This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
©2009 J.R. Johnson
Part 1: Whose Wineskin is this, anyway?
THE GREAT FINAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE NEW WORLD CIVILIZATION AND THE CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION
The Christian world is in direct opposition to the world that is waiting to be born. Christianity has always been a faith that fights when it finds itself backed into a corner. This age is the age, that Christianity finds itself backed into the biggest corner of its life. In order for Christianity to be defeated, its true, historic nature must be exposed and defeated. Defeating a false view of Christianity will not provide a permanent solution. The following section outlines the form of Christianity that will be engaged in this final, historic battle of the ages.
1 THE BATTLE BETWEEN REVELATION AND REASON
In Freshman philosophy in college, the new tool of philosophical reasoning in the hands of a young person, is like giving a hammer to a five-year-old child: The youngster has no understanding of a hammer’s proper function. Such is the state
of the young philosophy student. He will often use his new knowledge to prove that the world does not exist. After all, he will say, you cannot prove you are even awake. You cannot prove that your senses are telling you the truth about a world that exists outside of your body. You cannot prove that the mind, in fact, has any connection of any reality at all. We may all be living in a universe that is all in our mind. Having thus eliminated the entire universe from existence, the student feels he has understood the real message of philosophy. One thing is certain, though, about the freshman in his understanding of philosophy; the student is quick to grasp the implications of his newfound wisdom. The implications of his reasoning lead him to assume that the universe is of our own making. This liberates the student from all connection to ethical and social obligations. This is what the student wanted to find. It is a truly liberating feeling. The individual has been set free to create his own world to his own liking. After years of having to conform to an adult world that has insisted on its own way, the student is now intellectually armed to reject such a world. Of course, the implications of such thinking are not even thought out to their conclusion. Liberation from a world that a child does not like, is the overwhelming purpose of his thinking. There are two events that will bring our student back to some sort of reality. One, he falls in love with another person who in his new way of thinking only exists in his mind. This new philosophy is not as acceptable under the new conditions. Who wants to fall in love with merely a phantom of one’s own imagination? That is not love, but merely intellectual masturbation. While our mind may be satisfied with such a loved one, our heart cries out for more than just a fantasy. The new philosophy that sounded all so liberating, on second thought, reduced the whole world to one giant masturbation fantasy. That is not what our heart wants. What our mind may find intellectually satisfying goes against something inside of us that demands more of this worldly existence. The second reality disturbing event, is to get into a discussion with another young philosophy student. The other student has also written off the world he was taught in school and
by his parents. He also has come to the conclusion that the world he enjoys is of his own making. The discussion ends with both of the students denying that the other student exists. That may satisfy a young ego, but both go away from such a confrontation with a feeling of emptiness. To create one’s own world is not quite as satisfying as it sounds at first thought. After all, if I were going to create an ideal world in my own imagination, I certainly wouldn’t create it with such a jerk as the person that refused to accept my egoistic interpretation. In this early reality check, we are brought into the first problem of all mankind, not just the freshman philosophy student. What type of world do we live in? How do we get to know this world? Is there any certainty in all of this? Does this world have any laws that apply to human behavior? Is there a spiritual world? Is matter all that there is? Is mankind free to build his own world upon a world that contains only physical matter? These questions have plagued mankind for its entire existence. One of man’s great problems is that he wants to live like an animal, but discovers such a world totally frustrating. Actually, what he really wants, is to treat others like animals and yet have the dignity of being himself something more than an animal. This brings us to the basic battle which all men must tackle first. How can mankind understand the world he lives in for certainty? Can his mind approach the universe and understand it with his own reasoning mind? Actually, it appears on the surface that the mind is all that man has to understand this world. What else is there? The problem for the adult in his philosophical understanding is that he has trouble leaving behind his freshman understanding of the physical world. He has matured beyond such a solitary understanding. And yet, the solution that is offered does not seem to offer much help. He can with his reason create a world with his mind. The problem is, everyone else with their reason can also create a world to their own liking. We are left with almost as many world and life views as there are people. If this world is to function at all, there must be fewer than six billion world views. If reason is to be our guide, there must be some method for narrowing down the number of
views to an acceptable level. Can we use reason to narrow them down? But reason is the method used to create the six billion differing systems. We are left with two choices. We can maintain that some reasoning is better than other reasoning. We must find a method for deciding which world view is better than other world views. Failing to find such a method, then we must have some other method of selecting one view over another. Do we put it to a vote and declare the ultimate democratic choice? Can threebillion-and-one voters decide what constitutes reality for the rest? This sounds like a method to create a system which would instigate numerous wars. Another system is to create a world wide religion which would constitute one world view. This religion would be acceptable to all because it would be connected to the world view that men had created for themselves. The religion would appear to be real because all social and ethical functioning would be based upon such a view. In other words, it would work. Such a system would necessitate a world wide culture. If the new religious interpretation of reality was to accepted by all, it must work in all cultures. This means a way must be found to construct a world-wide culture that would be accepted by almost everyone in the world. Success for any person in such a culture would require the alignment of one’s self to the reality described in such a whole world religion. A final method would be the simplest. One man could impose his particular interpretation upon the rest of the world. His view would be the winning view. All would be required to accept this one interpretation or face physical or social consequences. This is basically why a dictator is able to restore peace to a nation: He is able to impose a uniform philosophy upon his nation. While most societies do not want a dictator, many have sought some form of pressure to assure the society is unified around a common set of beliefs. Wars and disasters are great unifiers. While we do not like to admit it, it is to the advantage of most governments to have a crisis of some sort. Just as doctors have a vested interest in curing disease, not preventing it, so governments have a vested interest in trouble, not the establishment of permanent peace.
