & Nieto assert
that if the earth were at rest, geosynchronous satellites would
necessarily fall down, they are asserting that general relativity is
completely false. Since Dr. Nieto uses 2 of his 7 pages to air alleged
experimental proof for general relativity, we observe that a kingdom
divided against itself cannot stand, and that Dr. Nieto thereby
destroys his own arguments.
In fact. Dr. Nieto appears to be completely unaware of the well-
documented key doctrines of general relativity, both as presented by
Einstein and Mach, and developed subsequently into our own
decade. This failure of scholarship (surprising, since the essentials
are taught in freshman-ievel courses in physics) has led Nieto into
multiple errors.
North and Nieto are searching for the mystical geocentric force
that holds up geosynchronous satellites, preventing them from
falling to the earth given the geocentric hypothesis that they are not
orbiting objects. "Where is this force?" they ask, for they have
searched and found it not. So they appeal to their readers to search
as well and see for themselves there is no such force, just as the
Pharisees challenged, "Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no
prophet" (John 7:52). Had the Pharisees glanced at Isaiah 9, they
could have spared themselves an embarrassing gaffe. Had Dr. Nieto
reviewed Einstein first, he could have done likewise.
The urge to hide the geocentric force acting on the
geosynchronous satellite from his readership resulted in the
following error by Nieto. Says he, "...one sees that there is no
explicit mathematical theory as to why the satellite would stay up
there if the universe were geocentric. The authors postulate that
maybe there is a sphere of matter (no good, they realize, there is no
force inside a sphere of matter), or then maybe there is a ring and
maybe this could account for it. They speculate. But they do not
show." Actually, we did show, but Dr. North didn't watch.
Einstein taught that there is a force inside a sphere of matter that
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
is in motion. He wrote plainly to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913, "If
one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by
that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell
relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a
Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a
Foucauit pendulum is dragged around." Geocentrists have never
denied the Gaussian proposition that there is no net force inside a
stationary shell of matter - but the distinguishing feature of
geocentricity is the daily rotation of the universe around the earth.
How did Nieto and North miss it? By using return mail.
The magnitude of the force (usually discussed under the heading
of "dragging of inertial frames") is cited in many references. Misner,
Wheeler & Thome, in their tome Gravitation, pp. 547, quantify the
rotational drag by "simple dimensional considerations" and propose
that (Opoucauit tnust be identical with © 5 ^ 5 , or, namely, that the angular
velocity of a Foucauit pendulum equals the angular velocity (speed
of rotation) of the stars (i.e., the rest of the universe) - ibid, pg. 548.
These well-respected authors (Kip S. Thome is Cai Tech's black
hole and general relativity expert; Wheeler & Misner taught at
Princeton, Cai Tech and Oxford) approvingly cite the 1918 work of
Thirring (pg. 547) in connection with this force and its computation.
This last circumstance is doubly ironic, since Dr. Nieto's final
footnote begins, "There is a gravimagneto effect related to the
Earth's rotation, which amusingly draws upon the work by Thirring
cited by [Dr. John] Byi." Dr. Nieto's faulty understanding of basic
relativity theory could have been remedied by checking the work by
Thirring. Hans Thirring begins by citing Einstein's 1914 paper.
Einstein defines K as a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system, and
Ki as a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K. Since this
directly represents the earth (K,) and the universe (K) in Dr. Nieto's
antigeocentric cosmology, I will substitute these identifications for K
and K^ in italics in Einstein's text to make Einstein's position clear
to every reader:
"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative
to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for
masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such
forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth.
[The geosynchronous satellite is precisely such an object, at rest
with respect to the earth, but viewed as having a centrifugal force
acting on it with respect to the universe — MGS.] Already Newton
viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be
considered as 'absolute,' and that the earth could not then be treated
as the 'resting' frame of the universe. Yet, as E . Mach has shown,
this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such
centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one
could just as well account for them as resulting from the average
rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the
vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."
In quite precise language, Einstein taught that the centrifugal
force on an object in the earth's rest frame (the condition satisfied by
the hovering geosynchronous satellite) is inadmissible as evidence of
the rotation of the earth, for in the earth's frame that force arises
from "the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses."
This 1914 teaching of Einstein is rather old news — and it remains
inconceivable that Nieto would cite it, "amusingly enough," without
reading it. Or is there a tragic pattern here?
Thirring observed in his opening paragraphs that the complete
equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such
phenomena as the geosynchronous satellite or Foucauit pendulum
33
equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition
by Einstein's 1915 work: "the required equivalence appears to be
guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations." This is
what geocentrists mean when they assert (much to Dr. North's
disdain) that the mathematics is the same for the heliocentric and
geocentric models: Einstein's field equations are structured to supply
the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a
geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. In fact, the only
reason Thirring wrote his paper was because the boundary con-
ditions of Einstein's paper were geared for a finite universe, so that
Thirring set forth, in his own words, "the mathematical development
of a rotational field of distant masses for a specific, concrete
example." After ten pages of tensor analysis, Thirring summarizes:
"By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an
Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses,
forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis
forces." Hard again to imagine Dr. Nieto's amusement in citing in
his favor a source, even second-hand, that negates his position.
Harder yet to imagine Dr. Nieto rejecting Thirring's argument, since
it simply (and ably) develops Einstein's own stated position.
Einstein's position has not lacked for continued, and
contemporary, treatment by the world's top relativity scholars.
Another key (and, in fact, decisive) reference cited in the video
North refused to view was taken from the journal, General Relativity
and Gravitation, Volume 21, No. 2, 1989, pgs. 105-124. Professors
0 . Gr0n and E . Eriksen, in the article Translational Inertial
Dragging, take up, again, the issue of what forces arise within a
spherical shell of matter. (Recall that Dr. Nieto wrote, "there is no
force inside a sphere of matter.")
Gr0n & Eriksen inform us that "The rotational inertial dragging
effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later
investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in
the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchiid
radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with
the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of "perfect
dragging" the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined
by the shell." (pg. 109-110).
Intriguingly, the authors point out that "with reference to
Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated
reference frames. However, according to the general principle of
relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of
gravitational dragging (acceleration) fields. The concept of 'inertial
forces,' which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian
mechanics, is thereby made superfluous." What is fascinating here is
the recognition that the Newtonian centrifugal force due to inertia
(of which Dr. North is so fond) is a fictitious force, and is "a sort of
trick." One would have expected the geocentric model of the
geosynchronous satellite to be the one filled with tricks and fictional
forces, but such is not the case. (The authors intend no derogation of
fictitious tricks in the Newtonian case, while buttressing the claim
that geocentricity posits actual rather than fictitious forces to account
for the behavior of objects such as geosynchronous satellites.)
This is explicitly stated on page 113, where G&E cite C. Mpller
"in his standard [1952] textbook on general relativity," from chapter
8: "Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in
accelerated systems of reference. The 'fictitious' forces were treated
as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The
reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such
peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the
circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated
relative to these systems of reference. The 'fictitious forces' are thus
treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant
masses causing a 'field of gravitation' in the system of reference
considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz.
systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in
34
our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the
systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however,
be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect
to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-
called general principle of relativity."
This quote is important on two counts. (1) The italicized sentence
(emphasis apparently in Mpller's original textbook) is precisely what
Dr. Nieto denies in his argumentation, namely, the general principle
of relativity. But on what does Dr. Nieto base his arguments against
geocentricity? General relativity!
But count (2) is equally telling: Mpller tells us that the only
reference frame in which we can exclude consideration of the distant
masses of the galaxies is in "systems of inertia," which G&E more
carefully define as "frames of reference in which the cosmic mass
has no observed rotation or translation acceleration." By this
definition, the earth does not fulfill the requirement for being a
system of inertia, since the heavens are observed to rotate around it.
Therefore, Mpller alerts us that we may NOT omit the rest of the
universe in deriving the forces acting locally on the earth.
Geocentrists assert as much, consistent relativists (e.g., Fred Hoyle)
assert as much, but inconsistent or forgetful relativists (e.g. Nieto)
fail to do their homework before taking up the issue.
Gr0n & Eriksen develop the consequences of Einstein's position
to the hilt on pages 117-118 with an ironclad example: "As an
illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the
strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the
Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon both the Moon and the
Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein's field equations for
the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the
Schwarzchiid solution and conclude that the Moon should fall
toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to
consider the Moon as at rest, which would imply that the strong
principle of relativity is not valid.
"This problem has the following solution. As observed from the
Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be
included when the Moon observer solves Einstein's field equations.
Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the
rotational nontidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the
centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why
the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."
