Wednesday, January 26, 2011

What If?

I'm (hopefully) going to be posting a few ideas on here that are titled "What If?", and their purpose is to start a discussion (if y'all want to talk) and get some ideas, and start thinking how things are wrong, how we can make them right, ...etc.

So... First What If ~

What if the Church did what the government is doing with the tithes that they're supposed to be getting?

What I mean is this... the government's hand doesn't belong in education, medicine, transportation, and the works (that's where socialized/rationalized health care, extremely inefficient schools, and oppressive taxes come from).
But if they aren't supposed to do it - who is? Are families supposed to do some of this (like education)? Is the Church supposed to take charge of some areas (like hospitals)? And why don't we pay more tithes to the Church instead of being taxed by the government?

It's about time Christians started thinking (that's a starting place at least) about what we're doing as a nation. ...And if the South should rise again!



  1. Warning: This comment might step on a few toes.

    Amen! It's about time Christians started thinking like Christians, not repackaged humanists with a little Christian scent or flavoring.

    Medicine, I believe, is one of the chief duties of the Church. One of the great needs of the twenty-first century is a Christian reformation of the medical industry. Nowadays the medical industry is not saving lives-it's killing people! Infanticide committed upon unborn children is one example.

    Moreover, the medicine industry is a flat-out legal mess. One of the big problems here in Illinois is the practice of some patients who will claim that they were mistreated or given bad care, and then sue for huge amounts of money.

    Then there's simply the gigantic COST of medicine, which is mostly unnecessary.

    Then there's health insurance. So. You pay a bunch of money to some agency so they can bail you out if you get in trouble. But most people don't receive half of what they pay into health insurance back. Why? Because health insurance is a BUSINESS, and it's supposed to make MONEY.

    Some work is being done. Samaritan Ministries, for example, is a Christian organization which is based on the principle that Christians should help other Christians in need. is a great example.

    The problem is that according to some studies (I believe including the Barna group), the average churchgoing Christian gives no more than 2% of his income to the Church.

    So the Church isn't getting enough money.

    What money they are getting they're spending on lights, stages, and big buildings.

    Artificiality and dereliction of duty. That simple.

    That the government's hand doesn't belong in education. It's this simple: To WHICH institution does God give children? Through which institution does God create children?


    So who should be responsible for the education of the children? Which of the three institutions-Church, Family, or Nation?

    NOT the Church. NOT the Nation. And sorry, you can't answer "The school," because the school is NOT a legitimate biblical institution. You will not find "school" or "teacher" in the bible. It's a manmade institution which is intended to make up for supposed deficiencies in the family, which usually is encapsulated in a lack of commitment. It's extrabiblical, unnecessary, and illegitimate. From preschool to college.

    But what about the men of the Great Protestant Reformation? Didn't they support collectivized education?

    My answer: We ought not to put any of our heroes above the word of God. To elevate a man above the ultimate standard of truth is to make him an idol. So even if some of my great heroes, like John Calvin and John Knox, did support collectivized education, that doesn't mean that it's legitimate.

    What about American history? Well, Home education is the traditional American method of education. Even Wikipedia admits that. The one-room schoolhouse was not as common as it is supposed to be nowadays. There were only a few dozen schools in the country during the 17th century, and even until the late 18th century still the majority of American children were not attending collectivized schools. And according to a study done by the Federal Government during the Jefferson administration, the country was 97 percent literate. I wonder how that happened?

    (next comment)

  2. Transportation security is the duty of the individual people and the transportation companies, such as airlines and railroads. I'm not going to talk about this as much, but let me make a comment here. There is no need for a TSA!! The airlines could do a very good job of that (not to mention that they would have to be quite careful not to invade the privacy of their customers, or they would lose business).
    Moreover, there's no reason why we shouldn't carry guns on airplanes. It's a second amendment right. I don't mean that the right came from the Second Amendment-the Constitution didn't give us any rights-but it is enumerated therein. There's no exception that says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed-except regarding cases of transportational security."
    I might add that the reason that the Federal Government thinks they can bust our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, or keep us from getting on the airplane if we don't like it, is that we've already given up our Second Amendment rights to get on the airplane!
    To sum up, the fact is, when you have institutions taking the wrong responsibilities, society becomes a certified mess.
    And-it's time for states to start acting like states, and for the Federal Government to get its bloody, dirty, greedy hands out of 95% of what it's into.
    Lastly, it's time for Christians to start thinking about what Christian culture and Christian society is, rather than just trying to Christianize pop culture and pop society. This is where the Christian graphic tees, contemporary Christian music, Christian schools, and yes, Christian colleges, and a whole lot more ideas, institutions, and cultural elements come from.

    For example, a lot of people do not realize that Pop culture, with its accoutrements, is the invention of anti-Christian humanism. Just study your history. Read what popular "icons" have said.

    God has a biblical plan for culture and society. It's noble, virtuous, and honorable. It's not selfish, sensual, artificial, arbitrary, and ignobly degrading.

    When Christians say that "it's all neutral," they are simply selling themselves out to worthless sensuality and Godlessness. It's not all neutral. The badguys don't think it is. Why do we?

    But the fact that Christians have attempted to syncretize with Pop culture is really the symptom of a deeper problem, lack of understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture, that scripture is really sufficient for everything, or that the biblical worldview can really give birth to sound perspective on everything.

    This lack of understanding of the Sufficiency of Scripture has left Western Christianity blindly accepting bad cultural elements and societal elements-and here's the kicker-without ever examining them, and heaping aspersions upon those Christians who actually endeavored to use their heads and think from a Biblical worldview. (e.g. words like puritanical, radical, extremist, legalistic, cultist, etc, etc, some of which I might take as compliments, particularly the first one.) However, they never gave a biblical reason why it was wrong to be "radically" Christian (which would be a self-refuting argument were it made), and left us scratching our heads wondering what was so bad about being like the Puritans.

    Anyway, I really want to make this point- Whether it turns out to be biblical or unbiblical, or positive or negative-Christians should never accept any cultural element or societal concept BLINDLY, without due examination and consideration. Second Corinthians 10:5 says that we are to be "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

    (next comment)

  3. Modern Christianity has not yet figured out that that actually means EVERY thought. Yes, it includes popular music. Yes, it concerns Christian schools. Yes, it concerns those few inches of clothing which some people seem to be so zealously concerned about NOT wearing (even though they claim that God doesn't care).
    We ought to examine everything carefully. And hold fast to that which is good. As states Thessalonians 5:21- "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
    In culture-according to Philippians 4:8.
    In society-according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

    This is kind of a fast-paced explanation, but I hope you get the point-this is how Christians need to think. That's the groundwork. There's a lot of reformational work to be done. There has been a revival in this kind of thinking. It's called Christian Reconstructionism.

    Anyway, Once we get our thinking straight, we can begin examining what the actual duties of the God-ordained institutions actually are.

    Also in future discussion, I hope we can deal with the unbiblical philosophy of cultural and societal relativism.

    That's my thoughts for now.

    Christos Rex!!

    Andrew Romanowitz

    (The form gave me a message saying that my comment could not exceed 4,096 characters. That's why the comment is in three parts.)

  4. (Values become moral when we are ready to die for them.
    Discussion note: For all those non-committed, avoid discussions like these or else they might cause personal harm when we must put our beliefs into actions. However, this comment will not go to extremes, but future ones may.)