Back to our freshman philosopher for a bit. He still has his problem. He doesn’t like believing in a real world that is outside of his control. Yet, he finds it almost necessary for his own sanity to assume that there are others out there who are not of his own making. The student eventually decides some compromises are in order. His pure reasoning did not get him anywhere except in a very lonely universe. It is exciting to use reason to separate oneself from all outside influence and control, but it is not a permanent solution. Even if we are our own God, we are not a Holy Trinity. We are alone. It sounds very reasonable, but in this case, reason is not the solution, the young student is looking for, in his quest for answers to life’s riddles. Some assumptions are in order. There must be a real world out there. This world should be pliable to our desires, but must offer some resistence in the form of laws which cannot be violated. Laws that can be violated are not laws, and a universe without laws is not much different than each man living in his own homemade universe. Mankind must be separate from the physical world, yet able to communicate with it. The thing we call persons must be of a separate substance than that of the world. Matter does not think or feel or desire to be alive. Men who are just pieces of matter with reflexes are not men. Even thought must be something that goes beyond this material universe. Thought, that is just the product of chemical reactions, is hardly worthy of the name of ‘thinking.’ The thinking person must assume that others in his universe are independent of his control and that they are thinking beings also. And while the student is at it, it would be nice if the electrical impulses of the brain can actually use its reasoning powers to discover the laws of the universe. And, yes, of course, that the electrical impulses in the brain can somehow find satisfaction in the communion with other like minded brains. Our young student has come along way, and there is a reason for this. He finds that life is impossible without importing certain beliefs into his philosophy. He has had to betray his philosophy that requires that every belief be based upon reason. It was liberating, but it would just not function. His mind requires beliefs
if it is to function as a mind. What is our young student to do now? The freshman solution is just say that he is not assuming anything, he is just stating the obvious. The problem has been solved. A little thought and honesty require the acceptance of these axioms as an act of faith. The faith that the student saw in others that he so despised, he has had to import into his own system. With the new system in place, reason is now set free to explore the world within the limitations set for it by our new philosophical system. One of the first laws of this philosophy must be the statement: If ‘A’ is true, then ‘B’ is true. Every philosophy starts with an ‘if’ which it cannot prove. The most exalted reasoning starts with that ‘if’ and then makes reasonable conclusions from there. This backdoor solution to the creation of a reasonable universe is a necessity. The reasoner often starts out to deny the religious faiths that seem to dwell in the land of uncertainty. Reason offers the appearance of certainty that religious faiths do not offer. How much certainty can an act of faith achieve? Not much. The philosopher wants to live in a world that not only is he certain of, but it is a world he can convince others is the only real and only possible world. Through a slight of hand, he has achieved in giving the appearance of having a solution to all of the world’s uncertainties. Just accept this reasonable approach and everyone will be able to unite in a common belief without the requisite faith that religion requires. The philosopher is aided in his proclamation in that there are many others who want to believe that he is right. They have a vested interest in proving that religion is not a requirement for life. It must be obvious that the desire of our freshman philosopher was at bottom, not reasoning, but to acquire a system which would liberate him from the social, political, and ethical control that others exert over him. The easiest solution proved unworkable. The answer was actually the creation of a new religion under the name of independent philosophy. The nice thing about the new philosophy is that it has no ethics other than the ones imported at the start. Man still wants to create his own universe and be his own God, he just has to clothe his new
religion in the garments of independent reasoning. In fact, he not only ends in getting others to believe in this new faith, through much evangelism, but he even comes to believe that the faith he created is the only true faith. There is only one faith and there is only one reasonable philosophy, it is the one he proclaims. The new religious faith is pitted against the revelation that religious faiths are said to be based upon. Philosophies are based upon reason we have found, but in order for the reason to function, assumptions must be imported to ensure that the conclusions reached through reason are able to function with the human brain and human personality. Now, religious faiths are also said to be reasonable. At least, the major ones all appear to be reasonable to their own followers. It is very difficult for any follower of any faith to believe in something he knows is false. Now some cults are able to sustain a form of brainwashing that can carry this off for one generation, but any faith that seeks to live longer than one generation must be a reasonable faith. Now every faith imports its own assumptions. There is no escaping this necessity. The greatest religious leader is no better off than our industrious freshman student. There is no way around importing assumptions. The denying of this only leads to problems. The arguments that one’s one system is exempt from assuming thoughts, leads to false arguments. To reject the honesty of this admission, results in the arrogance of claiming that one’s own argument can be proved but that others cannot. The fear of all thinkers is that if they make this admission, they will reduce their system of thought down to the level of all other systems. And they are right. There is no system that can be used to prove that one system is more rational than another, assuming that reason is used in both systems. Does this not bring us full-circle back to the problem of our freshman philosophy student? Are we left with cultural systems that impose their values on everyone living under the government that supports such a culture? The answer seems to be that power is equal with truth. Because no system of thought or culture can be proved, then the only way to arrive at some system of truth is to impose some
cultural system upon the people. With no truth, the history is merely the war of one system of truth against another system of truth. Truth is the winning side. Of course, the subtle argument used here is to imply that a reasonable system is synonymous with truth. The philosopher can only arrive at coherence. He can use his mind to ensure that the system does not include, internal contradictions. That is all he can do. If a philosopher were to evaluate one system against another, he would have to have a standard which stands above both systems. All systems are confined to this earth. To be a standard, the super system would have to be from another realm. Any system that is based on reason or is confined to this planet, is going to be based upon some basic assumptions. There is no escaping that. To have a system that is not based upon assumptions, it would have to be from some system that is not based upon reason and is not confined to this planet. When we say the system is not based upon reason, we do not mean it is unreasonable. It is merely to say that there are no reasonable proofs that it is true. How is it possible to have any truth at all? Obviously it will not come from a man who thinks a system out using his mind. That only gives us six billion systems. Are we left with the same problem as the freshman in that every man is free to create his own system? It would seem so. The Christian answer to this problem is that the super system that we need to evaluate all other systems must come by way of a revelation from God. Suppose there is no God, you might wonder. Then we are back to the six-billion-man solution. Every man being a God in his own eyes. This would lead to a system, if no artificial system were imposed, a life of constant warfare of one man’s ego against everyone else’s ego. In fact, this seems to be the case. Without having to develop any system of thought, it would appear that all men are at war with every other man. Okay, you say, we have only moved from having six billion philosophical systems to having six billion revelations. There does not seem to be any improvement in our situation. Mankind appears at a dead end. There is no way to prove one philosophical system or cultural system is better than another.