This is the decisive answer to Dr. North and Dr. Nieto. The Moon
always shows the same face to the Earth, so that from the point of
view of the Moon, the Earth is hovering 240,000 miles above it. In
this picture, the Earth is to the Moon, what a geosynchronous
satellite is to our Earth. The hypothetical Dr. North on the Moon
solves his equations and wonders, "What holds the Earth up? Why
doesn't it fall down here?" And Gr0n and Eriksen have provided the
answer, in complete consistency with the work of Einstein (1913,
1914, 1950), Thirring (1918, 1921), M0ller (1952), Misner, Wheeler,
Thorne (1973), Brill and Cohen (1966, 1968) and Orwig (1978).
Which is only natural, since it is unthinkable that Einstein's disciples
would break with him on the central tenet of his general theory.
Whereas Dr. Nieto seems to recognize the element of curved
spacetime in general relativity, he has failed to grasp the general
principle of relativity itself, from which the subsequent geometric
model flowed. In fact, he has (inadvertently, 1 would hope) lashed
out at it.
In passing, note that the plane of rotation of the cosmic mass in
G&E's example is equatorial for the Moon - general relativity
provides for explaining such geosynchronous phenomena only for
equatorial satellites. Dr. North wrongly assumes that in the
geocentric model one can place geostationary satellites over North
Dakota, whereas the geocentric literature has repeatedly taught that
the field equations arising from cosmic rotation permit stable
geostationary satellites only over the equator, and at the same
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
prescribed height as that indicated by the Newtonian methods Dr.
North favors. This has been asserted in books, in journals, on
audiotapes, and videotapes. You'd have to try real hard to miss it.
While on the subject of Einstein and Thirring, let us examine Dr.
Nieto's final footnote: "There is a gravimagneto effect related to the
Earth's rotation, which amusingly draws upon the work by Thirring
cited by Byl. Attempts will be made to measure this effect with a
gyroscope orbiting about a rotating earth (Schiff gyroscope
experiment) and by two satellites (LAGEOS I and III) orbiting about
a rotating Earth in complementary orbits. This is a prediction, whose
test will hopefully come about this decade."
Reading this somewhat flippant note, the certainty of the Earth's
rotation is flatly assumed as proven, and about to undergo additional,
if superfluous, proof. It is made to appear that Dr. John Byl erred by
quoting from a source that is being used to develop an experimental
proof of the earth's rotation! But all is not as it seems in footnote 13.
The fundamental reference to experiments like this is found,
again, in Misner, Wheeler & Thome's Gravitation, pages 1117-
1121, where the experiment alluding to Nieto's complementary
satellite orbits (one polar, the other equatorial) is set forth in detail.
MW&T tell us that "the Earth's rotation 'drags' the local inertial
frames along with it. Notice that near the north and south poles the
local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does (Q
parallel to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite
direction (Q antiparallel to J; compare Q with the magnetic field of
the Earth!)" (page 1119). By sending satellites in orbits 90 degrees
apart, scientists can maximize the effect they are trying to measure,
which is very microscopic indeed (0.1 seconds of arc per year). But
Nieto's use of this argument falls to the ground, since the physics
being described here are those local to the gyroscope. Whether or
not the earth is motionless, the experiment yields the same result. In
fact, the very wording of the authors' argument deflates Dr. Nieto's
point, since they specify that the motion is relative between the Earth
and the distant galaxies. The force that the satellite experiment will
be measuring is precisely the kind of force (inertial frame dragging)
that general relativity scientists affirm holds up geosynchronous
satellites when the earth is taken to be at rest. So, the amusing part
of Dr. Nieto's footnote 13 is how badly it appears to have backfired.
If it be objected that a 1973 book, definitive tome though it be, is
somewhat dated in dealing with the 13th footnote, the literature is
still rich in more recent references. In General Relativity and
Gravitation, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1988, Cerdonio, Prodi and Vitale
published an article entitled Dragging of Inertial Frames by the
Rotating Earth: Proposal and Feasibility for a Ground-Based
Detection, pgs. 83-87. The kind of hardware that Dr. Nieto has in
mind is there described in depth, where "the effect of rotation results
in a net magnetization of the [instrument's ferromagnetic] rod" (pg.
85). The resulting magnetic flux is measured by a device known as a
SQUID. Yet, throughout the article, general relativity is assumed,
and relative motion is affirmed. The very effect itself is described
thus: "The Lense-Thirring field due to the rotating Earth is locally
equivalent to a rotation in respect to distant stars..." Another
expression is "the time average of the Earth's rotation with respect to
distant stars." The choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, and the
field mathematics follows after the preference of the physicist.
Consult, by way of comparison, the citations of Thirring discussed
earlier, on which this paper is dependent.
In short, we have here Thirring cited against Thirring, Einstein
cited against Einstein, and general relativity cited against general
relativity. Dr. Nieto deliberately and directly undermines his own
physics, and his arguments are manifestly self-contradictory.
Consistent relativists have never been hostile to geocentricity. Dr.
Fred Hoyle pointed out that had the trial of Galileo been held after
Einstein published his general theory, it would have resulted in an
even draw by mathematical and physical necessity. This is the legacy
CHALCEDON REPORT. OCTOBER 1994
of general relativity: the overthrow of absolute reference frames, and
the democratization of all coordinate systems.
Let it be clearly understood that the presentation of general
relativity's teaching on the geocentric model presented herein is
central, not peripheral or obscure, in Einstein's theory. It was plainly
presented to this author when he learned the fundamentals of general
relativity and geometrodynamics at the California Institute of
Technology at the age of 16 (as a research fellow for the 1973
California Junior Science & Humanities Symposium, under the
supervision of Dr. Kip S. Thome and his associates — and often
studying, in fact, from the galley proofs of Gravitation as it was
being completed for publication). We can therefore safely rule out
the idea that Dr. Nieto's training somehow glossed over this key
proposition, in light of the fact that it is basic to Einstein's theory,
and that Dr. Nieto freely cites references from general relativity's
body of extant literature. He even indicates that he is actively
seeking to improve upon Einstein, which would, presumably, imply
some mastery and understanding of the theory one is attempting to
supplant.
Therefore, Dr. Nieto's multiple citations from the world of
general relativity constitute academic suicide so far as this particular
debate is concerned. A geocentrist could have easily quoted the
selfsame references as Dr. Nieto did, but in so doing remained
consistent with Einstein. (There are, in fact, a number of geocentrists
who base their scientific understanding of the geocentric model
directly upon general relativity, at least one of which has conveyed
this clearly and concisely to Dr. North.)
To summarize: it is impossible to launch an attack on
geocentricity on the basis of general relativity, by definition. Proof
of a moving earth is simultaneously proof that general relativity is a
myth.
This means that Dr. Nieto's analysis is shot through with factual
errors in regard to the primary force of his presentation. Some of his
errors are relatively innocuous, e.g., his description of Kepler's
theory as involving concentric spheres "within which were inscribed
regular polygons." (Kepler used Platonic solids and not fiat
polygons.) Unfortunately, most of the errors (factual, logical, and
scientific) are simply fatal.
Dr. Nieto, however, has also evidenced poor research in setting
forth geocentricity's distinctives. He asserts at least six times that
geocentricity has failed to predict certain phenomena that modem
science has correctly predicted. These alleged failures earn
geocentricity a demotion to the status of an antirational dogma.
Through ignorance of geocentric physics. Dr. Nieto imposes a
Procrustean bed on those he criticizes - tantamount to stuffing words
into the mouths of geocentrists. The predictive power of
geocentricity, and its more comprehensive analytic range, will be
addressed below.
First, however, consider Dr. North's accusation that modern
geocentricity has failed to produce fruitful results. Citing the parable
of the fig tree, wherein "Jesus allowed it only four years of
fmitiessness before cutting it down," North finds geocentricity long
overdue for immediate termination. His arbitrary time-frame reveals
a shallow view of modem physics.
Galileo himself leamed that merely setting forth a more elegant
and attractive geometry for orbital kinematics was inadequate to
prove his heliocentric model: he had to provide a complete, new
theory of dynamics to support it. This work, undertaken by one of
the great intellects of the period, was decades in the making. The
formalism later received its capstone in the work of Newton. This
development spanned more than a century of time. Dr. North's "fig
tree" view finds its analogue in the vitriolic attacks launched against
Galileo by his enemies, whose motivations were political and
personal.
The new dynamics of Einstein were born in the work of
35
mathematician Georg Riemann, whose work on space curvature
appeared so far removed from any known practical application that it
appeared completely useless. Yet, gravitation is now described using
his tensor notation, which Einstein incorporated into the heart of his
general theory. With Einstein came a new dynamical theory,
geometrodynamics, with spacetime geodesies replacing outdated
Newtonian trajectories. This revolution took the better part of a
century, from the laying of the mathematical foundations in the mid-
19th century to the completion of this towering edifice of 20th
century physics.