    My concept of a true church (as taken from Acts and the Epistles) is one in which the men are "brethren", or brothers in the Lord, each caring for each other as brothers do. If one has a need, such as food or clothing, then the rest will care for that brother and his family. The church body is literally a body, with God giving each special gifts to help support it, but all having the rudimentary christian qualities. The church needs money to operate; so the men who are able in accounting calculate the minimum funds necessary for church operation (the pastor's salary included, if necessary).
    Then the core group will attempt to raise that amount of money, which should not be burdensome. The rest of the congregation may also give (and should want to, if they are in the faith), and this amount will go to the church's account, which will be used for helping those in the church who have need.
    I can already hear the complaints against this method of operation coming from those who have dealt with mismanaged church funds. But if this is the problem, then the solution is reforming, Godly men, not new church plants! If the church be a work of God, then we ought to refine it and remove the selfish accountants. Further, how much faith do we have in God to build His church? We so often think of it as being ours. However, the definition of the church is the redeemed people themselves, not a building that we frequent on occasion.
    God sees the needs of the church, and gives gifts to each as He sees fit in order to build it. In the case of the medical field, God also gives the gifts: and this is how we advance in general health. The hospital is a responsibility of either men who are in the church, or the church itself. It is profitable only so far as the men running it are able to make a living (which is based upon personal needs, not lucrative gain). The rest is used for medical advances, equipment, supplies, and overhead.

    Will write more on government and the civil situation later.

    Caleb Romanowitz

  5. Andrew,

    Wrapped up in the "Christian Reconstructionism" doctrine is the teaching of Dominion Theology. While I agree with everything you said, and said well, I can't go here with you even though I think the CR camp gets it right about everything BUT DT.

    Now, Mr. K (as well as the government and courts now) will tell you that food and education DO come under the jurisdiction of government because both of those things directly affect our nation's defense. Not sure if Mr. K was playing DA or just reciting the gov't position (you'll have to ask him--I'm sure he'd enjoy the conversation), but by that logic, all can be made to be under government jurisdiction. Sigh.

    Anyway, just wanted to say, "Well said!"

    Jay's mom

  6. Mrs T,

    Thanks so much for taking the time to read my comments!

    The question is whether or not it is, in fact, the government's duty to protect the people in such a way. The government is supposed to punish crime, as a means of ensuring the safety of the people, but the Government is not supposed to directly protect the people in the way that most people think.

    According to Romans 13, the whole reason why government exists is to punish crime, to deter lawless people from harming good citizens. So government can make rules against criminal actions and enforce them. It would be entirely legitimate for the Federal Government to make laws against poisoning food. But it would not be the Government's duty to inspect everybody's eggs to make sure that they don't accidentally contain salmonella. How do we know this? Look at the biblical framework for government laid out in the OT law. That part of the bible is there for a reason. And one of the things it shows, if you study it, is how far Government is allowed to go in protecting the people. If a given thing, or something directly akin to it, is not referenced in the OT law or elsewhere in the Scripture as a legit duty of government, it's not. That's because all governmental authority comes from the God of the Bible. Where God hasn't given authority government doesn't have it.

    Really, without the Scriptures, we have no foundation for making any moral claims in the institutions of a society.

    And by the way, it is not protecting the people to insult them by in effect saying, "You're too stupid to be careful what you eat and teach your children. We've got to do it for you."

    Next thing you know, the government's going to be deciding what internet filters people should have.

    Or maybe they'll do what the government of the UK did and put padding around all of the telephone poles so that people walking the sidewalks and texting won't get hurt if they walk into them by accident.

    Perhaps I shouldn't say it-don't give the tyrants any ideas.

    I'd just like to know, what exactly are you referring to when you use the term Dominion Theology? I've listened to hours and hours of sermons by the leading Christian Reconstructionists, like Mr. R. J. Rushdoony, Mr. Greg Bahnsen, the Hon. Howard Phillips, Dr. George Grant, etc, and all of the people at Vision Forum, and I've never heard any of them use the term that I can recall.

    I have heard it used by others though, and have found that Dominion Theology is often really a major misconception. It's big, scary, and-horror of horrors-THEOCRATIC, and yet nobody really seems to know exactly WHAT it is.For the true Christian Reconstructionist perspective on Dominion, I would highly recommend that you watch the youtube video entitled "Rushdoony Defines Christian Dominion." Take it from him-Rushdoony is sort of the father of Christian Reconstructionism, or one of them, and his views represent the views of pretty much all true Christian Reconstructionism. Yes, there are a few wacko nutcases out there-but their views are never based upon a consideration of the whole counsel of God, and they are very uncommon.

    The only real legit definition of Dominion Theology is that the OT law is still standing aside from the sacrificial law and those statutes dealing with purifications. If you disagree with this, I'd be happy to engage you on it.

    BTW, just so you know, I'd warn you that there's a lot of misinformation out there about Christian Reconstructionism. I'd take it straight from the sources-Mr. Rushdoony, Mr. Bahnsen, Vision Forum, etc.

    Thanks! Hope this is helpful to you.

    Andrew Romanowitz

  7. Caleb, also well said. And thank you for the disclaimer. I feel safe addressing this comment, but in future I'll be extra careful in my comments to you. LOL

    Andrew, I agree with you about limiting governmental authority to the parameters given it in the Bible. They would have no authority if not assigned by God in the first place. However, there is a tendency amongst the CR camp not to limit the church to its Biblical parameters either.

    You are a good student! They don't use the term, but simply talk about "dominion", but there are so many camps who use that term that I tried to distinguish by the term. Obviously I failed in that.

    Rushdoony implies the subjugation of the civil arena based on a postmillenial eschatology (even though he says it will be accomplished rightly--through the regeneration of man and not necessarily through political control). I disagree.

    Whereas most in the "DT" camp hold that we are building the "Kingdom of God" (I strongly oppose that terminology because of its connotations amongst the emergent church leaders) on earth and it will become almost a utopia (they refer to Is. 65: 17-25) just prior to the second coming, I am persuaded that Scripture and the facts bear out that the tribulation mentioned in Revelation has not yet occurred and there will be a great apostasy (which I believe has begun) just prior to Christ's return. This is my main disagreement with most of those in the CR camp.

    As you've stated it, however, we don't disagree. Although I might want to address your statement that the sacrificial law and those dealing with purification are not standing today. I submit that they are still standing (God does not change nor do His requirements) but have just been *fulfilled*.

    Proverbs 27: 17

    Mrs. T

  8. Wow... I didn't think my post would start a big discussion like that! Awesome! :) But, I've been reading the comments, don't think I just let them by and don't read them! ;)

    Caleb - I agree! And the Church lost what it had - the ability to do those things with *God's* money! Here's how the Bible explains how taxes took the place of tithes -
    "10So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.

    11He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.

    12"He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

    13"He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.

    14"He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.

    15"He will take a *tenth* of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.

    16"He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.

    17"He will take a *tenth* of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants." ~1 Samuel 8:10-17

    So we see here that when nations set up a system of government that has a central power (in this case king) ruling over it, then it becomes tyrannical! The government starts taking the tithes that are set away as God's (the tenth part is always set away for God's use in the Bible). That passage says that those rulers will take that tenth and basically set themselves up as sovereign over the people (which only God can be - thus they set themselves up as God).

    Thomas Jefferson and many others were strongly in favor of a decentralized government, whereas some of the other founding fathers were opposed to that idea and wanted a bigger government. They agreed to something in the middle, but it's gone downhill from there (as the original Southerners saw clearly).

    I'm not disagreeing with anyone on here (I haven't looked very much into Dominion Theology, or Christian Reconstructionism), I'm just adding to the case. :)


  9. Mrs T, thanks so much again.

    The Kingdom of God, as the term has been traditionally used for thousands of years, is the rightful authority (or dominion, if you prefer, we use the terms with the same sense) of Christ and his word over all areas of life. This isn't achieved by some sort of forcible violent subjugation.

    It's to the same end as the Protestant reformation-that we would bring all things into subjectivity to God and his word-not to bring about the Second Coming of Christ, but just because it's our duty.

    On the term "Kingdom of God," we can't let the "badguys," or also the honestly mistaken, take God's terms and misuse them.