And there is no way to prove that any single revelation is any better than any other revelation. There is an assumption in this very argument. The assumption which is implied here is that there is no God. When you start with that assumption, your conclusions will betray you. Man in order to think like a man cannot escape the faith that he is a created being. He was created by a Creator. The assumption of revelation is that man is a creature that was created by God. It is further assumed that God who created man was capable of communicating with him. To have a Creator that could not communicate would be the same as having no God. A further assumption is that the Creator made man in His image. There can be no escaping this. Our reason, our personality, our emotions, and our ethics must all reflect the way that we were made. To assume that God would create beings only as a joke or a toy would leave us no better off than the college freshman. Now it is not flattering to mankind in being forced to assume his very humanity is a gift and not of our own making. But there is no way around it. Man must assume, if he is to be a man, that he is more than a collection of atoms. We are still left in a world that has multiple revelations, all claiming to be divine truth. How does mankind go about choosing which one is true? Did you notice it, but another assumption was just imported? Can mankind choose? Is mankind in a position to be able to weigh the differing revelations and decide with his reason, which one is a true revelation? The answer is ‘no.’ You see, it would take a system of thought in order to weigh and evaluate which system was true. And we have already seen that mankind cannot create his own system from the ground floor up. This results in a real problem. We cannot create a system and we cannot evaluate a system that is given to us. Are we still at a dead end? It would appear so. Mankind is locked inside a darkened room with no way to communicate with the outside. The answer that the Bible has to this problem is not one that mankind wants to accept. Man does not choose God. God chooses man. And even worse, he does not choose everyone. To every system that
men have invented, this is absurd. It takes control out of mankind’s hands and places it in God’s hands. This strikes at the ego of man and it does not flatter his great reasoning power. The Biblical solution is not one that many are ready to accept, both on philosophical grounds and egoistical grounds. Most choose to resist any system that does not leave man in final control over his own destiny. This is the basic warfare that exists in this world. All other battles are a result of this primary battle. We are now down to the understanding of what revelation is and how it is understood. First of all, it is the invasion of this world by God, and His desire to communicate with man. The problem becomes more complicated in that the message of revelation is, that not only must mankind learn his assumptions from another, he learns that he is incapable of understanding God’s message without God taking the blinders off of mankind’s mind. Through an act of rebellion that mankind experienced through a representative, man’s mind was broken. He was incapable of receiving revelation without supernatural aid. At first, this does not seem like a satisfactory answer to the question posed by our college freshman. Are there other revelations which offer a more acceptable answer? In one word, the answer is ‘no.’ Men have recognized that the Biblical idea was not acceptable to man’s self-confidence. Realizing that a revelation is a necessity, many men have sought to create their own version of a message from God. The corollary of Biblical revelation is that there are counterfeits. A basic principle of our earth is that interwoven with truth is deception. There are actually two revelations according to the Bible. There is God’s revelation and a revelation of an anti-god. Man is caught between chaos on one hand by the rejection of all revelations, and the conflict of two revelations fighting for the control of mankind. This is not the kind of universe that any of us would choose to live in, for it goes against the idea we have of ourselves and the world we would like to live in. Mankind is in a quandary. How to find his way out of the locked room that he finds himself in, is the ultimate question. It is an inescapable dilemma. There is no neutral ground that exists in this universe. Mankind is in a war not of his own asking, but is a
participant. After his initial failure through Adam, his representative, man is in every sense of the word, confined to the locked room. There is nothing he can do to escape the circumstances of his birth. This is not good. Revelation is the key that unlocks the door. There is only one key that opens the door to the communication with God. It is a key that is offered by God to man. Mankind can respond to God’s offer, but he cannot initiate anything. The basic story of the Bible is the history of mankind’s response to the message of God. Only after unlocking the door can mankind understand his world. This creates still another problem. It puts man in another quandary. Man can start with the revelation of God and use his reasoning powers to create a world and a culture based upon that revelation. There are others who use different revelations to build a world and culture at war with the Biblical revelation. From this quandary there is no escape. This is the world we have to live in until we enter another world. There is a war of world views that has lasted as long as man has lived on this earth. Any attempt to escape this war only results in frustration. The world created by escape can only be maintained through fantasy or drugs. Many seek such solutions, but they are not workable. There is an emptiness in it all, and the continual presence of cosmic frustration as mankind tries to live in a world that does not exist. What each system can promise is the conclusion of its premises. As with all systems, in time they work out the implications of their beliefs. Very few want to admit that ideas do have consequences, but that is the nature of belief. What people believe is of utmost importance and the ideas we adopt will lead to other ideas and systems of behavior. Such is true for each of the competing revelations. A particular culture will grow up around each revelation. What is called ‘Western Civilization’ is nothing but people living with the consequences of Biblical assumptions. The great civilizations that we see on earth today are a result of the differing religious belief systems that have formed such cultures. Even the new culture on the scene, the culture of Enlightenment has religious foundations. Thus we have today, as the world becomes global, the final
conflict between the various revelational systems. In ancient times, with the world populated by many tribes, each tribe could have its own belief system. There was enough isolation that conflicts could be solved by separating one tribe from another tribe. As has been stated, each belief system gives birth to a culture. Men cannot live in a society without a common culture. As the world became more and more crowded, the cultures came into conflict. The great mass movement of people to America in the 16th and 17th centuries, was the last attempt at cultural separation. The Calvinistic version of Western Civilization was countered by the American Indian culture. The decadence of most of the Indian Cultures offered little resistence. Despite the appearance of cultures in the last stages of life, the world today is really down to just two cultures: The Calvinistic Western Civilization, and the system of Enlightenment Civilization originated in France in the late 18th century. The Arab Culture and the Chinese cultures are, despite temporary revivals, are on their deathbed. The various minor cultures are trying to survive through various forms of isolation, but the world civilization will soon beat a path to their doors, and their days are numbered. If the world continues on its path toward unity, only one civilization will survive. Both Western and Enlightenment Civilizations are based on revelations from a divine source. The Western derives from Biblical Revelation, and the Enlightenment Civilization derives from the revelation of the anti-god. It is the conflict between these two revelations which is driving the world toward either world war or world peace. Just as conflict was impossible to avoid as the European settlers arrived in America to come into contact with the Indians, so conflict is inevitable today. A good example of the conflicts that must result between cultures is seen in the difference between Indian and Western ideas of land ownership. Land ownership for the Indian is communal. Land ownership for the Western person is personal and involves the fencing of the land. In the absence of government enforcement of land titles, ownership of land is not only the fencing of land, but the ability to fight off others who want to expand their fence lines. These two differing conceptions of ownership cannot live together. One will survive and one must