The case is no different with geocentric science: it, too, must
develop a brand new dynamical theory to support its description of
the behavior of the heavens. Unlike the peaceful development of
Einstein's theory, the geocentric model's slow codification is being
undertaken under tempestuous circumstances, in the face of ridicule,
contempt, and self-indulgent scorn, yet propelled forward by
laborers operating near their personal limits of physical stamina. Yet
the work goes forward, and should be allowed the time that was
accorded the preceding revolutions to bear their fruit. A preliminary
overview of progress to date, giving a glimpse of the dynamical
theory being presently developed by modem geocentric scientists, is
herein set forth. Where the discussion touches on Dr. Nieto's
concems and challenges, the connection will be pointed out.
(Keep in mind that not all geocentrists will agree with every
detail of the following summary — it only purports to be
representative of the dominant strains of thought among top
geocentric scholars.)
GRAVITY AND RELATED MATTERS
One would think that the only viable theories of gravitation worth
considering were Newton's and Einstein's, given the substance of
Dr. North's and Dr. Nieto's critiques. This gross oversimplification
merely misleads the unwary reader, historically and scientifically.
Newtonian gravity received competition from the LeSagean theory
of gravity, and the LeSage hypothesis even received the theoretical
attention of Lord Kelvin ("On the Ultramundane Corpuscules of
LeSage," Royal Society of Edinburgh Proceedings, pgs. 577-589,
1871). The LeSage theory is a physical theory of gravitation,
meaning there is an actual, understandable physical reason why
gravitation exists and can be felt (unlike abstract notions such as
action-at-a-distance and curved spacetime). The theory has
undergone important revisions in the hands of geocentrists over the
last decade, but the fundamental idea is retained.
George-Louis Le Sage developed "his" theory in the late 1770's
(the work was almost certainly plagiarized). He postulated that the
universe is filled with countless infinitesimal particles, which he
termed ultramundane corpuscles. These corpuscles are in extremely
rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and are colliding
continually with material objects from all directions, so that a net
pressure is applied to ail objects within this kinetic "ocean" of
ultramundane corpuscles.
In the case of a spherical mass in the middle of this corpuscular
flux, the net force on the mass is zero, since the pressure is applied
to it equally from all directions. However, in the case of two
spherical objects near each other within this flux, the one sphere will
block some of the corpuscles from colliding with the other, and vice
versa. The objects shield one another from a portion of this flux, as
determined by their mass and separation, such that there are more
corpuscles pushing them together along the line joining their centers
than there are keeping them apart. The closer they are, the greater
the corpuscular pressure becomes. LeSage calculated the well-
known inverse-square law from this shielding effect. In his theory,
gravity is not a pull — it is an external push. According to this view,
a man's weight reflects the difference between how many corpuscles
are hitting him from above, compared to how many are hitting him
36
from below — and is a function of the earth's mass attenuating the
upward-directed flux. (In fact, the mathematics of LeSagean
mechanics is the mathematics of attenuation.) It is easy to see why
the LeSagean theory is termed a physical theory of gravitation: its
fundamental principle is simple enough for a child to grasp, without
metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
Advocacy for the theory declined after Lord Kelvin observed that
the collisions between the hypothetical particles and normal matter
would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient
to melt planetary objects. (Subsequent physics showed how such
particle collisions can be "elastic" and thus avoid any degradation of
flux energy to heat — but by then, LeSage had been forgotten in the
stampede to canonize Einstein.)
LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer
basing their position on general relativity. The theory has predictive
power, for the equations of attenuation make it clear that the shape
and orientation of an object determine the magnitude of force on it.
In the LeSagean theory, a barbell held horizontally is heavier than
one held vertically, and a feather will drop faster in a vacuum than a
small ball of lead — predictions that directly oppose the dynamics
of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein. Until the last decade, the
predictions of LeSage would have been laughed off the stage, until
instruments sensitive enough to detect such anomalies were pressed
into service. When these anomalies were discovered, modem science
rushed in to herald the discovery of some fifth fundamental force,
termed (erroneously) supergravity by some excited researchers. But
they had been beaten to the theoretical punch by more than two
centuries by the gravitational theory championed by the geocentrists.
The peculiar behavior of pendulums just before and after an
eclipse, and within deep mine shafts, has likewise been troubling to
the standard gravitational theories, Einstein's included. Saxi and
Alien's pendulum measurements during the solar eclipse March 7,
1970 were startling, and subsequent measurements by Kuuseia
(Finland: July 22, 1990 and Mexico: July 11, 1991) still reflected
anomalous, though less severe, deviations. (Cf. Physical Review D3,
823 and General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1992,
pg. 543-550). Mineshaft measurements of the gravitational constant
evaded conventional analysis (Cf. Holding & Tuck, "A New Mine
Determination of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," Nature,
Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716). These anomalies were predicted
by the LeSagean theory, not by Newton, not by Einstein.
An ultrasensitive Cavendish torsion balance was pressed into
service in the mid-1970's to determine experimentally how sound
the inverse-square law of gravitation was (Long, "Experimental
Examination of the Gravitational Inverse Square Law," Nature,
April, 1976, Vol. 260, pgs. 417-418). The apparatus revealed
systematic discrepancies of 0.37%. Considering how relativity
theory makes much ado of infinitesimal anomalies it "predicts," this
reported glitch is enormous — and is predicted by the LeSagean
model promoted by modem geocentrists.
Here are several key experimental effects predicted and/or
adequately explained only by geocentrists pursuing their theory of
dynamics: one could legitimately tum the tables on Dr. Nieto and
ask, "Where was modem physics? Its theories predicted something
other than what was measured!"
Modem physics tends to respond with a yawn to such challenges,
and Dr. Nieto's view that the theories that fit the data best are the
ones worthy of acceptance is, in fact, naive. When comparisons
between theories are made, the faithful will prove loyal to their
theories, not the data. When confronted with evidence demonstrating
the superiority of one theory over others (e.g., "A Comparison of
Results of Various Theories for Four Fundamental Constants of
Physics," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 15, No.
4 (1976), pp. 265-270), the world of science merely shrugged,
CHALCEDON REPORT. OCTOBER 1994
unmoved in its pre-existing biases. (In the example cited, the best
theory, being anti-Einsteinian, gained no adherents for having met
the experimental criteria better than did its cousins.) (This author, in
phone conversation with a chief research scientist at the Laurence-
Livermore Labs in 1992, pointed out that the eiectron diffraction
effect had been again recentiy derived using classicai physics.
Quantum mechanics was developed in part because classical physics
could not account for this effect, but now that this was no longer
true, the scientist dismissed the news with an annoyed "So what?"
His precommitment to modem QCD theory colored his scientific
worldview completely.)
The LeSage theory was developed mathematically, in
painstakingly rigorous detail, and then underwent an important
conceptual evolution in the mid-1980's. What if the ultramundane
corpuscles were compressed to a greater density, so that more of
them filled a smaller volume? In fact, what if they were squeezed
shoulder to shoulder, so tightly packed that they could only jostle
one another, but were no longer free to rocket through space like gas
molecules do? Do the same mles of shadowing and attenuation
apply now that the so-called LeSagean gas has become an uitradense
mass? Would the pressure effects transmit in the same way as the
original theory stipulated? Indeed, the same principles hold, except
that acoustic pressure waves transmit the background gravitational
pressure through this uitradense matrix.
This uitradense medium of geocentric physics is identified as the
Biblical firmament. It has a density so great that a teaspoon of the
firmament would weigh more than' a trillion universes combined.
(The computed density is termed the Planck density, 10'" g/cml)
Such assertions seem to earn Dr. Nieto's label of being merely
"ad hoc." But a little research (in contrast to cavalier dismissal)
would reveal that the constituent elements of this geocentric
postulate can be found in the most highly respected scientific
journals and publications. In fact, the literature has been of
inestimable help in obliterating objections to the geocentric notion
of a physical, uitradense firmament.
In The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, Hawking & Siklos, ©1983
Cambridge University Press), M.A. Markov defines a "particle"
termed a "maximon," possessing the 10'" g/cm' density defined
above, or more precisely, 3.6x10" g/cm' (pgs. 359, 361). He writes,
"If a black hole has internal Planck dimensions and an external mass
equal to the Planck mass, the matter density in it is quantum (pq). If
it is not decaying, such a black hole represents some degenerate
case: it can neither collapse, nor anticollapse if one assumes that the
mass density cannot exceed Pq. In other words, the requirement of a
limiting density is very strong and leads to nontrivial consequences"
(pgs. 366-367). Markov then explores the implications of a "liquid"
made up of such maximons, and points out that from "a topological
point of view the maximon liquid is a model of a quasi-isotropical
space" (ibid). This citation is important, for geocentrists are often
criticized for their description of "empty" space as a medium
millions of times denser than lead, leading to the common objection
that physical objects could never possibly move through so dense a
medium. But the physics affirms the fact that such a medium can
function as a space, through which other objects can freely pass.
