Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mar Apr2010

Mar Apr2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 200 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Chalcedon Foundation on Apr 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Publisher & Chalcedon President
Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony
Chalcedon Vice-President
Martin Selbrede
Martin Selbrede
Managing Editor
Susan Burns
Contributing Editors
Lee DuigonKathy Leonard
Chalcedon Founder
Rev. R. J. Rushdoony(1916-2001)was the founder of Chalcedonand a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numer-ous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.
Faith for All of Life:
Thismagazine will be sent to those whorequest it. At least once a year we ask that you return a response card if youwish to remain on the mailing list.Contributors are kept on our mailinglist.
Suggested Donation:
$35 peryear ($45 for all foreign — U.S. fundsonly). Tax-deductible contributionsmay be made out to Chalcedon andmailed to P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA95251 USA.Chalcedon may want to contact itsreaders quickly by means of e-mail.If you have an e-mail address, pleasesend an e-mail message includingyour full postal address to our office:chalcedon@att.net.
For circulation and datamanagement contact RebeccaRouse at (209) 736-4365 ext. 10or chalcedon@att.net
Faith for All of Life
Mar/Apr 2010
Faith for All of Life,
published bi-monthly by Chalcedon, a tax-exempt Christian foundation, is sent to all who requestit. All editorial correspondence should be sent to the managing editor, P.O. Box 569, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609-0569.Laser-print hard copy and electronic disk submissions firmly encouraged. All submissions subject to editorial revi-sion. Email: susan@chalcedon.edu. The editors are not responsible for the return of unsolicited manuscripts whichbecome the property of Chalcedon unless other arrangements are made. Opinions expressed in this magazinedo not necessarily reflect the views of Chalcedon. It provides a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active,historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhat from Chalcedon’s and from each other.Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers, and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible. ©2010Chalcedon. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint granted on written request only. Editorial Board: Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony, President/Editor-in-Chief; Martin Selbrede, Editor; Susan Burns, Managing Editor and ExecutiveAssistant. Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, Telephone Circulation (9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m., Pacific): (209) 736-4365 or Fax (209) 736-0536; email: chalcedon@att.net; www.chalcedon.edu; Circulation: Rebecca Rouse.
From the Founder
Post-Christian Era? 
From the President
Money, Wealth, and Power 
Patriarchy versus Feminism
Martin G. Selbrede 
Tur Warare: Equipping Families in Pulling Downthe Strongholds o the Enemies o God
Andrea Schwartz 
Position Paper: Theology, Law, and Liberty
Martin G. Selbrede 
Book Review:
Intellectuals and Society 
by Thomas Sowell
Lee Duigon
Catalog Insert
Faith for All of Life |
March/April 2010 www.chalcedon.edu
n idea very heavily promoted by hu-manists in recent years,and, unortunately,picked up by all toomany Christians, is that we are moving into a post-Christian era. According to this belie, the Christiancenturies have come to an end, and weare now moving into a new age. Somecall it the era o scientic humanism,others o scientic socialism, and stillothers call it the age o Aquarius. Forthe occultists, as o old, this is the “thirdage” or third world era. The occultistFoster Bailey, in
The Spirit o Masonry 
 (1957), wrote that “the Jewish dispensa-tion came to an end, and the Christiandispensation began with the passing o our sun into the sign o Pisces, the Fish-es … Today … we are passing rapidly into another sign, the sign o Aquarius.”The theologians who get their doctrinerom the popular press and the streetshave echoed this humanistic chorus, andthey tell us we are in a post-Christianera. Is this true? With the waning o the “middle”ages, Europe moved into an anti-Chris-tian era which culminated in the Renais-sance. The church was largely capturedby cynical humanists who treated it asa prize to be exploited. The Reorma-tion and the Counter-Reormation werereactions against this, and they stroveto recapture church, state, school, andsociety or Christian aith. In varyingdegrees this was done. Humanism, how-ever, was revived in the Enlightenment;it began its conquest o Christendom; itembarked on a deliberate and deter-
Post-Christian Era?
[Reprinted rom
Roots o Reconstruction
(Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 824-829.]