submit. The Indian wars were not based on hate, but the natural clashing of two separate cultures and world views. The various battles that will be described in the following pages are all part of a great culture war that is going on. Most are not even aware of the war because they have already surrendered. The Indian who seeks a title deed for his land has accepted the foundations of Western Civilization. The Indian who claims that all land is communal will find himself at war with the government and others who have a Western title deed to the same land. There is no escaping a conflict. That is so obvious. The same will be true of every other battle that is listed below. There can be no compromise. One or the other will win, and that cultural system based upon its revelation will survive. To those who would like to hide from the coming conflict, the hiding will only put off the inevitable. You can only hide in places that neither side, for now, claims as its own. 2 THE BATTLE BETWEEN CREATION AND EVOLUTION
Both Calvinistic Western Civilization and the French Enlightenment Civilization have differing ideas on the birth of men on this planet. While Darwin came much later, there was a connection between the Enlightenment and Charles Darwin. The French Enlightenment eliminated God from the universe. When something as big as God is removed, there is a giant vacuum created. It is a vacuum that gives meaning to life. It is not just a concept as the superficial might argue. It is a total view of the universe. It includes not only the idea of a supreme being, but the organizing principle of society. It determines the hierarchy of persons and classes. It is what motivates people to either serve their government or drift into some form of meditation. God not only sanctions ethics, but it provides the built-in consequences for those who fail to achieve proper behavior. From the birth of the Enlightenment to the publishing of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, there was a search for a replacement to the God of Western Civilization. These were
transition years, and years of searching. This explains the almost overnight acceptance of Darwin and his theories. The book sold out on the first day. Darwin not only proposed a theory, he provided an answer that people were looking for during an entire generation. He was defended with the enthusiasm of a new prophet, which is what he was. He was much more than a scientist with a new theory about the origins. He was providing a system that could replace the God who had entered into a covenant relationship with Western Civilization. Civilizations do not contain elements that can be interchanged with other cultures. Those who cry out for some form of multi-culturalism really a very naive. The parts of one civilization cannot be plugged into another culture. Two cultures cannot exist on the same territory. They can be combined only if they give up their claims to being a civilization and agree to submit themselves under a new civilization which integrates elements from both. The unity must be based upon a new unifying principle which is not contained within either culture. That is what Charles Darwin did. He provided a new organizing principle for the formation of a new world order civilization. A new god had been born and with it a new civilization had been born with it. The worldwide excitement was tremendous. The defenders of Western Civilization were not always aware of just what they were defending. Most seemed to think they were just defending the Bible and its view of creation by God in six days. They thought they were defending Christianity from just another heresy. But this heresy was not just one of disbelief, it was a heresy that offered a whole new way of believing. A new Bible was introduced into society, the bible of nature. Man could not go directly to the source of truth through nature. There was no need for priests. Ecclesiastical teachings were no longer needed to control people. The world was open to the new seekers after truth. It was out there to for all who would merely follow the appropriate techniques–the scientific method. Western Civilization had been imposed upon man from a source outside of his control. A new method had finally arrived to support the new civilizing process of the Enlightenment. Man was now free to form his own civilization free from any outside
interference. The goal of mankind had finally been achieved, man had finally achieved the impossible: He had become his own god. Because Christians and those who were part of Western Civilization failed to realize the full extent of the attack, the resources were not assembled to defend the old civilization from attack. They failed to realize that no compromise was possible. Every attempt to accommodate the new thinking into the old system of thought, only allowed the burglar free entry into the house he intended to rob. Today this battle has been all but lost for those defending Western Civilization. Any attempt to defend the creation acts of God are seen as the last gasp of a dying fool. One of the reasons for the foolish of the defense is that it has been confined to specialized fields that few are able to understand. The scientific specialists have argued that the evidence for evolution is beyond the understanding of most Americans. They can understand the thing about man being related to the monkey, but the actual processes and the technical details are for the specialist. The common man, who trusts the men in white coats, adopts the accepted beliefs of the scientists as something to be trusted. But evolution is much more than about primordial slime learning how to walk. It is a whole philosophy of civilization. There are three obvious explanations about the origin of life on earth. One, God created the universe with certain built in laws. Once creation was accomplished, there was no need for God to do anything. In time, everything would work itself out to the logical conclusions built into the universe from the start. Two, God created the universe in accordance with the Biblical explanation. He now only created the laws, but maintains a strict oversight of every event in the ongoing history of the world. Three, that by some explanation beyond our knowing, at the moment of the Big Bang, laws were created when matter was created. These laws in time resulted in the earth we have today. There could have been any number of different results, but the one we have today is the result of billions of years of accidents working themselves into the structure we observe today. There may be other explanations, but these are the three
that are vying for control of man and the ordering of a civilization. When it comes down to it, there are really only two. Creation versus evolution. The halfway answer of an absent God seems to be a way to believe in God and not believe in God at the same time. It is difficult to throw God away in one step, so the first step is just to just lock Him in a closet. In time, the closet can be eliminated. But, in terms of consequences, there is little difference between and absentee God and no God at all. An unknowable God falls into the same category as there being no God. God and UFO’s fall into the same category–fun to speculate about, but little more than a parlor game. In the battle between evolution and creation, aside from the molecular and technical arguments, what is the consequence of believing in each system? What kind of civilization will result from the philosophies of each? This is the area that evolutionists would just as soon avoid. The common man is no ready to accept the ideas of a worked out theory of evolution. What the evolutionists are seeking to avoid at all costs is another Scopes Trial. The next trial would not be over evidence in fossils, but over the vision of future as seen in the minds of evolutionists. Until the new world order is totally in place, the old civilization must be allowed to die a slow death. By the time the new civilization is in place, no one will care any longer about the old ways. No head on battle over real issues, just a lot of confusing data to keep everyone from getting too close to the actual battle. One of the things, that evolutionists want to avoid at all costs, are discussions of the implications of the evolution theory. One of the issues is the idea of change. How is change produced? What are the goals that will result from change? Who will control the change? Can change be stopped? Is change always good? How do you tell good change from bad change? Just this one word carries a lot of implications and yet it is not on anyone’s discussion list of priority issues. Why is that? What is there to fear? These and many other questions must become part of the defense of Western Civilization by Christians. One of the really hot issues that evolutionists want to avoid is the question of whether the principles of biological evolution apply to other areas of life.