(A maximon is not necessarily a black hole, according to
Markov, but "may be a particle of the same Planck dimensions, but
with a structure essentially different from a black hole. Their
gravitational radius coincides with their Compton length," ibid, pg.
365. This is pointed out here to cut short any critique that the
firmament model clearly leans on general relativity by relying on the
existence of microscopic black holes.)
Note Markov's use of the word, "nontrivial." This word is the
most appropriate term one could apply to the firmament of the
geocentrists — any object as stupendously massive as the firmament
is asserted to be is to be taken very seriously, since it dwarfs the rest
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
of the universe in comparison. It is ironic that geocentrists are
routinely called upon to abandon this "quirky, inconsequential"
notion, whereas secular science has continued to probe the idea
theoretically and experimentally, while unaware of its ultimate
implications.
In short, "empty" space is not a vacuum; it is not a "nothing," it is
a "something." Correspondingly, it has properties and attributes that
"nothingness" cannot possess. Dr. Robert J . Moon, Professor
Emeritus in Physics at the University of Chicago, published an
article in 21st Century, May-June, 1988, pg. 26ff, entitled "Space
Must Be Quantized," addressing precisely this issue. He points out
that "according to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is
so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of
course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call
free space has a structure. ...[This impedance] equals 376+ ohms."
This reactive, energy-storing impedance is a natural corollary of
geocentric theory and its uitradense firmament; it has not been
accounted for by conventional science, and is not contained within
either Newton's dynamics or Einstein's gravitational field equations.
Where was conventional science in accounting for this effect?
The uitradense firmament of the geocentrists pops up in the
literature in various guises, as theorists attempt to account for the
experimental data flooding into the various centers of higher
learning. Princeton's John A. Wheeler is credited with being the first
to describe what is now called "spacetime foam," the notion that on
ultramicroscopic scales empty space is filled with countless
uitradense particles popping into existence and then becoming
instantly extinct (1957). In 1968 he observed that "the central new
concept is space resonating between one foamlike structure and
another." Noted astronomer Stephen Hawking developed the
implications of this "foam," which is distinctive in that on extremely
small scales empty space is jampacked with violently random
activity and enormous mass ("virtual" mass in the modern
terminology). (Cf. MW&T, Gravitation, pgs. 10, 11, 1180.) The
physics at this scale, and the mathematics used to describe it, are
daunting even to the cognoscenti. The geocentric firmament differs
from the conventional understanding in affirming that the underlying
particles are permanent and stable, whereas modem physics prefers
to regard them as undergoing continuous and extremely rapid
creation and annihilation, like an unstable foam. Both theories put
the density of the particles at the Planck density.
In Physical Review D, Third Series, Volume 47, Number 6,
March 15, 1993, pg. R2166ff, Redmount and Suen explore the
question, "Is Quantum Spacetime Foam Unstable?" Utilizing
fluctuating black holes and wormholes as constituents of the
stmcture of space is a serious liability, the physicists conclude,
because the inherent instability of these structures makes them
unsuitable candidates as components of the underlying stmcture of
space. There must be, in fact, "strong constraints on the nature" of
the stmcture of space at scales down to the so-called Planck length
(about 10"" cm), the size of a maximon. This recent research points
away from the Wheeler & Hawking models and toward the
firmament of the geocentrists, which does not suffer from the
stability problem associated with the hypothetical objects
(wormholes, blackholes) populating the general relativity menagerie.
In the geocentric hypothesis, the firmament particles, although
unable to "break ranks" because their neighbors are too close, are
yet in rapid motion, colliding rapidly and continuously with their
neighbors. (The fact that they possess rotational spin, something first
proposed by Maxwell, will be taken up a little later in connection
with electromagnetic theory.) Their behavior has a somewhat
stochastic, or random, nature — as clearly taught as far back as
LeSage in 1778. Their behavior is classical, but being as small as
they are, they influence and induce other larger particles to behave in
ways heretofore thought explicable only on quantum mechanical
37
grounds. And, in point of fact, the tenets of the geocentrists'
firmament theory have emerged in connection with quantum
mechanics, going as far back as Louis De Broglie's work in the
1920's.
An excellent discussion of this matter is set forth in J. P. Vigier's
article, "De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether: A Testable
Experimental Assumption," Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 29, No.
14, Dec. 6, 1980, pg. 467f. Vigier wrote, "Since Dirac's pioneer
work it has been known that Einstein's relativity theory (and
Michelson's experiment) are perfectly compatible with an
underlying relativistic stochastic «aether» model. Inherent to this
model is Einstein's idea that quantum statistics reflects a real
subquantal physical vacuum alive with fluctuations and randomness.
This concept of a nonempty vacuum has been recently revived not
only to yield a foundation to the stochastic interpretation of quantum
mechanics but also to explain causally possible nonlocal
superluminal interactions resulting from the Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen paradox. Indeed, if a forthcoming experiment of Aspect
confirms their existence, the only way out of the resulting
contradiction between relativity and the quantum theory of
measurement seems to lie in the direction of an extension of the
causal stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics. This assumes
the existence of causal subquantal random fluctuations induced by a
stochastic «hidden» thermostat proposed by BOHM, VIGIER and DE
BROGLIE." (pg. 467)
Although to the layman the last citation might appear
impenetrably dense, the main points can be made clear. There are
two schools of thought in the world of quantum mechanics, termed
the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the Stochastic Interpretation
(sometimes called the Causal Interpretation). The Copenhagen
Interpretation is rather counterintuitive and mystical sounding to the
layman. One example will suffice: flip a coin and cover it up
immediately before looking at it. Is it heads or tails? The
Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that the coin is simultaneously
heads AND tails while it is covered, but can be forced to fall back
into either heads or tails once you take your hand off it and observe
it. It then suddenly flips to a unique state by the mere act of
observation.
The Stochastic Interpretation, unsatisfied with this somewhat
bizarre worldview, asserts that the various unusual quantum effects
measured on subatomic scales have an actual physical cause (hence.
Causal Interpretation). I f there is difficulty in simultaneously
measuring the momentum and position of a subatomic particle (the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), it may be due to actual
background noise: this is the point of view of the Stochastic
Interpretation. This source of noise is the "nonempty vacuum"
Vigier refers to, a level of physical reality discernible on ultrasmall
scales, and freighted with significance.
Vigier's prologue used the word "superluminal," meaning any
entities or interactions that travel faster than the speed of light. He
pointed out that if Aspect's then-upcoming experiment measured any
superluminal interactions, the contradiction between general
relativity and the stochastic theory would have to be decided in favor
of the stochastic theory. Translation: if Aspect's experimental result
is positive, the consequences would be hostile to general relativity
and favorable to the firmament model, the one stochastic model that
satisfies the stability constraints stipulated by Redmount and Suen in
March, 1993.
Vigier reminds us "that Dirac «aether» rests on the idea that
through any point O there passes a flow of stochastic particles and
antiparticles" (pg. 468), reminiscent of the original LeSage theory.
He then introduces spin to the stochastic particles making up what
he calls a background sea of activity. He even prefers (pg. 470) that
his stochastic particle undergo only short range motions: "contact
particle-particle collision type interactions." This is the same
38
restraint geocentrists place on their uitradense firmament model.
Vigier, working with Petroni, published an important article a
year earlier than the last reference, in Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, Vol.
26, No. 5, Sept. 29, 1979, pg. 149, entitled "Causal Superluminal
Interpretation of the Einstein-Podoisky-Rosen Paradox," wherein he
demonstrates that his stochastic model does not encounter the same
pitfalls that the competing tachyon theory of Sudarshan, Feinberg, &
Recami encounters in explaining faster-than-iight interactions and
objects. Says he, "We show in particular that superluminal,
phaselike, phononlike, collective motions of the quantum potential
in Dirac's «aether» do not induce the well-known causal paradoxes
of tachyon theory." At the conclusion of his exposition he points out,
"It is interesting to note that this elimination of causal paradoxes is
only possible in a subquantum model built on a Dirac's vacuum and
cannot be applied to theories where superluminal signals are carried
by tachyonic particles." He proposes allowing "superluminal signals
to be «acoustical» waves with associated quantum potential..." in
harmony with the better attested geocentric firmament model.