    In the views of most Christian Reconstructionists, the "Kingdom of God" is not specifically referring some sort of thing that's supposed to occur just before the return of Christ. Some people have that notion, but it's not the consensus. The Kingdom of God is an international, eternal thing. It's not something that we're supposed to achieve to bring singularly to bring about the return of Christ.

    There's actually no consensus view on eschatology in the CR camp to my knowledge. I actually don't agree with most eschatological systems. I agree with a few of the preterist interpretations but wholeheartedly disagree with their ultimate conclusion. I agree with some of most eschatological systems, but I also disagree with most of them on some points.

    And by my study, I don't think Rushdoony's concept of the Kingdom of God is that deeply connected with his eschatology. He may have believed that eventually the kind of event that you articulated was going to occur, but that wasn't the ultimate end of his concept of the Kingdom of God, as far as I know.

    I might add that just like how Calvinism doesn't concern everything that Calvin believed (e.g. Paedobaptism, on which there's different views), Christian Reconstruction doesn't concern everything that Rushdoony or Bahnsen believed either.

    To make this clear-you don't have to be a postmillenialist to be a Christian Reconstructionist. A lot of Reconstructionists tend to avoid the whole eschatological minefield in lecture and discussion.

    I don't want to turn this into an eschatological discussion (I'm one of those Reconstructionists I just mentioned), but I just want to say, because it's always good to say it, that whether the Tribulation is coming soon or not, that doesn't change a whit of our duties. What God allows in his providence to happen doesn't change what we are supposed to do. Wrong thinking on this point is one of the things that has made the church so lethargic today.

    You are correct about "fulfilled" vs. "standing" with those parts of the law-sloppy terminology on my part.

    To stimulate more interesting discussion-what would you consider an overstepping of the Church's boundaries?

    Amen. I love Proverbs 27:17. So many Christians today run from disagreements like the plague. That's not what God has called us to. By working through disagreements we strengthen each other.


    Buaidh no Bas,

    (No, that's not some cultic code word ;). It's Scots Gaelic for Victory or Death.)

    Andrew Romanowitz

  10. Justus,

    WOW!!! I wish I had that passage before.

    Actually, our government has gone a bit farther-now they're planning to draft your daughters and sisters and have them fight for the state...As Mr. Paul Washer says, over my blue, cold, dead, deformed body will you do that.

    Buaidh no Bas!

    Andrew Romanowitz

  11. Another thing-I've been reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I'm convinced that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and the others who supported a bigger government would be thoroughly appalled at the tyrannies of 1861. They were, while very wise in some respects, rather naive in others.

    On the public schools, I'd heartily encourage those reading these comments to read a blog post recently written by my friend Peter Bringe (pronounced BRING-uh. Peter, if you read this, correct me if I am wrong. ;) ) The web address is (He's written lots of other great stuff, BTW.)

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

  12. And Mr. Washer is correct! Why do they think they own us? (a rhetorical question...)


  13. We've got to get back to a proper understanding of the Constitution.

    About 90 percent of government organizations today are entirely legitimate. Why do I say this?

    Read the constitution. In particular, read Article I Section 8, Article 2 Sections 2 and 3, Article III Sections 2 and 3, Art IV Section 3. These sections deal with all of the powers which the government has been granted.

    If the Constitution does not say, _____ (branch of government) shall have power to do "x," Congress has no power to do so. If such is not the case, why was it necessary to enumerate powers in the first place? This is the concept of "expressed powers."

    From that we gather that most government departments are entirely unconstitutional. If the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall have the power to create a Department of Energy," Congress can't create a Department of Energy. Nor can they interfere with anything dealing with energy. If the states want to do that, they can, as long as their constitutions permit. But the Federal government cannot.

    But this will not solve all of the problems, because if the States adopt new constitutions which give the State governments all of the same ridiculous powers which the current Federal government (albeit illegitimate since 1861) ascribes to itself, it will be entirely "constitutional" but no less a tyrannous state of affairs. There comes a point where the only defenses of the people against tyranny is their arms, which the government now wishes, for the respective safety of everybody, as they say, but really to ensure that there is no opposition to their utterly tyrannous actions, to take them away.

    As the slogan says, "I'll give up my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead hands."

    Some things ought never to be surrendered.

    Some would respond that God is the only defense of a free people, which is true. But the inferences that are intended to be made is most certainly not true, that therefore it is not necessary to carry arms, or that we ought not to use them in defense against tyranny. I would respond that God has sanctioned the use of arms in defense of life and liberty. No, we do not trust in our weapons the least bit. But that does not mean that we do not use them, for we trust in the God who has commanded us to use arms. If any would question this assertion, I'd be happy to go into it. Until then, I'll simply stand on that statement.


    They think they own us because we usually don't mind being owned unless it affects our lifestyle.

    Besides, only a small fraction of the population would have a major objection to women being drafted into the military for moral reasons regarding a little-understood concept called the Creation Order, so why would it be such a big deal to offend that little obstinate minority who actually takes God at his word when He says in Deuteronomy 22:5 that it's actually abominable for a woman to even wear the accoutrements of a warrior (which is the proper interpretation of the verse.)? But hey, most professing Christians have probably never read Deuteronomy 22:5, and those that have probably never looked into the original hebrew text for the verse, and about half of those, probably wouldn't care if their daughters or sister were drafted anyway, because they don't hold to the sufficiency of scripture, and "that's just old testament stuff."

    And all of those who haven't read Deuteronomy 22:5 haven't read all of the passages in the bible about MEN defending WOMEN, not the other way around.

    "Oh, but, what about Deborah?" Please tell me, where in the book of Judges does it say that Deborah went into battle? It says she told BARAK to go into battle. If God has forbidden something in the scripture, it is generally not advisable to infer that in a given passage that is being done with his blessing.

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew R.

  14. Off topic, I know, but you'll enjoy this;


    The Wintons bluegrass and gospel.

    Andrew R.

  15. Exactly! You say everything very well! :)

    Off topic... I really like film soundtracks too (along with Bluegrass). :) Do you like that genre of music?

  16. YES SIR, I do.

    My favorites are:

    Braveheart (!!!), The Mysterious Islands (I bought it before I'd even seen the movie), anything by Ben Botkin, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, Master and Commander, and The Patriot. There are others too, but they escape me at the moment. What are your favorites?

    I like the soundtracks of Gettysburg and Gods and Generals as well, even though those movies aren't as "radically neo-confederate" as I am (muahaHaHAHAHA).

    Andrew Romanowitz

  17. Before I say anything else, I haven't seen many of these movies, just have heard the soundtracks and liked that part of the film. :)

    Ben Botkin, Braveheart, Pirates of the Caribbean (most notably 2 hornpipes - Tortuga), Chariots of Fire, The Magnificent 7, To Kill a Mockingbird, Hook, Second Hand Lions, Wyatt Earp, The Great Escape, Born Free, and my favorite all-time movie theme - Airforce One. :)

    That was a long list, but let me know if you know any of those (besides the couple you mentioned...)

  18. Yeah, I know Chariots of Fire-I LOVE it. I forgot to mention that one. Vangelis did a fantastic composing job. I haven't heard most of the others, but I will look them up.

    I know what you mean. There are a lot of really rotten movies with great soundtracks...It started with John Williams and Star Wars. People usually don't like to hear really ugly music when they are watching a movie. Even if it is a really horrible film morally speaking.

    Andrew Romanowitz

  19. By the way, Master And Commander is one of the best Hollywood movies I've watched. The young men act like men. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

    Andrew Romanowitz

  20. I really like Hans Zimmers' "Sunday Night Football" :D It's a good little piece of intro music for sports (unlike all those other hard-rock sports songs).


  21. Yes, Jay. It apparently is God's money; He thought so in Ananias and Sapphira's case.

    Peter evidently thought so too.