Do individuals evolve? Do nations evolve? Do ethics evolve? Do civilizations evolve? Do religions evolve? As we progress through the wars between religion and the new world civilization being born, the themes will build progressively. The later wars will build on the results of the early battles. The first battle was over the source of truth. The second battle concerns the permanence of truth. As evolution evolves into other areas of belief, the theme of an evolving truth and evolving civilization become the new battlefields. The battle here over evolution is laying the foundation for a whole new civilization. That is the reason that only total victory is possible. The enemy of evolution must not be allowed equal time or equal access to the purveyors of information. The philosophical arguments are phrased in terms of whether we live in a universe of ‘being’ or ‘becoming.’ Medieval culture was based on a universe of ‘being.’ Change was looked upon as an enemy of society. Change was merely to help each segment of civilization to improve, but no radical change or revolution was foreseen or welcomed. With the Enlightenment, revolution replaced change as the ideal of a society. Old forms and customs were to be overthrown and new ones invented in their place. Each generation had an obligation to challenge the past as the world moved into new areas of understanding. The rejection of everything that had gone before and the evolution of something new was part of the political culture before it became part of the scientific culture. With the rapid change of technological invention occurring in the world of the 18th century, the future was on everyone’s mind. While one’s grandparents might have lived in a society their whole lives without sensing any dramatic changes, the new generation of the 1700's sensed that their world was on the verge of something new and exciting. Those who planned the French Revolution were seeking the violent overthrow of everything that preceded them. While the words may have been different, their intentions were the elimination of the past which they saw as unfit for survival. The new social fit, who understood the processes of history, were obligated to survive the destruction of
the past. When Darwin took this political theology and applied it to biology, he was merely seeking to take the ideas of his age and apply them to science. With Darwinism, the Enlightenment became part of the true natural order of things. It was no longer just one political ideology among many, it represented the true order of the universe. It was destined to succeed in the same manor that man had replaced the ape. The new political ideology was more fit for survival than the church related medieval civilization. Only a philosophy, that understood the true nature of man, could make the new world function as it should. Every aspect man’s existence must be taken apart and analyzed. Only those parts that can be used deserve to be preserved. The twin powers of Enlightenment political philosophy and the Darwinian revolution in science combined to launch the biggest rethinking of life on earth since the time of Moses. Up until the time of these two philosophies, man lived in God’s universe. Some did not like it, but there were no other choices. One could rebel against God’s world, but there was really no other civilization one could embrace, barring the escape into a pagan civilization. For most this was not an alternative, as it represented the negation of everything they believed. Now it was seen that man could invent his own new civilization. No longer would one have the narrow choices of either living in God’s universe or a pagan substitute. It would seem that the goal of evolution all along had been to create an organism that would take over the control of the evolutionary processes. There was a time when primitive men replaced apes, now the time had arrived for modern man to replace his primitive counterpart. He was to build a culture not out of instincts and gradual accretions, but through the intelligent planning of all of civilization. 3 ORIGINAL SIN BATTLE HUMAN POTENTIAL
One of the first things that man has to establish is that he is capable of taking over from his primitive ancestors. Primitive man had been held in bondage by a belief that he could not act
upon his own beliefs. The modern view is that man, being a product of evolution, is in touch with the physical world from which he ascended. There is no barrier to understanding. Man is able both to communicate with the material world through his senses, but his brain is capable of understanding the rules of nature. When such men as Sir Isaac Newton discovered that mathematics could explain the movements of the planets through the sky, he gave man a new confidence that nature had supplied mankind with the necessary language to speak to the universe. The beauty of the mathematical laws is that it does not take a priest to use the calculations. The church through its priesthood has always held knowledge in secret. In fact, many of the religions in history have secret doctrines which are preserved for the very few who are chosen to understand such knowledge. They are in turn to choose disciples to whom they can teach the secret doctrines. The masses are never told what these doctrines are, but are kept in bondage to the priests that use knowledge to keep the masses enslaved. The whole idea is that knowledge is something very mysterious and only the few and the chosen are able to understand the universe. The use of mathematics does not require a priest or someone who is living a holy life. Anyone can learn mathematics. Anyone can buy a book and study it on their own. There are no hidden secrets for only the few. The new democratic faith that was becoming the primary doctrine humanity seemed to align itself with such discoveries as mathematics. One of the primary purposes of democracy is to replace the church and its doctrines with something that is open to all, not just those who play the game that the church requires. Democracy and mathematics present to mankind a universe that everyone can understand and that the rules of the material universe are something that can be discovered and proved. No faith in Newton is required to test his theories. His ideas can be tested with scientific precision. This liberation of man from his past is what the modern world and its theories are all about. Often we lose sight of the fact that there are wars of liberation going on all of the time. The doctrine of original sin is one of the most heinous creations,
according to the new theories about man. Without a through understanding of original sin, it is impossible to understand the enthusiasm which many people joined in to welcome the modern age. Sometimes it is difficult to fathom why mankind so readily welcomed being related to a monkey. Man traded in being made in the image of God for being made in the image of a monkey. It hardly seems a fair trade off on the surface. The first things to realize that in the process of ascending from the monkey, man is superior to the monkey. The monkey has no cosmic hold over man. Man owes the monkey nothing. Man can make a pet or use the monkey for medical experiments. In every way, man can look at the monkey and sense the distance between them. Compared to a dumb animal, man is one awesome machine. Even man in some of his basest behaviors comes out looking pretty good compared from the slime pits to which he is related. Also, as man can take pride in how far he has come from the beginning, he can also look forward to the future with a renewed hope of ever more powers. Original sin offers none of the ‘slaps on the back’ that evolution offers. It pictures man as being created in the image of God, but left incomplete. He was given great powers over all of God’s creation, but one very important power was withheld. He was not allowed to decide for himself what was right or wrong. That is something only God was allowed to do. If the created man wanted to know the ethics of certain behaviors, he would have to ask God concerning the rightness of the particular acts. No matter how great man may be, having to ask permission before doing anything is a bit humbling. A child does not mind asking his parents for permission, but when the child grows up, he expects the right to decide things for himself. Such is the case of man. His coming of age, means man can decide for himself which acts are right and wrong, and if it matters at all. The Bible states that when mankind in his representative figure, Adam, rebelled against this one directive, a certain disease was placed upon man by his creator. This disease is called ‘original sin.’ Original sin is to be understood as different that the acts which are called sinful. Sinful acts, according to the Bible, are a result of doing things that are wrong as defined by the