(Geocentric astronomer Dr. Gerardus Bouw has performed some of
the seminal computational work in this area of firmament dynamics
in the early 1980's.)
The experiment by Aspect that J. P. Vigier was anticipating was
performed, and the results published in Physical Review Letters, Vol.
47, No. 7, August 17, 1981, pgs. 460-463. Aspect, with partners
Grangier and Roger, introduces his results with a little history:
"Since the development of quantum mechanics, there have been
repeated suggestions that its statistical features possibly might be
described by an underlying deterministic substructure." The
apparatus, which performed polarization correlation on photon pairs,
involves hitting an atomic beam of calcium with a krypton ion laser
and a second Rhodamine laser. The results confirm the existence of
superluminal (faster-than-light) interactions, and served to further
buttress the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which,
as has been pointed out, has been evolving closer and closer to the
geocentrist's firmament hypothesis. (The experiment was conducted
again with greater precision, agreeing with the first experiment, and
the new results published in Physical Review Letters Vol. 49, No. 2,
July 12, 1982, again pointing to the geocentrist's firmament model
by proving the existence of the quantum potential.)
The issue of superluminal phenomena is significant in light of the
common theoretical challenge to geocentric cosmologies that they
require every object past Saturn to travel faster than the speed of
light in order to complete a daily revolution around the earth. Just as
most of the preceding technical citations were provided and
explained in the famous videotape that fell on closed eyes, so too are
the following references.
In the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics,
W. M. Stuckey published an analysis titled, "Can galaxies exist
within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities
greater than c?" (pgs. 142-146). Stuckey proposes to measure the
speed at which galaxies are traveling away from us, utilizing their
red shift. His test object, a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, is
computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. So
why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light
velocities for celestial bodies, and not a problem when mainstream
scientists take such measurements in stride?
Stuckey explains that the quasar is fleeing from us so rapidly (at
what would at first glance appear to be a completely impossible
velocity) due to a property of the space between here and there. The
vacuum between us and the quasar is stretching and expanding, and
thus carries the quasar away from us faster than the speed of light.
When modem scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than
light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and
learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster
than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity.
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
Yet, both models stipulate the same origin of the superiight speed,
namely, the intrinsic properties of the space in which the objects are
placed.
The idea of a rotating universe has been addressed in the secular
literature on many occasions. Yu. N. Obukhov, in the recent study
"Rotation in Cosmology" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol.
24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128), observes that "Since the first studies
of Lanczos, Gamow and Godei, a great number of rotating
cosmological models have been considered in the literature.
Nevertheless the full understanding of observational manifestations
of cosmic rotation is still far from reach. Moreover, there is a general
belief that rotation of the universe is always a source of many
undesirable consequences, most serious of which are timeiike closed
curves, parallax effects, and anisotropy of the microwave
background radiation. The aim of this paper is twofold — to show
that the above phenomena are not inevitable (and in fact, are not
caused by rotation), and to find true effects of cosmic rotation."
Unfortunately, Obukhov refrains from putting the other foot down:
"Here we shall not enter into a discussion of [the] philosophical
significance of cosmic rotation (though, in our opinion, the analysis
of its relation to the Mach's principle is of great interest)."
Nonetheless, he follows the evidence to its conclusion: "As we can
see, pure rotation can be, in principle, large, contrary to the wide-
spread prejudice that large vorticity confronts many crucial
observations."
Rotating universe models have continued to receive analytic
scrutiny (cf. Soviet Physics Journal, March 1992, J E T P 74 (3),
"Accounting for Birch's Observed Anisotropy of the Universe:
Cosmological Rotation?", by Panov and Sbytov; also General
Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1993, pgs. 137-164,
"Synchronized Frames for Godei's Universe," by Novell, Svaiter and
Guimaraes). So the question remains: if outer space can stretch
faster than the speed of light and carry objects with it, why can't it
rotate faster than light and do the same? Sauce for the general
relativity goose is sauce for the geocentric gander.
Dr. Nieto raises some observational challenges for geocentric
cosmology, beginning with the parallax effect. There are two schools
of thought among geocentrists as to how parallax arises (and ' f the
quantum mechanicists can have two schools of thought, why not the
geocentrists?). The "pure" form of geocentricity centers the stars on
the earth, and describes the resulting annual stellar shifts by placing
the Earth at one sink of a conformal mapping. This procedure has
been worked out in rigorous detail for the two-dimensional case by
James Hanson, and agrees with the observed phenomena. (This
paper regards this model as "pure" inasmuch as it conforms to the
original cosmology of Tycho Brahe without modification.) The
"modified Tychonic model" centers the stars on the Sun, so that the
stars participate in the Sun's annual migration, with the observed
parallax being directly predicted by the subsequent geometry. This
second model would satisfy the requirements that any consistent
relativist would impose on a legitimate geocentric frame of
reference, and may well even have direct and indirect Biblical
support.
In the geocentric model, the firmament is in daily rotation around
the earth, and undergoes annua! oscillations as well. This motion of
the firmament is evidenced in the Sagnac effect, the well-known
Coriolis forces, and by geosynchronous satellites (or, in a more
Tychonian vein, geostationary satellites). In the geocentric model,
we agree that if the heavens ceased their rotation, the satellites
would fall to the earth. But when the heavens are postulated to be in
motion, it is Dr. Nieto's equations that are deficient, not ours.
There are four fascinating aspects of the geocentric model.
(1) The notion of a structured firmament analogous to a crystal
lattice permits one to consider elementary particles (electrons,
protons, neutrons, etc.) to be phonons (quantized vibrations) within
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
that crystal. (Cf. R J . Bussey, "The Phonon as a Model for
Elementary Particles," Physics Letters A 176, 1993, pgs. 159-164.)
Bussey shows how phonons exhibit all the experimentally measured
properties of elementary particles, including particle splitting and
wave collapse. The appeal of the theory is in its predictive power and
correlation with reality. Its difficulty is that an appropriate medium
must exist in which these vibrations are to propagate, namely, a
medium having the properties of the geocentrist's firmament.
Because the geocentric firmament's fundamental uitramassive
particles are packed as tight as atoms within a crystal, it serves as the
ideal lattice structure for a phonon-based theory of particle structure
to succeed.
The notion of space being some kind of crystal (in harmony with
the geocentric and Biblical views of the firmament) is a topic of
serious discussion in modem physics. Holland and Phiiippidis have
explored the idea in their article, "Anholonomic Deformations in the
Ether: A Significance for the Eiectrodynamic Potentials," (Hiley &
Peat, eds.. Quantum Implications, ©1987 Routiedge, pgs. 295ff).
They write, "In attempting to discover the classical significance of
the A^ [electromagnetic potential — MGS] we have at our disposal
several clues. Bohm has suggested an analogy between the
Aharonov-Bohm effect and the dislocation of a crystal lattice...
Dirac showed how an ether which at each point has a distribution of
velocities which are all equally probable would be consistent with
relativity, and alternative approaches to the quantum theory by
Bohm and Vigier have indicated that a suitably fluctuating ether can
contribute to an understanding of the microdomain. We recall that
much effort was expended in the nineteenth century in trying to
understand electromagnetic processes in terms of stresses set up in
an ether treated as an elastic solid."
Phiiippidis, Dewdney and Hiley pointed out that "as far as the
quantum domain is concerned, space cannot be thought of simply as
a neutral back cloth. It appears to be structured in a way that exerts
constraints on whatever processes are embedded in it. More
surprisingly still, this structure arises out of the very objects on
which it acts and the minutest change in any of the properties of the
contributing objects may result in dramatic changes in the quantum
potential... It is clear, therefore, that the quantum potential is unlike
any other field employed in physics. Its giobalness and homogeneity
in the sense of not being separable into well-defined source and field
points indicate that it calls for a different conceptual framework for
its assimilation." ("Quantum Interference and the Quantum
Potential," // Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 52B, No. 1, July 11, 1979).
The firmament of the geocentrists is explored under the name of
the quantum potential by some, and by different names by other
researchers. G. Gaeta, writing in Physics Letters A 175 (1993), pgs.
267-268, wrote of an "unknown medium originating" the observed
quantum Brownian noise. Says he, "If we accept this picture, the
particles of the EPR experiment are in permanent contact with a
NGV stochastic process." This functional synonym for the
geocentrist's firmament is named after the scientists whose
constraints color its characterization. Nelson, Garbaczewski and
Vigier. Gaeta treats this medium as completely universal: "The
universality of quantum mechanics corresponds to the universality of
the NGV process: this means that no physical system or particle can
be regarded as truly isolated, as every physical system or particle —
being subject to quantum mechanics — is at least in contact with the
universal NGV process."