  22. (This comment partially regards some things mentioned in the comment portal of your last post).

    I play a lot of hymns myself on guitar, as well as a good many folk songs. Have you ever heard of Charlie Zahm? He's a folk balladeer who performs at a lot of Vision Forum events.

    Here's a few of links of his songs for you:

    I sing a lot of the same songs, FYI.

    I just listened to the theme for Air Force One and also the Hornpipes from Pirates Of The Caribbean. Very nice. I like the Air Force One theme particularly.

    My favorite soundtrack is the Braveheart soundtrack. I love Celtic music-particularly bagpipes of all sorts (Great Highland bagpipes (the most famous), Uilleann pipes, smallpipes, Northumbrian pipes, etc.)

    My favorite tracks from the Braveheart are: Of course, the Main Theme, Sons of Scotland, Battle of Stirling, Revenge, Gathering The Clans, and did I mention the Main Theme?

    I don't like the movie so much. William Wallace is one of my greatest heroes. While the movie some things right, it also got a lot of things intentionally wrong simply for the sake of appealing to pop culture.

    (Even if you haven't seen the movie, I think you ought to read this anyway.)

    Firstly, William Wallace did not marry Marion Bradfute against her father's will. Her father had died fighting the English several years before. Her mother had also previously died.

    Although William Wallace did avenge the death of his wife by killing the murderer, whose name was Heselrig (who actually was a sheriff.) Which, in my opinion, was a good biblical thing to do, taking the role of the avenger of blood. That would be an interesting issue to discuss sometime...

    Secondly, William Wallace did not kill Mornay, because Mornay didn't exist. The traitor of Falkirk's real name was John Comyn, and he actually did a decent job of hiding his treachery. After Wallace's death in 1305, Robert Bruce approached Comyn (thinking that he was a loyal Scotsman) and asked him to join him in a rising against the English. Comyn agreed, but then promptly betrayed Bruce. Bruce found him and asked him why he had betrayed him, to which comyn responded by drawing his dagger. The two fought, and Bruce won.

    Thirdly, the Princess of Wales never even met William Wallace, and to even suggest that Wallace would have committed adultery with her is revisionism and character defamation of the highest order.

    Fourthly-King Edward actually died two years after Wallace. In the movie Edward dies as Wallace is shouting FREEDOM!!! with his last breath. That's kind of sensationalized, and it draws attention away from the real heroism of William Wallace.

    Fifthly, there is no record of William Wallace ever using profanity, even in insulting the English, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was the kind of man who would have.

    Sixthly, the young man Stephen of Ireland was actually entirely ... sane.

    The less important innacuracies...

    William Wallace was actually about a foot taller than Mel Gibson is...

    William Wallace was also a very skilled archer.

    William Wallace actually fought several more battles than are depicted in the film, and the Battle of Stirling was actually fought over a bridge.

    And lastly, and perhaps most importantly ;), William Wallace did not wear blue face paint. Even though he probably did wear a kilt (a nice manly garment in my opinion, which is a very strong opinion-I wouldn't suggest that you challenge me on it, because I will quite thoroughly seek to convince you otherwise ;) ), and he did carry a huge two-handed claymore. And he did let out very loud war cries. Perfectly respectable manly things to do, if you ask me. You might see me doing them on occasion. But I do not wear blue face paint, and neither did William Wallace.

    Andrew R.

  23. I really like celtic fiddle too...particularly Alasdair Fraser. Here's a couple of my favorites of his tunes:

    I also like several tunes by a 70's Celtic group, the Bothy Band (like most modern Celtic groups, they do some not-so-good stuff-the influence of pop culture is of course all-pervasive, which is why I say I like several tunes), including these:

    See-this is real music. It has pronounced rhythm, but the rhythm is there for the music, to accent it. And, wonder of wonders, it's MELODIC music. Not just some random notes highly lacking in intelligence played very loud on a very crude sounding instrument.

    It also has historical roots in Christian God-fearing cultures. That's why I love it. Most of the traditional American folk styles are that way. Old time and bluegrass is essentially the folk music of the old South.

    Andrew Romanowitz

  24. Okay, now back to topic.

    But before I say anything else-last night we had a pretty wild blizzard blowing-please pray that we keep our power, and that if the power does go out that our pipes don't freeze.

    Anyway, one of the things that really needs to change is that Christians need to return to a biblical philosophy of voting and political support.

    These statements may be very convicting or very offensive to some. They are the truth, however. We aren't insecure people with porcelain nerves; we're Christian men and women about bringing all things under the authority of Christ. We have got to be about that business, and we need to remain humble. If we are wrong, we must not get desperate to prove ourselves right. We ought to humbly accept whatever the Scriptures say.

    I also want readers of this comment to know that I have in the past embraced most of the philosophies which I am currently denouncing. This is because for a long time I was a very thorough pragmatist, and as my concern was not building the kingdom of God and bringing all things into captivity to Christ, I didn't particularly care about bringing my views on voting and politics into subjection to the word of God.

    Modern Christianity needs to realize a few things. First of all, we are not God. We are not sovereign. We do not control the will of the masses. "The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Prov 21:1. Obviously, if the KING's heart is in the hand of God, so is every man's, because God is infinite, and the king is the loftiest of men. We are not, so ought there to be any doubts about God's sovereignty over the will of the populace.

    Secondly, what we do we are not to do based upon what God allows to happen in his providence. We are to do what God has commanded us. We don't make decisions based on outcomes, but on principles. "Duties are ours, events are God's," as the Scottish Covenanter Samuel Rutherford, and later Stonewall Jackson, liked to say. That means that we do what is our duty, and the events that occur as a result are in God's hands.

    Therefore, we need to determine what the biblical principles are. Again: outcomes are not in our hands. God is sovereign. We do our duties. God controls the events. We are not responsible for how the other 120 million people vote. We are responsible for how we vote. When we stand before the judgment seat, God’s not going to ask us how those other 120 million people voted. They are not sovereign anyway, so why should we base our actions on theirs?

    Therefore, we ought to determine the biblical principles on how to vote and stick to them alone.

    The Book of Exodus says:

    "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place [such] over them, [to be] rulers of thousands, [and] rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens..." Ex. 18:21

    Therefore, we see that we should only support people who fear God and hate dishonest gain for political office. That rules out John McCain. A man who fears God doesn't support the manufacture and murder of unborn children for medicinal purposes. That's what "embryonic stem cell research" is. I might add that McCain has absolutely no understanding of how the Constitution works or where the government gets its power. I'm actually being pretty soft on him when I say that. Why? Because I could say that he knows the Constitution, and deliberately contradicts it, and I probably wouldn't be wrong.

    I know I supported McCain in the 2008 election. But there wasn't much in my life before mid 2009 that was really worthy in any way, shape, or form.

    (next comment)

  25. Moreover, MEN are to lead in the civil sphere. Not women. "Oh, but that makes you a chauvinist!!" If I am wrong by the Scripture, then I most certainly am a chauvinist. If not, then it's not me you are arguing with. And if your position is based on any other standard than the scripture, it's probably in your best interest to examine your worldview before engaging me on anything else. Because if you don't have the scripture as your ultimate standard, you will disagree with me, and there's no point in arguing over the point until we solve the worldview question.

    At any rate:

    "Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens."

    Why does it say MEN there? Some say that's because "men" really means "people." Well, then, why is the previous word translated "people"? Why does it say, "You shall select out of all the PEOPLE able MEN?" The previous use of the word people requires that the next word mean men as opposed to women.
    Moreover, every other reference to civil leaders uses the term men instead of people.

    And if it be true that the word men is used for people, why is this? Because God made men to be representatives. Therefore, would it not be strange to have a woman represent the people?

    Deborah was not a civil leader; she was a prophetess and one to whom people would come to settle disputes. The judges were not civil magistrates.