Bible. Original sin is the disease that is born within every child since the birth of Adam’s first son, Cain. Original sin is not an act. The child or his parents did nothing to bring it about. It is an inherited condition that permeates the entire human race. Every person, born of a human father, inherits this disease. If this disease is not the result of doing anything wrong, and occurs in a baby before it has done anything wrong, then what is it? Also, it seems downright unfair. Why would God punish the whole human race to inherit a disease for which there seems to be no cure? Even the Bible admits that no matter what a person does, he will still experience the consequences of this disease. The ultimate consequence is physical death. Ever since Adam as man’s representative rebelled against God, man has this disease which is only partly expressed through rebellion. While rebellion is one of the most prominent results of original sin, it is still not what is called original sin. Other such famous acts of rebellion, such as pride and sexual deviations are also the result of this original sin. While the masses think of sexual acts as being the most sinful and the most reasonable reason to avoid the Bible, the disease that precedes the act is really what the Bible is all about. When, the Bible teaches, man is born in sin, it is stating the consequence for having sinned when Adam sinned. This disease is a crippling disease. There are no areas of man and his total personality that are free from the effects. If just one area of man’s nature could escape from this disease, he would have one area that could operate independently of God. When God created man, he was complete except for the inability to examine any act and decide its ethical impact. With the arrival of original sin, every area now resembled his incapacity in his ethical decisions. Man has a rational nature. It is quite obvious that all men to some decree can reason–some better than others. But all have this gift. They can look at facts and analyze them and arrive at sound conclusions. Yet, the Bible states, that this marvelous ability is no longer the gift of reason that God gave to man. It lacks something. It has been tainted by original sin. And what does original sin do to reason? Reason, instead of being part of
man’s total nature, now becomes only a mathematical type act. Reason was meant to operate in conjunction with every other part of our person and with a person who had the ability to communicate with God. Reason now operates largely in a vacuum of its own making. It makes decisions based on false premises, or it makes decisions that conflict with other parts of man’s nature. We all have seen teenagers use their emotions to reach to perfectly rational, according to them, decision. To everyone else, it was a totally stupid decision. They should have known. How could they have been so stupid, their parent might say? The situation is a result of a different balance between the various hormonal and psychological functions in a person. This simple illustration is only compounded by all of the other factors that go into making a decision. Because every area of human behavior has been affected by the disease of original sin, there are no infallible or perfect acts or decisions. And one of the most devastating results of sin, is that a person is able to fool himself. The desire to be seen in a good light will often influence all of our decisions. Is it any wonder that humans have trouble communicating? And committing themselves to any kind of long term relationship at times seems impossible. Both persons often arrive at the relationship with different rational expectations and with different degrees of sinful effects in their lives. If it were not for some overwhelming personal needs and dependencies, it is a miracle that so many do many to get along. Every social system must take into account the effects of original sin or that system will have a short life span. Social systems that require or expect men to behave well on their own will fail: Witness the failure of so many 19th century, utopian endeavors. Every society must learn to deal with criminal and deviant behavior. One of the least understood aspects of social behavior is that every social system has certain standards which it upholds. If these standards are not enforced, then that system is in a stage of internal decay. Much is often made of the fact that today’s deviant is tomorrow’s hero. That is true in the sense that deviant behavior is an act of rebellion against a social system. When the
system can no longer control the deviants in its midst, then that system is in its final stages of life. The 1950's in America witnessed such a time. There was a massive effort to control delinquent behavior and other acts of rebellion. The failure of the 1950's in winning a generation over to its beliefs resulted in the cultural revolution of the 1960's. The problem is that every society needs a social system of beliefs to control the disease of original sin. Not all behaviors can be allowed. There must be limits even in the most liberal of societies. Without a total world view of what that society is trying to achieve, there can be no really adequate control of deviant and rebellious behavior. The chaos that our society is experiencing today is the result of not having a philosophy that explains life to all and is willing to separate those who are in rebellion against such a system. While much is made of the church and its attacks on heresy in the Middle Ages, every age must deal with its heretics. To allow heretics to preach, through word or action, is an act of war against that society. No society can endure that allows such attacks to continue. We in a stage in history when anything seems to be acceptable. Our liberal beliefs have not developed a systematic view of society or the direction in which it is going. The masses are left to their own desires and the occupation of earning a living and finding various means of escape. It is not satisfying. There is that inner emptiness because the current glorification of individual behavior results in the allowing the effects of original sin to hold each individual in its grasp. Without a social philosophy each person is allowed to do what he wants. The problem, according to the Bible, is that without the proper training, no one knows what they really want. There must be some system that teaches the individual how to understand his various desires and how to control them. Without such a system of belief, the individual is left with a myriad of desires and beliefs and no way to develop a priority among his competing beliefs and desires. Eventually, any government will step in to ensure that it survives along with the ruling elite, who depend upon the
government for their support. When original sin is not kept in check by a ruling philosophy and by individual self restraint, then the government will have to become more and more control oriented. There is a steady drift into a dictatorial form of government. The priorities of the individual must now be set by law or by decree. As our society slowly reaches this stage, there is a growth in rules, regulations, licensing, and taxes–in one word, more laws. Our current system of government could best be called a ‘democratic dictatorship.’ The masses are allowed to choose their form of dictatorship within a narrow band. They are not allowed to choose another form of government or another means of social control.