The concluding paragraph in the article, "Causal Particle
Trajectories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"
(Quantum Implications, pgs. 169-201) exposes the dilemma for
modem physics in telling language: "The interpretation of Bohr and
of de Brogiie-Bohm-Vigier both emphasize that the fundamentaiiy
new feature exhibited by quantum phenomena is a kind of
wholeness completely foreign to the post-Aristotelian reductionist
39
mechanism in which all of nature in the final analysis consists
simply of separate and independently existing parts whose motions,
determined by a few fundamental forces of interaction, are sufficient
to account for ail phenomena. The difference arises in the methods
for dealing with the situation. One thing however is clear; the
organization of nature at the fundamental level is far more complex
than mere mechanistic models can encompass. The ghost cannot be
exorcised from the machine."
(2) The firmament itself provides for a complete gravitational
theory based on the physics of shadowing and attenuation, yielding
predictive results beyond those of conventional theory. By
introducing the element of spin, and thus angular momentum, to the
firmament subparticles, the antisymmetric properties of
electromagnetic fields obtain, being construed as a transfer of
angular momentum particle by particle and giving rise to the well-
known perpendicularity of the electric and magnetic fields. In Dr.
Bouw's model, the firmament even accounts for the strong nuclear
force that holds protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei: as
two nucieons make actual contact, the shadowing effect goes
asymptotic according to the known attenuation expression, and the
total force is all inward, its magnitude characterized by the Yukawa
potential. This model therefore is a nascent unified field theory, or
what is now termed a G U T (Grand Unification Theory), that
accounts for ail available physical effects that can be measured by
science, from gravitation, eiectromagnetism, strong nuclear force,
the Uncertainty Principle, elementary particle structure, etc. In other
words, the early work of developing a new dynamics is well
underway, as propounded at the outset.
The third and fourth developments are recent, homespun insights
not heretofore published, and therefore not yet subjected to peer
review. Although potentially premature, the benefit from airing them
outweighs the risk; I invite the reader to weigh the following notions
carefully.
(3) It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the
rotating heavens were dragging Foucauit pendula and weather
systems around, why doesn't that force pull on the earth itself and
drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with the
heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of torque to
the earth should cause it to rotate in tum, but this turns out to be an
oversimplification. As the heavens rotate, and the firmament rotates
on an axis through the earth's poles, each firmamental particle (the
ones comprising the uitradense lattice) also rotates with the same
angular velocity. Ironically, this is precisely the reason the earth
can't be moved. In MT&W's Gravitation, pg. 1119-1120, we are
invited to ponder the following scenario: "Consider a rotating, solid
sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag
the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little
rods, and watch how the fluid rotates as it flows past. Near the poles
the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the
sphere rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged
more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to
the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of
the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the
rotation of the sphere. This analogy can be made mathematically
rigorous." Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere
to rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles
clockwise, and the ones at the equators counterclockwise. (Consider
the equator as a big gear, and the firmamental particles as small
gears that engage it. It is intuitively obvious that the small gears
must always tum in contrary motion to the large one at the equator.)
This picture is clear then: to turn the sphere, the rotation of the
particles (MT&W's "rods" and this author's "gears") at the poles
must be the opposite of that at the equator.
However, in the case of a rotating firmament, ail the particles are
rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to
40
the entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite
direction as that acting near the poles. Using calculus, one integrates
the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal
shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place, the resulting
inertial shear being distributed throughout the Earth's internal
volume. It could be demonstrated that were the Earth to be pushed
out of its "station keeping" position, the uneven force distribution
would retum it to its equilibrium state. Intriguingly, the significance
of these internal forces on seismic stress, plate tectonics, and the
earth's magnetic field may prove central, i f so be that these
postulates survive the inevitable peer review to come.
(4) Consider again Gr0n & Eriksen's position that a rotating
cosmic mass imposes an upward force on a geostationary satellite.
(They used the Earth as a synchronous satellite for the Moon in their
article to illustrate the principle.) They posit that the centrifugal
force on the satellite arises from a cosmic non-tidal gravitational
field pulling up on the satellite. Consider, then, the behavior of light
traveling to the Earth from distant celestial objects: would it not also
be subject to the effects of this cosmic nontidal inertial pull? Logic
would dictate that, yes, in accordance with the late Dr. Richard
Feynman's Lectures in Physics, Vol. 2, pgs. 42-10 & 42-11, as well
as the extended discussion in MT&W's Gravitation, pgs. 1055-
1060, incoming light subject to the induced gravitational field will
lose energy and thus decrease in frequency, according to the known
relations that govern calculation of gravitational red shifts.
If true, then the rotation of the cosmic mass could be responsible
for the red shift heretofore understood as a Doppler consequence of
the Big Bang. This in tum would provide a new basis for measuring
the distance of celestial objects, one wholly different than the system
erected upon the Doppler view of the red shift, which could involve
a significant remapping of the heavens.
But more intriguingly, this result, if confirmed, would be hostile
to general relativity, because the theory would require the red shift to
be observed whether it is the Earth or the heavens that are rotating,
whereas on classical grounds it would only be expected if the
heavens were rotating, and the result would be the same whether
measured from the Earth, from a satellite, or from the space shuttle.
At this point in time, the experimental evidence militates against
relativity on this effect, so that relativity would either need to
neutralize the red shift predicted under a rotating cosmos scenario,
or abandon its core postulate.
It would then appear that geocentrists are more than willing to
risk making scientific predictions to put their hypotheses to the test.
Some have already passed muster, but others are too recent to have
gone through the requisite shaking-out period. This is to be expected
in the infancy of the development of a new dynamical theory that
embraces every aspect of reality, from unthinkably massive and
immense objects to the world of the ultramicroscopic reality
underlying the atomic realm.
FINAL COMMENTS
This position paper was written over the course of four con-
secutive evenings in order to be published in a timely way. This
necessitated omission of a large number of mathematical equations,
as well as heavy editing to limit its length. For readers interested in
examining the material encompassed by this paper in greater depth,
including the source equations, an unabridged version will be made
available in November, 1994. (The paper will include an extensive
Scriptural survey, including the surprising New Testament evidence
for geocentricity, which creates immense difficulties for the
opposing position, since Chaldean starcharts taught heiiocentricity
centuries prior to the New Testament's composition.) Send a self-
addressed, stamped envelope (postage sufficient to cover 3 ounces of
postal matter) to the author, M. Selbrede, c/o Ticom Technologies
Inc., 9205 Alabama Avenue, Suite E , Chatsworth, CA 91311.
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994

THE DEMAND FOR
PERFECTION IN THE
CHURCH
By RJ. Rushdoony
It is understandabie that, in a time of decadence, many
people will long for and demand perfection in the church,
but it is neither right nor moral. T o expect perfection this
side of heaven is unwarranted. Our life here is to be one
oi growth in grace, sanctification, and community. Chris-
tians are required by Scripture to be forbearing one of
another. Paul tells us that we "walk worthy of the voca-
tion wherewith we are called" only if we walk "with ail
lowliness and meekness, with iongsuffering, forbearing
one another in love" {Eph. 4:1-2; Col. 3:13). Y e t we find
the "super-saints" ready to create divisions over things
we are never told to fight about: counselling programs,
psaim singing, dress codes, attendance at evening ser-
vices and prayer meetings, and so on and on. There is no
mandate for any division over these things. T o o many
zealots believe that man's controls can do better than the
working of the H o l y Spirit. T h e y substitute zeal for faith,
and intemperance for patience.
Over the years, I have counselled, with poor results,
many zealous persons thus: " Y o u can never convert any-
one by spitting in his face," but too many seem to believe
that the H o l y Spirit inspires them to spit!
We have only to read the epistles of Paul, James, and
John to realize how weak and sinful the early church was.
The Corinthian and other churches would be consigned
to heii by our current perfectionists! B u t the apostles and
their successors made the early church a world-conquer-
ing power.
The churches which have stressed perfection have be-
come stagnant, not growing, churches. T h e y become au-
thoritarian and substitute controls for sanctification. They
split groups, and then themselves split again and again as
they refine subtle points of doctrine in a way which would
exclude the apostles! When I was young, there was a
presbytery bitterly and evenly divided over a disagree-
ment on lapsarianism. Not surprisingly, they made the
faith a mockery, and the churches finally went modern-
ist. I have, over the years, written and told people that
lapsarianism is wrong, whether infra-, supra-, or sub-
iapsarianism, because it posits a time sequence in the
mind of G o d , a blasphemous assumption. T o o often,
self-styled champions of the faith have discredited it more
than its enemies. I n ail circles of the churches and theolo-
gies, the perfectionists are insistent, " M y will be done,
because I know the mind of G o d . " I f we are Christians,
"we are members one of another" {Eph. 4:25), not judges.