    Furthermore, there are verses which would distinctively lead us away from choosing women as civil magistrates or representatives. For example, from the book of Isaiah, “[As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Is. 3: 12

    And lastly, God forbids women to be the leaders in churches and families. Would God have confusion between his institutions? The very same reasons for not having women teach in the Church are equally applicable to the civil sphere.

    “ Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” 1 Tim 2:11-15
    God wills no confusion between his institutions. If it is usurping authority for a woman to teach in a church, it is the same were she to rule in the state, because she would be having authority over men, which is not appropriate according to the creation order.
    Some at this point say that “such was merely what was considered appropriate in the culture.”
    I respond: Is that the reason Paul gives? No. He goes back to Genesis, pointing to the creation order and the fall.

    (next comment)

  26. And was not the scripture written for all of time? Can we really interpret Scripture by culture? Or shouldn’t we rather examine culture by Scripture? Is God’s word really absolute under such an interpretation? I think it isn’t.

    At any rate, I hope you see that God calls for us to elect God-fearing men to the civil sphere.

    By the way, some object to the standard of electing only a God-fearing candidate with the remark, “But there’s no perfect candidate.”

    But there’s no perfect man. Should we be pragmatic with which pastor we choose to lead a church just because nobody’s perfect? Of course not. Or should a man give his daughter to marry just anybody just because nobody’s perfect? There a basic general requirements. Can a Christian man fall? Yes. David, Abraham, Moses and many others did. But a Christian man will always repent. A God-fearing man will uphold God’s law in the civil society, and not sanction crimes against his law such as murder, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, drunkenness, stealing, etc, will hate all dishonest gain, and will hate perversion of the civil law. He will respect the law of the land and see that his authority only extends so far as the Scripture and the National Charter (in our case the Constitution) permit him, and no further.
    For these candidates alone we must vote, unless we wish to incur the guilt of the crimes committed by those whom we voted for knowing that they intended to commit such crimes.

    We do not have a theology of defeat. We work towards ultimate victory. This is what we fight for. We don’t have to keep morality from sliding down the slope by meeting the enemy halfway. That’s not ours to do. That’s in God’s hands. We stand for righteousness and righteousness alone.

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

  27. Andrew, I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond. In order to discuss the jurisdiction of the church one must clarify that we are necessarily defining the jurisdiction of the Institutional Church and not the body of Christ (catholic).

    Thus, the leaders of the IC must necessarily be the ones limited.

    And so, youth groups, Sunday schools, etc. I think we would agree overstep their jurisdiction by intruding into the sphere of the family.

    The less agreeable areas come in the political arena. We see so many abuses by the government that we don't notice our own.

    Voting is an individual activity and is a matter of conscience. (We can go there later.) It should not be manipulated by another including church leaders.

    The church is given responsibility for instruction of the law of God to the people and for holding them accountable to His law. That's it.

    All applications of His law are individual in nature. By this I mean that the church leaders must not manipulate the votes of its members or hearers (by specific endorsements) any more than the politicians must not. But they both do.

    Anyway, by becoming involved in the actual fruit of a Christian's life before it is fully blossomed *in a way other than instruction* is wrong for the IC. Dealing with that fruit is the proper response.

    We've gotten so concerned and focused on where we're headed that we've forgotten WHY we're headed there and we're just trying to stave off the headlong plunge over the mountain in any way we can. It won't work until we begin to acknowledge God's limits in all spheres.

    To switch on you, but to better explain what I mean: the IC proper has no business starting hospitals. The people of the church (catholic) must.

    IC leaders, because of who they are, must necessarily be limited more so than the Christian in general. The standard is higher for them than for the church (catholic).

    They have no business endorsing or decrying candidates. They MUST teach morality to the people and call leaders to account for their lack of it even to death (e.g. John the Baptist), but that's as far as it goes. The church (catholic) MUST vote, march, send money, etc. to support Godly men for our political offices.

    Also, the jurisdiction of the IC must also necessarily by limited to instruction FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE. To use any other source for teaching oversteps their assigned purpose and practice.

    Hope I made some sense.

    Mrs. T

  28. Mrs T,

    Thanks so much for taking the time to carry on this discussion.

    I agree that youth groups and sunday schools do overstep their jurisdiction-bigtime.

    However, voting is not merely a matter of conscience-it involves God's law as well. Exodus 18:21 is an example of that. So I do not believe that it would be outside the jurisdiction of the Church to denounce a particular candidate for open repudiation of God's law, or the creation order (particularly if that candidate is a she.) Sometimes it is better to deal with generalities when preaching. (For example, in 2008 Dr. Joseph Morecraft preached a sermon against female civil magistrates, but the point of the sermon was not specifically to discourage church members from voting for the McCain/Palin ticket.)

    Your assessment of the church's responsibilities is correct-although to it I would add the purification of biblical doctrine, by study and persuasion, not by force except in cases of gross and deliberate error. I would also add that those are the duties of the Church government. We ought never to confuse the government of an institution with the institution. The patriarch is not the family, the eldership is not the church, and the government is not the nation. Those institutions comprise of their members-not simply their God-ordained authorities.

    An IC could take on a hospital-building project, but it should be by the vote of the congregation (who are hoping to be of one mind), not the top-down order of the eldership.

    Church leaders can decry candidates just as they can decry sensual pop-stars, false prophets, or anyone else who is having a bad influence in society. But they must do so on the standard of God's law, not preference. The purpose of my last several comments was to show that God has a standard for voting. It's not wholly a matter of preference. Certainly, a church leader should not be comparing two scripturally acceptable candidates-but if one candidate is supporting something like embryonic stem-cell research, there would be no fault whatsoever in a church elder denouncing that man. Could a church elder bring discipline on a person who voted for him? My own faults in doing so require me to be humble and prove my convictions by consistent action before I comment on this matter; but is it sinful to vote for an unqualified candidate? To do so pragmatically is certainly not of faith, and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

    Again, while no candidate is perfect, there are biblical minimum-level requirements. To vote for a candidate IS to endorse his actions. I am not saying that we should vote for only sinless men; I am saying that we should vote only for God-fearing, repentant Christian men. We cannot compromise. We've been bought with a price. Why must we sell our honor and God's principles for a percieved victory in our eyes, which is ultimately no more than a taking of God's responsibility into our own hands, instituting rulers who by God's standards are utterly unacceptable-murderers of the weakest members of society, oppressors, lovers of dishonest gain, and so on?

    We do sometimes fail to understand, in our desire to put biblical distinctions between institutions, that there are overlapping jurisdictions in God's institutions. The church government, and the state government after, can bring discipline upon an abusive parent; The state government CAN biblically put a false prophet to death (Deuteronomy 13), and so on.

    All other things you said I wholeheartedly agree with.

    Thanks again.

    Justus, what do you think about trying to get some more people in on the conversation?

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

  29. 150 years ago today...

    Deo Vindice.

    Andrew R.

  30. Absolutely correct, Andrew, that the eldership is not the church, but they are the representatives of the church and as such must be bound at all times by the limits placed on the church specifically. Does that make sense? This is one reason teachers will be judged more harshly.

    I would agree that the people of the church could organize and tackle a hospital project, but at that point it is no longer a "church" project although the commonality amongst them is their church. They've merely begun to minister together outside the church in the realms of their families.

    Or are you suggesting that church funds should be used for this project? Is that a specific act delegated to the rule of the church (taking care of the sick and infirm)? Or to the individuals?

    In the example you gave of Dr. Morecraft's more general sermon, this is exactly the correct method the church should follow. I didn't hear the sermon myself, but (based on your description) applaud it.