4 THE BATTLE BETWEEN SIN AND ITS CONTROL THROUGH LAWS Given the nature of original sin, every law is going to affect the individual in some way. Every law is a restriction upon the individual. Every society needs laws to preserve some order. The battle ensues as there are different views of order and who is actually benefitting from the social order. The cynic today regards all laws as merely the will of some people imposed upon the will of the masses. Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more true. With no standard of right and wrong, there is no standard to apply when passing laws. Laws are passed merely to appease some pressure group, or to influence an upcoming election. In close elections, any small group, that can control a swing vote, finds itself in a position to impose its view of law. It has become obvious through the many wars in the world, that the side winning the war is able to declare its view of law as correct. If it had lost the war, its view of law would have been immoral. It is easy to make the connection, that law is merely the will of the most powerful group or most powerful nation. And in time, another war may occur, and a new view of law will be declared right. Even in our nation, if two views of law are disputed, the United States Supreme Court is called in to decide
which view of law is correct. By a five-to-four decision, a vote often split on party lines, one view of law can be declared the real law. Of course, that law will only be correct until a president with a different view, can appoint a Supreme Court justice who will help overturn a previous declaration of law. Another great factor that leads to cynicism is that many are allowed to become rich through the manipulation of laws. In the Pacific Northwest, those timber companies that owned their own trees managed to get logging restrictions imposed on federal lands. Those companies that logged off of federal lands were left without trees. The reason given was the concern of the large companies for the environment. Often they would give financial support to environmental groups who oppose logging on public lands. The result is a shortage of trees and a decline in competition. The price of the trees owned by the monopoly companies increased several fold and the price of lumber went up in a similar fashion. This type of situation has created an impression that laws are only for those who have the money or influence to get some bill passed. The common person has little chance of getting his views made mandates through the use of the legal system. The church through the ages has also added its own laws to the mix of laws. If the church was not able to get some law passed through a government agency, they still enforced the law through the power each local church had over its members. Many churches have had laws against the use of alcoholic beverages. They do not base these laws upon the Bible, but use these laws to give the appearance of being for a righteous cause. For a time, they even managed to get alcoholic beverages banned nationally through a constitutional amendment. Even with the repeal of that amendment, churches still persisted in their narrow view of Biblical laws. Basically, the leaders in the church decided that what they did not like to do should be immoral for all of their people. The fact that the Bible teaches moderation in the use of alcohol does not seem to influence their arguments or their lawmaking. Thus when it comes to the Bible and its teaching about the
ten commandments, many view such laws as just another attempt by one group to impose its will upon another group. It is easy to see how with so many religions and each having their own law system, it is obvious that this is just another case of each religion wanting to impose its view upon others. Until one religion comes out as the new world religion, there is no alternative but to allow each to keep their own views of law, as long as they keep their laws in the private domain. To allow any on religion to give public expression to it laws will only result in opposition from another religion. This can only result in any age of religious wars. Western Civilization having gone through one terrible time of religious conflict, hardly wishes to encourage another time of violence. It would seem that the only rational solution would be to have no laws at all. This would not work as there would be anarchy. The religions of the world require law system to maintain their differences. The nations of the world each have their own laws to ensure that they remain in power. Each business and organization also has a set of rules to ensure its survival. The Social Security System is not going to get laws passed which allow individuals to manage their own retirement money. That would mean the end of its monopoly. Thus, there are laws against the managing of one’s own funds that the government removes from each individual’s paycheck. Each church has rules to maintain the differences between it and other religions. Baptists cannot allow their members to practice polygamy. That would remove one of the differences between the Baptist and the Mormon. We have come to divide laws into several groups. A nation will pass laws. A church will pass, so to speak, ‘sin.’ An organization will pass codes. Laws will apply to all citizens of a nation, the sins of the church will apply to its members, and the codes will apply to those who work for an organization or do business with it. Each would appear to be king within its own realm of power. In theory, this is how it should work. But every organization seeks to expand its rule. The nation wants to rule the church, and the church wants to influence the government. The organization wants to set its own code and standards, and
have those standards applied to other social organizations through its use of government and church sanctions. While every society needs laws to avoid anarchy, it appears that a form of anarchy still exists. Every group striving to maintain their own views, and striving to extend that influence over as wide a territory as possible. Anarchy has been transferred from individuals to groups, but anarchy still exists. What are wars but the fighting over which law system should prevail and who has the power to impose their law system over another nation? Nations fighting nations, churches fighting churches, and businesses fighting other businesses. There seems to be no end to conflict. For example, what is capitalism but a system of rules on how one business can declare war upon another business? What are missionaries but the soldiers of one religious order attacking another religious order? It is becoming obvious that this battle is just as important as all of the previous battles. This particular battle does not make the headlines as a religious battle. The battle over abortion is seen as a minor conflict over sexual rights. Rather, the abortion battles are just a sign of a much bigger war over the interpretation of laws and their application. This is one of the most powerful goals of mankind, to define law and to impose it on others. The ego of mankind being what it is, each individual thinks that he would be a great king who could impose a beautiful system upon the rest of mankind. If only people would all live by the rational laws that I can see so clearly, then the whole world would be at peace. While the God of the Bible has been eliminated from our culture, there are many who would like to take his place. While battles have been fought over territory and many have died to defend a land, what they are really fighting for is to decide whose law will rule over a law. This may sound like a mute point, but every government, once it gains power, seeks to extend its influence over another land. The way it does this is through the imposition of its law system. While the taxes paid are the more obvious sign of a different law system, there is much more to government than just the fact of taxes. If anyone wants to know
who actually rules over them, all they have to do is to determine where all of their money is going. That will tell you the source of your law system. Each government also has a view on how its people should be ruled. To live in China will be much different than living in Austria. Each government has a different view on how people should be ruled. They both collect taxes, and a person may actually pay more of his income to the Austrian government than the peasant in China. It is not only a question of how much a person has to pay in taxes, but what those taxes being used to support. Each government, whether it admits it or not, has a philosophy of law. Laws are not for the thief and the murderer. Most laws apply to the innocent person. Innocent in terms of violating the major laws we think of when we think of what a criminal is. The modern government is involved in much today than just the maintenance of domestic order and the preservation of its borders from foreign aggression. Traditionally, this is what most thought a central government should do. Any other needs could be handled on a local level with the citizens of a city or county taxing themselves for particular purposes. Because the nature of what is thought of as law has changed, the nature of government has changed. Law is not just to control deviant behavior, but is a tool that can be used to change the very structures of society and the way people interact. It can be used to create a paradise on earth. Law has thus revealed itself to be, by the very nature, a religious belief. This is where modern society and government come into conflict with Christianity. The Bible is based upon a view of law. If there is one subject repeated over and over again throughout the Bible it is this: Man must live by laws. The first thing that God presented to Adam and Eve was a law system. The world was destroyed by the flood because mankind had violated God’s law system. The first thing God did when He brought Israel out of Egypt was to give them a law system in the form of the Ten Commandments. When the nation was formed in the land of Israel, a whole system of laws was given to the people. Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, prophet after prophet