Heresy is holding to an opinion that differs from re-
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
vealed truth. B u t what happens when we take something
which we believe is revealed, or which is revealed, but
which is not a doctrine of the triune G o d nor of salvation
and then use it to condemn and to bludgeon others, and
to divide Christ's church? A r e we not then Pharisees if
we insist that what is important to us is equally important
to the triune G o d ? A g a i n and again, groups stressing to
the point of division practices and doctrines not essential
to salvation have become irrelevant to Christ. T h e y have
become castaways, laid up on a shelf as not usable. Is
there no fear of G o d in their eyes that they rend His
Church?
The Pharisees were the most moral, best educated,
and the finest people of their day, but they ended up
rejecting the Christ. T h e Pharisees are with us still.
Note
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. X I I I ,
no. 2 "Symposium on the Decline and F a i l of the
West and the R e t u r n of Christendom," is now avail-
able. It is 348 pages, book-size, and is available from
Chalcedon at $13 per copy. New domestic subscrip-
tions are $20 postpaid, or foreign at $22.50 postpaid.
Currently paid subscriptions go out at the old price.
The authors in this number are Otto Scott, R . J .
Rushdoony, W i l l i a m D . C r a v e s , Joseph P. Brasweii,
Owen Fourie, Sheldon H . R i c h , Forrest W . Schuitz,
Philip C . B u r c h a n , R i c h a r d B o s t a n , and F . W .
Schnitzier.
"AWAKE, THOU
THAT SLEEPEST"
By Rev. R.J. Rushdoony
I once knew a very superior man whose mother con-
stantly embarrassed him. She had a framed picture of him
as a happy baby, sitting on a skin-rug, bare of ail clothing.
No visitor failed to get an account of how wonderful a
baby he had been. T h e man resented this, and I thought it
foolish on his part until something he said opened my
eyes. This man had taken over his father's business and
made it again profitable. H e was a leader in his church,
and the mainstay of the extended family; he had been an
outstanding athlete in high school and at the university,
but ail that his mother saw was his cuteness as a baby. She
saw him only as she had adored him, not as a man of faith
and stature.
We cloud and limit our vision if we do not see ail things
in terms of the present under God. We exist for the L o r d ,
41
and so too do our children. T h e Victorians have often
been wrongly criticized for many things, but in one area
they were indeed very faulty. T h e y over-personalized
things so that objective standards gave way to personal
ones. T h e result was sentimentalism, an inappropriate
and major emotional reaction to minor matters. We are
still Victorians in our reactions to romances, films, and
television in that we indulge in the exploitations of feel-
ings for emotional goals, not in terms of reality.
I f G o d is not our essential and basic concern, we will
drift into a misplaced concern over trifles, and we then
become trifiers, well-meaning, earnest, and kindly, but
trifiers.
Now our problem today is that the church is not like a
mighty army of the L o r d but more like a collection of
doting mothers who are more excited and happy over
their sons' baby pictures than his solid work for the L o r d .
W e have misplaced emphases ail around us.
Antinomianism leads to a weak and feminized church.
It trivializes the Christian life and caiiing. I t is interesting
to note that, at the height of the medieval era, the cult of
the infant Jesus, the holy Bambino, replaced the great
earnestness of the faith with sentimentalism. T h e church
declined into pietism and an inability to cope with inter-
nal problems. T h e problems of the church had not in-
creased, but its ability to cope with them decreased.
We have a like problem today. Pietism, sentimental-
ism, and emotionalism have emasculated the church.
"Wherefore he saith. A w a k e , thou that steepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light"
(Eph. 5:14).
POSITION PAPER NO. 181
THE MYSTERY
RELIGIONS
By RJ. Rushdoony
I n the 20th century, more than a few scholars began to
see links between the mystery religions of Greece and
R o m e and Christianity. T h e r e were parallels that drew
their attention. Washing preceded initiation and mem-
bership in some of the mystery religions. O f course, ritual
washings were common to the law as given by Moses
(Lev. 14-15, Num. 19), and E z e k i e l 36:25 refers to sprin-
kling as a sign of a renewed covenant. T h e rule of secrecy
concerning initiation prevailed among the mystery reli-
gions. However, the early church, as an illegal body, had
a reason for secrecy. T h e mystery religions offered hope
of immortality (for man's spirit) and a blessed life with
42
the gods. T h e i r belief was in a natural immortality,
however, whereas the Bible sees C o d alone as immortal
(/ Tim. 6:16), and man being given resurrection from
death. A familiar ikon in mystery religions was of Isis
nursing Horns; this was assumed to be the source of
depictions of the V i r g i n Mary nursing the infant Jesus.
T o assume this is to believe that all pictures of nursing
mothers echo the Isis-Horus faith, which is nonsense.
Some of the mysteries had forms of a communion service,
but not only was their nature very different, but they
were rites of union with the divine, not communion. T h e
difference is a very radical one.
Other seeming resemblances can be cited, but this is
enough. I f such things are taken seriously, then we would
have to say also that anyone with two eyes, one nose, and
one mouth resembles Hitler, or Mussolini, as the case
may be.
Those who have sought to establish parallels on such
superficial bases have been wrong. Moreover, the real
resemblances are not between the New Testament and
early church with the mystery religions but between the
20th century churches and the mysteries.
The early church was deeply involved in the care of the
needy (Acts 6, etc.), courts of arbitration ( / Cor. 6), and a
host of other activities, not merely as a help to members
but as Kingdom functions under Christ the K i n g ( / Tim.
6:15). R o m e fought this claim by Christians; the mystery
religions were subservient.
The focus of the mysteries was spiritual religion, life
after death and a spiritual life in the here and now.
T h e y were unconcerned with almost ail practical prob-
lems because they sought to transcend the world with
their spirituality.
It is at this point that 20th century churches resemble
the mystery cults. A telephone call this morning reported
on a new foundation which calls itself Christian. It op-
poses Christian concern with anything other than soul-
saving. Health, education, and welfare supposedly be-
long to the state, despite the fact that from the Biblical
era to the present they have been the responsibility of
C o d ' s people. T h i s group condemns any interest in poli-
tics as unspirituai. It opposes C o d ' s law as belonging to a
more "fleshly" era and unfit for Christians. It wants to
replace Christian works and action with retreats into spiri-
tual exercises. A n y concern by Christians for mundane
things like education and medical missions is seen as a
materialistic concern and unhealthy for the spiritual man.
The caiiing of the Christian is to refine this inner life and
to be a soul-winner.
Such people are annoyed if James 2:15-17, and like
texts, are cited: " I f a brother or a sister be naked, and
destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstand-
ing ye give them not those things which are needful to the
body, what doth it profit? E v e n so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone (or, by itself)."
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
 L i k e the mystery reiigions, too many churches limit
faith to words of assent, not to action, not to works which
are inseparable from true faith.
T h e mystery reiigions retreated from the world. T o
conquer for Christ is the Christian caiiing. T h e mysteries
offered myths and rituals; the early church offered his-
tory and the K i n g of history. T h e mystery cults offered an
intense experience, whereas the church presented C o d ' s
revelation. ( T h e experiential stress of many churches links
them to the mysteries more than Christ.) T h e adherents
of the mystery reiigions sought a powerful experience
when confronted by the death of a loved one, whereas
Christians relied on the revealed word of C o d . T h e
mysteries were more interested in heaven and heii as
they viewed them, whereas Christians who were faithful
were devoted to serving the L o r d with ail their heart,
mind, and being.
Plutarch tells us that few people believed the myths of
the mysteries literally. Christians stood on the literal word
of C o d .
People in the mystery cults hoped for special experi-
ences and revelations, but these were of a mindless sort,
whereas the Christians relied, on the plain, unchanging
word from C o d .
T h e A t t i s cult required of the most faithful seif-emas-
cniation. Biblical faith stressed the whole man, not the
castrati, as C o d ' s servants.
T h e mysteries had no fixed moral code. T h e y could be
indifferent to abortion and homosexuality because spiri-
tual matters concerned them. ( R e c e n t i y , one major
church rejected a measure to register with the president
an objection to homosexuality, etc. on the grounds that
its tax exemption might be endangered! T h i s is the spirit
of the ancient mystery cults.) Because the mysteries had
no fixed, revealed moral code, they had no enduring
contribution to make to history. A n antinomian church is
no different, except that it is more offensive to Christ our
King.