    Which actions disqualify a man? Who should one vote for if there are no known repentant, Godly Christian men running? Should one then abstain? Should one feel guilt when he finds that the man who appeared to be a Godly repentant Christian man comes out of the closet after the election? What if there are two men who appear to be Godly repentant Christian men, but one is given to gossip and the other is given to lust? Which do you choose? Would Reagan have beaten Carter by those standards? Looks can be very deceptive and our distance from the men only complicates the matter. Each man should be "fully convinced in his own mind" regarding these decisions.

    The Lord is sovereign and His will is done regardless of who we vote for. But He will hold us accountable for seeking after and following Him in these things. He gives a nation the leaders His people deserve. [2 Chronicles 7: 14 for one--J said I had to give you a reference.]

    Anyway, am off for a bit. Am enjoying the discussion. You are a very thoughtful young man. Your parents should be very proud. :o)

    Mrs. T

  31. Sure! You can let a few guys know about my Blog/this discussion! :) I don't mind at all.

    ~Frisbeeman *getting into the pregame zone*

  32. Yep, it does make sense.

    I would agree with most of your assessments in the area of medicine.

    I want to make it clear that a pastor can flatly denounce an ungodly civil ruler or candidate.

    How do we determine whether a man is fearing God or not?

    So often we want to draw a line somewhere, as an absolute standard, and then try to get as close to that line we've drawn as possible.

    Again, how do we determine whether a man fears God?

    We do it all of the time. Fathers evaluate suitors to their daughters. We examine men to be leaders in our churches. The nation, and it's government, is not secular. It's no less Christian than the family or even the church.

    No, one should not feel guilt if he finds that the man he voted for is actually very immoral, as long has he has done a serious amount of research, as long as he voted in good conscience.

    This is one of the big problems-the men are so distant, and the media is totally corrupt. There's one thing that needs big reformation. Unfortunately, now the FCC's got their hands in everything, and they can carefully shut out opposition to their interests.

    This is going to sound really extremist and radical, but if there's no God-fearing man up for election (whether he has "a chance of winning" or not), it's better to write in the name of someone who is not running but who would be capable for the situation than to support an unqualified man.

    First of all, I would have voted for neither Carter or Reagan, because both had a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, where the government gets its power, etc.

    There are usually more than two men; third party candidates usually do exist in national elections. If they don't, then as I said-better to vote for a man who is not running than to be capable of being counted responsible for electing an ungodly man.

    Yes, every man should be fully convinced in his own mind, but they ought to be convinced standing upon the authority of scripture. What I mean is, we can only be convinced if we genuinely believe that our positions are derived from the Scripture. If not, we have no reason to be convinced.

    Absolutely true. The nation has recieved the leaders they want. When the people commit immorality and pervert justice, they get immoral and unjust leaders.

    What I am trying to get at with the churhc is, that the church should be more than the group of people who meet on Sundays, and maybe on Wednesdays.

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

    PS-I will be rounding up a few guys from church to join in on this discussion-I know a few guys who would probably love it.

  33. Andy,

    I might add that there should be something in the Constitution (I don't think it's there, [except for impeachment, and that's not really strong], but I haven't studied it too deeply) that says that elected leaders should be thrown out of office if they indeed stand for something, and start making laws in favor of that, other than what they told their constituents they believe.


  34. Samuel Rutherford was a Scottish reformer and Covenanter (essentially a Scottish Puritan.) He wrote a fantastic book called Lex Rex on the covenantal understanding of civil government. It's tougher reading, but I would recommend it-it's one of my favorite books. I'd also recommend, however, that you do a little bit of study on what was going on in Scotland at that time before reading the book. But if you take the time to understand it, it will give you a very solid understanding of these things.

    He essentially stated that a civil authority, when assuming power, by default makes a covenant with God and the people that he will only support God's law. (Of course, some civil authorities do not do this, but in order to be fully legitimate they are assumed to have done it by default and to be held as having done so.)

    The people also make a covenant with the civil authority that they will obey him insomuch as he does so.

    However, if you're dealing with, say tax cuts, it would follow that if a man promises tax cuts and then breaks his promise, he was either presumptuous or he is a liar, neither of which are desirable qualities in a civil leader. It would be best to have him sign a public declaration as a condition of his going into office that he do the desired thing rather than going on spoken words...That way you could actually hold him to what he said.

    Should there be a constitutional stipulation? It depends on the subject matter. Some of those things should be dealt with in state constitutions.

    If a candidate supports the murder of unborn children, for example, I think that he in justice ought to be thrown out of office whether it's in the Constitution or not, because God's law is higher than the Constitution. It wouldn't really matter if he'd promised to do otherwise or not. I genuinely believe that every single liberal in the Senate could and should be justly impeached for their actions. (The Tolerance Police are probably tracking by now... Who knows. Maybe we'll see this comment on Why? This is GOD'S world. His is the ultimate authority. Obstinate offenders against that authority are absolutely illegitimate.

    I had a discussion about civil government with a friend recently. One of the points I made was this. If a civil authority breaks God's law, who do we obey-God or the civil leader?

    As the civil leader is God's representative, if the representative is in defiance of the one who is supposed to be represented, then why should I count the authority of the representative as anything?

    If the governor sent me a representative, and yet the representative told me something completely different than what I know the Governor told him to tell me, who am I going to listen to?

    It's that simple.

    BTW, the clause on impeachment reads thus: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed
    from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
    Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    Treason is defined thus:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in
    adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
    Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
    Confession in open Court."

    The question then, is what high crimes are. Does the Constitution define high crimes? No. Nothing else is referenced. Why?

    (next comment)

  35. Because the founders realized that there is a higher standard of authority to which that definition must be left. They also understood that if the people could not make up their minds what that authority was, and hold the government to it, it would mean the devolution of American society.

    High crimes are high crimes against God's law.

    By the way, if bribery of any sort is a high crime, then 1. every single senator and representative who has supported earmarks ought to be immediately impeached, and 2. According to God's law, there are crimes out there worse than bribery. Like murder, adultery, sodomy, etc. Men guilty of these crimes are guilty of high crimes and ought to be impeached.

    If they try to use governmental force to hold their positions, then they ought to be removed by force. This is the Christian understanding of revolution-when a civil authority obstinately offends God's law, and uses his illegitimate authority to try to restrict those who would peaceably remove him from office, the people should resort to force, because the civil authority's authority is from God

    If he offends God obstinately, yet still claims authority, he is making himself a false deity.

    If they tolerate him, follow him, recognize him, or subject themselves to him, the people are commiting idolatry.

    However, when most of the nation is committing idolatry in this way, it does complicate things a bit...

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

  36. BTW, I know I'm going to sound like a really off the wall neo-confederate nutcase ( :0 )for saying this, but I read a great book this week-Jesse James, My Father by Jesse James, Jr. Look it up on

    Also, a verse which I find very applicable to a proper perspective on the War Between the States: Psalm 90:4.

    Ever listened to any sermons by John Weaver? Look him up on SermonAudio.

    Andrew R.

  37. Please pray for Dr. Fraley-on Sunday morning he fell and broke his arm.

    Andrew R.

  38. My point with Psalm 90:4 is that questions of justice don't go away after hundreds of years-not in the sight of God, anyway.

    I realize I'm bouncing around from topic to topic at a rapid rate, but I can't help it. I love these kinds of discussions. :) :) :)

    One of the big problems today is that parents delegate their authority of education elsewhere. I know lots of good Christian men have done this-but it's absolutely absurd.

    Essentially what we've done is this: 1. Tried to split education into two parts, one religious, the other some strange definition which varies from person to person, but usually including grammar, scientific disciplines, mathematics, and most strangely, history. We usually call that second part "secular" or "scholastic."

    We then say that the first is the duty of parents, and the second is the duty of whomever the parents give it to, or maybe the state. I ask: where is such an idea found in the Scripture? The answer is nowhere. You need both knowledge and wisdom. And you can't separate them. Whenever you teach knowledge, wisdom comes out with it. Whenever you teach wisdom, knowledge comes out with it. You can't separate them.