R. J. Rushdoony
From the Founder 
mined anti-Christian and post-Christianera. Historians have long masked andunderplayed the militant anti-Chris-tianity o the Enlightenment thinkersand their successors; it is to the credito Peter Gay’s work,
The Enlightenment 
 (2 vols.), that he develops this aspect o their thought. It was clearly central. With the eighteenth century,Europe moved steadily into a post-Christian era. Every area o lie wassteadily divorced rom Christianity andreinterpreted in humanistic terms. True,there were Christian counter-move-ments against the humanistic culture,but, because these were largely pietistic,they did not challenge humanism assuch. In act, because pietism came toemphasize soul-saving above all else, itbecame thereby humanistic also: it putman at the center o its gospel, whereasChrist said, “[S]eek ye rst the kingdomo God, and his righteousness; and allthese things shall be added unto you”(Matt. 6:33). The Shorter Catechismhad taught, “Mans chie end is togloriy God and to enjoy Him orever.”Now humanism and religion had cometo agree that the glory o man is the endand purpose o all things.The eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies were humanistic and anti-Christian in their basic motives, andyet they were very largely infuenced by still powerul Christian standards also.In the sciences and in various otherareas o study, not only did Christianscholars predominate, but the idea o an ultimate and God-created order stillgoverned men’s minds. In philosophy,God had been abandoned; in everyday lie as well as the sciences He was stillthe ultimate power, although recedingin centrality. With Darwin and Freud,humanism abandoned the God-conceptand at the same time committed suicide.For Darwin, not God but chance isessentially ultimate, although traces o providence still are strong in his system.The basic emphasis, however, was away rom God’s design to chance variationsand natural selection. Instead o anultimate mind, man lived against thebackground o an ultimate meaningless-ness, and man was depreciated. I allthe area surrounding a man’s house issuddenly turned into a dump, then thatman’s house is not only depreciated butpossibly rendered untenable as rodentstake over the area. Similarly, humanism,as it dispensed with God, dispensed also with the meaning, purpose, and dignity o lie. Freud urthered this process,knowing ull well what he was doing tohumanism thereby. However, holdingto an evolutionary position, he reducedmind to a rail late-comer whose every  working was an outcropping o primi-tive motives rom the unconscious. Phi-losophy could not very well survive un-der this premise. Darwin himsel wrotein 1881 that “with me the horrid doubtalways arises whether the convictions o mans mind, which has been developedrom the mind o the lower animals, areo any value or at all trustworthy. Wouldany one trust the convictions o amonkey’s mind, i there are any convic-tions in such a mind?” The eect o thiscollapse o humanism was apparent inevery area o lie. Prideaux has observed,
 www.chalcedon.edu March/April 2010 |
Faith for All of Life 
Faith or All o Lie 
o Delacroix, “He was the last painterin whom the humanist Renaissanceconception as a totality maniested itsel  with poetic ervor.” Since Delacroix,humanists have presented us with alimited world, then a ragmented world,and now an exploded and dying world.Suicidism has possessed the humanists.Fiedler has cited this weariness with lie which marks humanistic writers. “Thereis a weariness in the West which un-dercuts the struggle between socialismand capitalism, democracy and autoc-racy; a weariness with humanism itsel  which underlies all the movements o our world, a weariness with the strivingto be men. It is the end o man whichthe world o Burroughs oretells, not interms o doom but o triumph.” The writer William Burroughs, to whomFiedler reers, gives us a “vision o theend o man, total death.” Fiedler isright: modern humanistic man is “wait-ing or the end.”The end o every age is marked by certain recurring interests. As meaningrom God is abandoned, meaning issought by man rom below, in occult-ism, satanism, magic, and witchcrat.Rome in its decline was marked by suchinterests. As Christendom collapsedater the thirteenth century, these samemovements revived and with intensity possessed the minds o despairing men.The same interests are again with us,not as signs o the birth o the age o  Aquarius, but as evidences o the dyingagony o humanism. Are we acing a post-Christian era?The men who so declare are as blind asthat alse messiah, Woodrow Wilson, who believed that he had a better way than Christ, who held that a war couldbe ought to end all wars and to makethe world sae or democracy, and whoelt that paper documents could harnessand control the evil goals o men andnations. Wilson’s great crusade did notusher in a new world order o peaceand prosperity; rather, it inauguratedthe armaggedon o humanism. FranklinDelano Roosevelt embarked on a similarcrusade in Europe, and the breakdowno humanism was only hastened.It is not a post-Christian era that we ace but a post-humanistic world.Every thinker who evades that act ispast-oriented and blind; he is incapableo preparing anyone or the realities o our present situation. Humanism onall sides is busy committing hara-kiri;it is disemboweling itsel with passionand ervor; it needs no enemies, becausehumanism is now its own worst enemy. We have lived thus ar in a post-Chris-tian era, and it is dying. The importantquestion is, what shall we do? We must realize that this is one o the greatest i not the greatest opportu-nity yet to come to Christianity. This isa time o glorious opportunity, a turningpoint in history, and the wise will pre-pare or it. True, the church is remark-ably incompetent and sterile in the aceo this crisis. It has very largely joinedthe enemy. This, however, has happenedbeore. In the ourth century the churchrepeatedly condemned St. Athanasius, asthe state listed him as a wanted outlaw.He was accused (by churchmen) o trying to stop the ood supply to thecapitol. He was accused o murder (butthe dead man was proven to be alive).He was charged with magic and sorcery,and much else, and his lie was lived infight, with ve periods o exile. All thesame, it was Athanasius and not his en-emies, nor the powerul churchmen o his day, who shaped the uture. History then as now is not shaped by majoritiesbut by men who provide the aith andideas or living.Smith has said o modern man,“How may we describe the presentsituation? Man is his own master, andthus aware that there are no bounds tohis powers. He can do anything that he wishes to do … He is ree, and come o age, but he is also the slave o ideolo-gies. He recognizes that his existenceas a man carries with it the demand tobe himsel, as a single personal being(in Kierkegaard’s phrase), and at thesame time he nds himsel continually threatened with immersion in the lieo the collective—and he even desiresthis, in order that he may evade the harddemand to be a single person.” This isan interesting admission, coming as itdoes rom a modernist position. It is anindication o the paralysis and helpless-ness o humanistic man. Men who areat war with themselves, and resentul o lie and its requirements, are not able tocommand the uture: they cannot evencommand themselves.Every day our problem is less andless humanism and more and moreourselves. Is our lie and action pro-ductive o a new social order? Are wegoverned by principles and ideas which will help determine the new directiono history? Is our thinking still directedby sterile statism, and do we believethat the answer to man’s problems is tocapture the machinery o the state, ordo we recognize that we must rst o allbe commanded by God beore we caneectively command ourselves and ourutures?Leslie Fiedler aptly titled his study o the modern mood as refected inliterature
Waiting or the End 
. We canadd that it also involves waiting or aready-made answer. The temper o ourradicals is a demand or total solutionsnow; quite aptly, they call themselvesthe “now generation.” Quite logically,magic and witchcrat are very closely tied to the “now generation.” Magic and witchcrat oer a mythical alternativeto patient work and reconstruction. A ew words and ormulae, and, presto,the desired thing supposedly appears. In

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->