BOOK NOTES
By RJ. Rushdoony
T h e republication of The Fundamentals by B a k e r
Books (1993) is an event of importance. T h e works,
originally printed in 1909, were subsidized by two lay-
men, edited by R . A . T o r r e y and R . C . D i x o n , and were
sent to 300,000 ministers and missionaries. T h e funda-
mentalist movement was born as a result. B u t the nature
of that movement had changed by the end of the 1930s to
become A r m i n i a n and pre miiienniai. After W o r l d W a r
I I , the "fighting fundamentalists" too often changed to
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994
become flabby and vague, or too much rapture oriented.
T h e original papers represented Anglican, reformed,
and other views. C . I . Scofieid contributed a paper on
"grace," but his perspective was a very minor note. Most
of the papers were written by B i b l i c a l scholars of note.
Now the Reformation was the work of scholars, as
was the great medieval movement known as Scholasti-
cism. T h e growing failure of the Protestant churches has
been the failure of those offering the historic premises to
support scholarship. T h e two anonymous laymen who
supported this original effort. The Fundamentals, cre-
ated thereby a major movement of the 20th century.
Since then orthodox Christian scholarship has had no
like support.
These volumes are important reading, not only for
their historical importance, but for their continuing rel-
evance. Men like Mauro, Warfieid, Mouie, W. H . Criffith
Thomas, Ceorge L . Robinson, Joseph D . Wilson, M . C .
K y l e , and many others represented the best Christian
thinking of their day, and, in some cases, of their cen-
tury. T h e y can again revitalize our thinking. ( F o u r vols,
hardback. B a k e r B o o k s , P . O . B o x 6287, C r a n d Rapids,
Michigan 49516)
D r . Jack Wright, J r . has written ably on Freud's War
with God, Psychoanalysis vs. Religion (Huntington
House, P . O . B o x 53788, Lafayette, Louisiana 70505; 1994;
paperback, $7.99, $3.00 postage and handling). Freud's
purposes, like Nietzsche's, were always self-consciously
anti-Christian; his was a life-long war against C o d .
Basic to neurosis is sin and the guilt for sin. F r e u d
refused to consider sin, and, where guilt was concerned,
he separated guilt from responsibility to absolve the
guilty.
F r e u d could not succeed in freeing himself from the
question of responsibility. H i s great effort to find a
panacea led to his espousal of cocaine, with ugly results.
H i s flight led him to trust in quacks like D r . Fiiess, again
with very horrifying results.
F r e u d ' s influence in the churches is cited by D r .
Wright. Modernists have long relied on Freudianism. I n
1985, Anthony Campolo, a neo-evangelicai, made strong
use of Freud.
T h e great trio of militant humanists whose influence
has shaped the modern era, D a r w i n , Marx, and F r e u d ,
have had too extensive a power over our culture.
Wright's work is helpful in challenging that influence.
Jerome Lejeune's The Concentration Can, When Does
Human Life Begin? An Eminent Geneticist Testifies
(Ignatius Press, 1992) is the testimony against abortion
by a F r e n c h geneticist. A s D r . Charles E . Price points
out in the afterword, the modern pro-choice view re-
duces person hood to a politico-legal matter instead of a
religious and scientific fact. D r . Lejeune is insistent on
negating this perspective by outlining the medical facts
from a Christian perspective. T h i s is a welcome state-
ment.
43

RANDOM NOTES, 39
By RJ. Rushdoony
1. O n July 26, in the late afternoon, I received a tele-
phone call from the east coast. A t some meeting, the
religion editor of the New Y o r k Times had said that R . J .
Rushdoony, founder of Christian Reconstruction had just
died. Not willing to contradict so authoritative a source, I
checked with some of my colleagues at breakfast the next
morning. They confirmed that I am still living. Before
saying that T h e Times was wrong, let us put it down to
being first with the news. After ail, at age 78, it is likely that
any day now, within 20 years, I will be dead.
2 . 1 enjoy learning random and miscellaneous things. I n
late spring, our peahen delighted us with her five baby
peacocks. (Before six months, their life expectancy is poor.
After that, they are hardy.) E v e r y time I see them, I count
them. They were on the lawn two days ago, and, as I
looked out the window, I saw only four. A t the same time,
mama peahen counted them also, began to squawk, raced
back to some shrubs about 75' feet away, and a baby pea-
cock came out hurriedly to join the others.
3. Contrary to much popular nonsense, the Bible was, as
Beryl Smaiiey wrote, in The Study of the Bible in the
Middle Ages (1964), the most studied book in the middle
ages. T h e problem later on was false methods of interpre-
tation, a problem now common also to Protestantism.
Bibles were indeed chained in churches and libraries, as
were all books, because they were so valuable. Otherwise,
they would be stolen. E v e n with printing, hand-made type
made printed books costly and valuable. I have a copy of
James Ussher's essays which came out of a Protestant
college library; it was originally a chained book.
Smaiiey made a very important point: "it is worth stress-
ing: Biblical scholarship in the strict sense has depended
on institutions which imply a certain level of material
prosperity and security" (p. 356). This tells us why re-
formed and evangelical Biblical scholarship is weak. T h e
"Bible only" people do not invest enough money in B i b l i -
cal scholarship to further a strong and growing knowledge
of Scripture.
4. There is an old A r m e n i a n folk tale I like, about a man
whose Christianity was ail in his mouth (in words), not in
his hands nor feet (not in action), and certainly not in his
monetary giving. H i s desire for something led him to pray
very earnestly, " L o r d , I need 90 pieces of silver, and, if you
will give me 100,1 will tithe ten to you." Amazingly, very
soon 90 silver coins came into his hands. H e prayed at
once, saying, " H o w wonderful you are, O C o d . Y o u not
only gave me the 90 I wanted, but you subtracted your 10
first!"
Here are some A r m e n i a n proverbs: " A donkey which
has been to Jerusalem on pilgrimage forty times is still a
donkey." " A cut of the sword will heal, but not a cut of the
44
tongue." " A man who runs after two hares will not catch
one."
5. T h e will to death has marked our Western civilization
since c. 1850. Leading literary figures in those days cel-
ebrated their syphilis, hallucinations, depressions and ha-
tred of life, as witness Baudelaire, the Concourt brothers,
Nietzsche, Flaubert, Maupassant, and others. Their views
they believed raised them above the contented middle
classes. Today we have a like view, and we have persons
telling us on television that A I D S is a badge of honor. T h e
will to death is commanding our anti-Christian culture.
Together with this, there has been a determined will to
confusion. Haveiock E l l i s wrote, in The Psychology of Sex
, "(although) we may not know exactly what sex i s , . . . we
do know that it is mutable, with the possibility of one sex
being changed into the other sex, that its frontiers are
often mutable, and that there are many stages between a
complete male and a complete female." Moral confusion
was E l l i s ' s goal, and the results are ail around us. This
moral confusion appeared first in many writers (such as
Ceorge Cissing) and passed then into the general popula-
tion and into education. Freud's part in this moral confu-
sion was a great one.
6. Being a Christian has never been easy, because a
fallen world hates the L o r d , although it does not always
say so. I n 1628, Master Edwards of Queens' College at
Cambridge, England, was imprisoned for preaching a ser-
mon on Acts 5:29, " W e ought to obey C o d rather than
men" (Stewart A . Dippei: A Study of Religious Thought at
Oxford and Cambridge, 1590-1640, p. 87.)
7. According to Jane Dempsey Douglass, in "Church
and State: A Brief Introduction for Contemporary Presby-
terians," a first premise of Presbyterianism has over the
years been, " T h e church is both holy and sinful, always in
need of reformation" p. 99). ( R . H . Stone, editor: Re-
formed Faith and Politics, 1983.) When this is forgotten,
the results are evil. I n a sermon to the House of Commons
in 1641, Thomas Case, a Puritan pastor, declared, "Refor-
mation must be u n i v e r s a l . . . reform all places, ail persons
and callings; reform the benches of judgment, the inferior
magistrates.... Reform the universities... the cities . . . the
country . . . reform the Sabbath, reform the ordinances, the
Worship of C o d . . . you have more to do than I can speak"
(p. 98). It was believed that without continual reformation
in terms of Cod's word, churches would readily become
corrupt. Now it seems to be believed that church bureau-
cracies have made reform unnecessary!
8. I n 1932, Reinhoid Niebuhr wrote Moral Man and
Immoral Society. I find that in 1921 John Maynard Keynes,
in an essay, " W a r Debts and the United States," held to the
same idea, writing, " A l a s for the wickedness of the world!
It is not in international affairs that we can secure the
sentimental satisfactions which we ail love. F o r only indi-
viduals are good, and ail nations are dishonorable, cruel,
and designing." This was humanism, clearly opposed to a
Biblical doctrine of man.
CHALCEDON REPORT, OCTOBER 1994