    But we have tried to anyway. In effect we say to God, "We know you gave children to parents, but we think our educational institutions can do a better job of teaching children knowledge." We know better than God-or so we think.

    You reap what you sow. We sowed with an educational system that was outside of the commands of God, and we've reaped Godlessness.

    There's only one educational institution which is blessed by the Scripture-it's called the family.

    I'm not saying that you can't take an apprenticeship, take a college class here and there, etc. I am saying that parents are responsible for the direct primary education of children.

    And when they shirk it, what is the product? By the grace of God, there are exceptions. But let's face it. We have a society of cowardly, insecure, conformist automatons. Do you want to know why society is a moral wreck? Because we did not follow God's plan for education; we thought we knew better.

    Buaidh no Bas,
    Andrew R.

  39. One of the big, big problems with the educational establishment is that when you throw thirty kids in a room, you've got to keep them in order. Therefore, it's necessary that discipline be thirty times as strenuous as in a family-based environment in order for the teacher to keep his head screwed on straight.

    The inevitable result-structure, structure, structure. This is how the educational establishment creates good little state-worshipping conformist automatons. By the time a child becomes a man, he's already been shoved around in a school for thousands of hours, in a never ending schedule of "Do this. Now do that. Now stuff these facts in your head. Now go here. What? You don't what to go here? Discipline, discipline, discipline. Now go here. Eat now. Play now. Now go over here. Stuff THESE facts in your head." and so on, and so on, and so on. Day after day after day. If you don't comply and become a good little automaton, you wind up in big, big trouble.

    This is exactly what the Statists want-get the children to being moved around and programmed like robots, so that when they get older they'll be ready to do the same thing in a socialist state.

    Moreover, it teaches children to do everything they do based upon fear. Fear of rejection, fear of censure, fear of discipline. Do what everybody wants you to do and you'll be fine. If not, there ain't no way you're gonna make it.
    You're at this stage here, this stage here, this stage here. If you're behind a grade in this subject, your teachers will censure you, the kids will tease you...

    Sometimes people ask me if I've ever been in school. I usually answer, "No, I never 'did time'." Perfect smart-alecky homeschooler answer, but it's very true.

    Proverbs has quite a different perspective. "My son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways." Prov. 23:26. How's THAT for a Scriptural counter to your modern highly advanced behavioristic robotic educational establishment?

    Moreover, didn't God give the duty of instruction and correction to the family? So how do you do that when your little children are stuck in a school all day? Who's instructing and correcting them? Taking the biblical understanding of those words, nobody. But the only moral training and correction they're getting is manipulative punishment (not a biblical concept in discipling children) to the end of behavioristic conformism. Because wonder of wonders, not many teachers care much about discipling the hearts of the kids in the classroom!

    I say that punishment is not a biblical concept in regards to the discipleship of children because punishment is always one of two things: 1. Just retribution for crimes committed. 2. penalty with the end of reforming behavior.

    Biblically, all correction should be directed at the heart, not outward conformism. Should a child bey his parents? Absolutely. Nobody's denying that. But whence should that obedience come? Fear of penalty-or honor and love from the heart!?

    This is the object of correction. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."-Proverbs 22:15.

    "My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee."-Proverbs 7:1.

    And this is how the schools wreck children-by teaching them that all that they are supposed to do is go along in life, live for comfort, avoid all the trouble. Rather than discipling their hearts, the schools have coerced their behavior. This is why I say that the public schools never made a courageous man. Courageous men have come out of the public school system, but that's been in spite of it, not because of it.

    The tragic thing is when home-educating parents carry the same ideas into their home education, because after all, the schools are the establishment, so they must know the right way to educate!

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew Romanowitz

  40. Andrew,

    First, those parents would tell you that they *are* being responsible for their child's direct primary education. So what distinguishes the occasional college class, the apprenticeship, the tutor, or the music instructor from whatever you would define as the appropriate oversight/involvement of parents in the training of their child? Is it just a matter of percentages? Is it subject matter? Why are your exceptions acceptable?

    Second, you've drawn your line (voting for someone who would be unable to take the office rather than voting for someone you deemed unfit for office), but it's an arbitrary line--not delineated in Scripture. Another man may not vote at all knowing it's the same effect you just had. Still another may vote for the one he believes would do the least damage--at least he's *doing* something to prevent the tide of evil from overwhelming. And each of these men did so after very careful research. Which is wrong and why?

    Luke 7: 31-35 John would have been wrong to come feasting and Jesus would have been wrong [blasphemous statement] to come as John did. We must each answer individually. We, as strongly opinionated and Biblically educated Christians, must be very careful to only define as sin that which God defines as sin. There's a lot out there that is unwise, but that does not make it sin.

    To berate someone publicly...Even John is said to have stated his opposition to Herod's immorality with his sister-in-law to Herod himself. It may have occurred publicly or privately, but it was done personally. Jesus and John both had some very harsh and even ugly words for the Pharisees, but again, personally even if publicly. Most preachers/pastors today do not even attempt to approach the candidates or elected officials personally. This, I believe, is a clear violation of Scripture falling into the realms of gossip [and I admit I've been guilty]. (I agree wholeheartedly with you about the distance and corruption of the media.) I'm inclined to believe that, in this day and age of google, blogging about a candidate's particular offense might be acceptable, but...One should really stick to instruction of the principles of Scripture and confront when and where possible.

    I believe if more Godly men personally confronted these men and women, we'd have less of a problem than we do. That's part of the problem. We confine our *responsibility* to anonymous ballots; we hold them accountable with our votes alone, and they've learned to manipulate them. God's ways are always best and they are personal.

    I have the time to participate in this discussion during this brief season, and I'm grateful for it. Really enjoy talking with you, Andrew. Where did Caleb go? I told him I'd be much more careful in my responses to him, but I didn't say I wouldn't respond. ;o)

    Mrs. T

  41. More comments coming soon-just hit a busy spot.

    Trying to get that email out on the film project- working on some articles, poetry, etc...Planning important discussions with friends...Organizing a Folk music band...Reading Calvin's can be busy. I want you to know I didn't forget though.

    Justus, did you get the chance to listen to any of those music links I gave you?

    Andrew R.

  42. Oh, Caleb loves these kinds of discussions, but he's kinda busy right about now-college and all that.

    Andrew R.

  43. Yep, I listened to them... I've already heard Charlie Zahm (we have a couple of his CDs). But yep, I like that type of music!

    I'm kinda busy right now too... I'm a senior in HS this year and I'm working a lot at CFA right now (more than usual). But I've been watching the discussion and throwing in a few words every now and then, when I have time. ;)


  44. CHARLIE ZAHM!!!!


    Andrew R.

  45. I love Charlie Zahm and his music because he sings in a manly manner (a fantastic contrast to modern fleshy breathy singers), because he sings songs that have purpose and meaning and are well written, not the typical, careless, arbitrary, feel-good sorta-spiritual stuff, and because his songs are identified with God-fearing cultures of the past. His music is just wonderfully inspiring.

    Andrew R.

  46. I've been a casual observer so far. Andy, me and Dan tend to agree with each other on these points, so I don't usually restate what Andy expounds on (and he gets to it way before I do!).

    On government and the topic of impeachment/removal;
    Without the main defense of the right to bear arms, we have very limited control over the government's actions.
    Also, when the majority of the government is consistently evil, there is no future hope except for revolution. Impeachment fails since there is no majority moral standard.

    A note on our country;
    Though the Communists originally thought that America would be a tough nut, to crack the modern America seems like a pincushion. The main reason is relative morality, and living for comfort/pleasure.

    Our timeline of demise is impressive.
    -lost our government in the 1840-1850s.
    -grew our federal army in the 1850-1860s.
    -used it to suppress the right to bear arms in the 1860s (and the right to remove corrupt government, and secede/nullify/just about everything else).
    -destroyed local/state government in the 1870-1900s.
    -got involved in a nationalistic slugfest(WWI) and then tried to set up a world coalition.
    -decided to live for pleasure in the 1920s; and floated most of the economy on debt due to unwise expenditures.
    -became mass employed by the government in the 1930-1940s.
    -returned from WW2 valiant but sedated, and then our families fell apart in the 1960-1970s.
    -avoided bothering the USSR so that China could become a world power.
    -let government run its "due course" in the 1980s-present day.
    -plus, do just about everything in our power to wreck our economy.

    However, there is "life in the old land yet" (as Andy likes to sing) since the dominionist Christians are the only ones growing their numbers (if you don't count the imported muslims and hispanics). Our future fight will be against these two groups primarily, since the atheists' destructive policies will eventually kill themselves off.
    Finally, we trust God, who runs the affairs of men (America included).

    On a lighter note...

    Frisbee is coming, Hallelujah!!! (don't hyperventilate, Jay :) )

    Caleb Romanowitz

  47. Frisbee?! :D I would be setting up a game for that right now, except for the fact that I'm busy for the next couple Saturdays... :( Maybe I'll let dad host it, because I know a lot of people who want to play soon! (And the forecast for Saturday is - 66*, partly cloudy with 0% chance of rain! ...Perfect for Frisbee)

    Same here as to the comment on why you don't comment as much. ;)


  48. Last night Dan and I finished an article on why American Christians are turning back to or tolerating the ancient symbols of pagan idolatry-tattoos, scarification, mutilation-for Vision Forum's Into The Amazon adventure (if you haven't heard about it, visit If the article gets posted I'll send you a link.

    Andrew R.

  49. Mrs. T,

    Thanks for your questions-critique is really helpful because it forces me to think harder...

    The scripture does not appear to draw a hard line on how much education MUST be done by the parents. Lots of issues are like this. The question is this: who is getting the heart of your child? Who is discipling? Who is teaching?

    The question that really gets to the heart of the matter is this: Is a parent willing to take responsibility for every word of instruction that enters a child's mind and heart, as though it were the parent's word of instruction? Before God, parents are responsible. Can they comfortably do so? I don't mean that parents are required to give every word of instruction that enters a child's mind and heart; but they must be willing to take responsibility for every word of educational instruction given to their children, and be wiling to accept any consequences that come a as result of that instruction, as though they themselves had given the instruction, because parents, having been given authority over and responsibility for children, will answer to God for every word of instruction given to their children as though it were their own.

    The solution to parents shirking their educational responsibilities is not to draw up some standard with a nice, clean list of forty-seven rules, and then say that "this is what all parents are supposed to do." The solution is to turn the hearts of the parents back to their children.

    However, I think we can safely say that general home education is the only educational method which can hold itself up Biblically, and without any question the only wise method. God gave children to parents; Therefore, parents should educate children. God commands parents again and again to teach their children wisdom consistently, regularly, in the manner of "when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deut. 6); it is double-minded to separate knowledge from wisdom, because all things are to be done with wisdom to the glory of God; so why should anyone but parents be responsible for the great majority of their education? Does this mean that every moment of education has to be given specifically by parents? No, such a line cannot be drawn from the scripture. But this is not a legitimate excuse to parents who would shirk their educational responsibility-God has given the principle. A parent should take the spirit of answering to God rather than man, and think, can I honestly answer to God that I did take responsibility for the primary education of my children?

    It's also important to note that it's very possible to "homeschool" your child and yet not disciple him much at all-this is one of the big problems in the homeschooling movement. We get so stuck on "homeschooling" that we forget the teaching of wisdom and discipleship. It's often caused by wrong educational priorities.

    As far as my exceptions-It's a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, parents will answer to God for the particular decisions they make which are not spelled out by scripture. They won't answer to me; nonetheless I do hope and pray to be a parent some day, and I must form personal convictions. Some things are obvious, and some are not. I don't want to try and make everything more cut and dried than it is; But I want to point out some problems in society. What is lawful is not always wise. I'm not just trying to throw out a bunch of rules for people to follow. Some of the things I have mentioned are indeed legit biblical principles. Others are admittedly opinions, but opinions which I believe are very strongly rooted in a biblical worldview.

    (next comment)

  50. In regards to governmental elected officials, I would still hold that the line I have drawn is not arbitrary.

    If you vote for a man, you vote for his platform. If a man comes out and supports something evil, and you did all of the research that was available to you and voted for him, not knowing that he supported this particular evil, then you are not responsible. However, if you knew about it and voted for him anyway, the fact is that by virtue of supporting him for office you are responsible. No amount of pragmatic evasion can remove that fact. Which means that in 2008 I supported a man who supported the murder of unborn children for the presidency of the United States. I sinned. I had to repent. And I did.

    Do I have everything figured out about voting? No. But here are some basic principles which I can hold to with absolute conviction that they are right principles. These are principles founded upon the word of God and the law of the land.

    1. I must not vote for any man who has willingly pursued dishonest gain and is not openly repentant of such actions. (Ex. 18:21)

    2. I must not vote for any man who has supported flagrantly unconstitutional policies and actions and has not openly denounced and turned from such support. This is because the law of the land is the highest authority, and therefore any ruler in rebellion to that authority would be naturally illegitimate.

    3. I must not vote for any man for whom you cannot say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he fears God. "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. " 2 Samuel 23:3

    4. Something came to my attention recently that I would add to my previous statements. Moses says in Deuteronomy 1:13, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." A man must be publicly known to be fit for office.

    5. I must not vote for any man who has willingly perverted justice in the civil sphere and is unrepentant of such actions. (Prov. 31:5)

    6. I must not vote for an oppressor of widows and orphans, one who impements such policies. (I could give you a dozen verses for this one.)

    7. I must not vote for a man who is in obstinate, open rebellion to the law commands of God. As civil authority comes from God and is singularly instituted for the upholding of God's law, a civil authority which disrespects God's law has no authority. (i.e. adulterer, thief, fornicator, murderer, covetous, liar, etc.) David committed adultery-but David repented when confronted the first time. (Matthew 18 is important to remember here.)

    This is different from the case of parental authority, which is not merely instituted for the upholding of God's law. While civil magisterial authority was instituted because of sin, for the punishment of evildoers and the upholding of God's law, parental authority was a creation order institute and extends beyond that purpose. Parental authority is not derived from the consent of the governed, as is civil authority.

    And by the way, I could probably come up with a dozen more biblical principles in regards to voting. I'm not trying to lay out every specific principle right now. I'm trying to make the point that the principles are there in God's word, and we need to seek the wisdom of God's word, rather than the wisdom and "oh-so-obvious" common sense of the world.

    I believe in the absolute, complete, total sovereignty of God and the sufficiency of Scripture. Therefore, I don't need to make all kinds of excuses to allow myself to be pragmatic and vote for a dubious candidate. I don't need to vote based on some man-made standard of "electability." Such a standard is never considered in the Scripture. What does the Scripture hold to be righteous standards for candidates for public office? As I have shown: Righteousness. Honesty. Fear of God.

    (next comment)

  51. If we use the wisdom of God, we can make wise decisions. If we are merely looking for loopholes of ambiguity with which to find excuses for pragmatism and worldly principles which are inconsistent with piety of mind, we have already resigned ourselves to foolishness. And if we are unwilling to make the unpopular decision which the principles of God's word would inevitably lead us to, we have sacrificed the obedience of God for the approval of men.

    That said, I think after all responses and counter responses regarding this comment have been made, I might like to go on to the next "What If," if Justus, being the administrator of this blog, is willing?

    Buaidh no Bas,

    Andrew R.