called the nation of Israel back to the laws of its founders. When Christianity moved out from the nation of Israel to conquer the world, the thing it was required to do was to teach the nations of the world the laws of God. Christianity is about the keeping of the laws of God. When the New Testament talks about the law being abolished, it is talking about the ceremonial laws that were pictures of the sacrifice of Jesus to fulfill for all mankind the requirements of the law. His death and resurrection did not abolish the laws of God. In fact, mankind was now freed from the effects of original sin by means of His atoning death. Man could now live the life that God had originally planned for mankind. The application of God’s laws through any nation’s law system, the Bible promised, would result in God blessing that nation in many ways, including the material, spiritual, and psychological. While the term law has become a bad word, in the Bible, the idea of law is that it comes as a gift from God. The modern nation has actually come around to the Biblical view of law: It regards law as a means to change people into a better person. Laws are now not only designed to control the obvious criminal, but are now designed to change the way people behave. The nation seeks to save its people from their sins through the application of laws of every area of life and every type of behavior. While the Communists have long thought that they could change a people through the systematic application of reward and punishment, it now has become a democratic belief also. Those who in times past may have become philosophers and social reformers, are now becoming politicians. If the right laws could be passed and enforced upon a nation’s people, the world would become the utopia that men have dreamed about for ages. That is the vision of today’s political leaders: Better living through coercion. One of the benefits of the current state of affairs is that everyone has become aware of the importance of law. It is no longer just the Christian and his Bible that proclaim the glories of law. That is why when missionaries go into foreign lands, they no longer gain the approval that they used to meet. They are seen, and properly so, as part of an invading army. As Western
Civilization has accepted Biblical law in the past, the missionary has been seen as an emissary of Western Civilization. The indigenous population recognized something that some missionaries were not even aware. Their teaching of the laws of the Bible was not just an attack upon their native religion, it was an attack upon their culture. The trend in our age as is to lessen their attacks by the preaching of multi-culturalism. This cannot be done. Two cultures represent two separate law systems. Two law systems cannot live side by side. The invasion of the North armies into the South in 1861 was an admission of this fact. The Southern Calvinistic law system could not exist in the same nation as the humanistic law system of the North. A nation can have only one foundation for its laws. To have two is just a temporary phase in the transition from one system to another. The new law system will always claim that it just wants a culture that tolerates differences. This is the only way that a new system can gain a foothold. Once it does, it attacks the old system. There can be no separation of law and culture. You can separate law from meaningless ceremonies. For example, the church baptism of an infant is tolerated today because it is no longer considered part of a law system. It is just a ceremony that parents do in the privacy of some building, but it has no social and public significance. Such was not always the case. The baptism of an infant represented the belief by the parents, that their child belonged part of the Biblical law system by its relationship to the Biblical idea of the covenant family. When others came along and were re-baptized as adults, it was an attack of the view of the family as part of the Biblical world view. Another example of a radical attack upon contemporary is the rebirth of the Christian marriage. The traditional vows are emphasized. There are no escape clauses to the covenant of marriage except death, or espousal unfaithfulness. This act today represents a totally different law system from that one imposed by the American legal system. That two persons would commit themselves to something beyond the law is an act of revolution. Each event, such as this, that is repeated more and more often can result in the transformation of a whole society. It would result
in the transformation of society. Of course the old order would fight back. This is why we have cultural wars found in the courts and in election. People become aware that more is on the line than just a simple act of marriage. That is why the battle over abortion is so intense. It is more than the life of a baby at stake, it is the whole idea of the new world order that is at war with traditional Western Civilization. The battles have been basically over three views of law. There are more, but in broad terms we will deal with three. There is revealed law, which are the laws of the Bible. There is natural law, which is basing laws that are revealed through the study of nature. There is manmade law: Most typically, this is the law imposed by kings and government agencies. In the current state of affairs there is a battle over which type of law is going to succeed. Right now we have a mixture of all three. This is the reason our nation and its laws are in such dispute and seem so corrupt. Three systems of law cannot exist side by side. Either chaos will result or one form of law eventually wins in the end. The current state of affairs is complicated by the fact that our world is becoming the ‘global village.’ The twentieth century and its wars are more than battles being fought over law or oil. As the world unites into one world through the expansion of trade, travel, and communication, different law systems are coming into contact. As one law system resists, it meets pressure from another law system. One world requires one law system. When people lived in tribes that had only occasional contact it was possible to have different law systems. As the populations grew and tribes expanded across the globe, conflicts arose. These conflicts have often been pictured as nothing more than one tribe trying to rob another tribe. In some cases this is true, but more often we have the conflict of one civilization with another. The example most Americans are familiar with is the conflict between Western Civilization and the Indians of North America. Most tribes resisted the new civilization that invaded from Europe. What happened is typical of so many events in history. As Europe grew more crowded, it became impossible for those who had
different views of law to find a place to live where they could practice their own type of law. Migrations have always resulted where people would rather move on than fight a battle. If a group is in a minority, it is pointless to try to fight unless they are corned or very stubborn. Moving to an area where they can be a majority is the easiest solution. This is the story of history. You could write a whole history of just the migrations of peoples across Europe. It is important to remember that most people do not just wake up one morning and decided they are going to leave everything behind. Travel to a new land involves the loss of one’s wealth, the loss of security, and the very possibly the loss of one’s life. Migrations, for this reason, are not usually voluntary. They are forced upon individuals and groups. The fight over a law system is often voiced in the concerns over freedom. That is a broad term which means different things to different people, but the basis of most freedom comes from a particular law system. One man’s freedom is another man’s tyranny. Abortion, again, is a good example of this. In the man-made law system, abortion is a freedom. In the Biblical law system the killing of a baby is a form of tyranny of the mother over the child. Returning to the conflict between the migration of people from Europe to America, we can see this principle in operation. Those who left everything in Europe to come to America often came looking for freedom. The views of the Puritans in England conflicted with the established church in their homeland. As the conflict grew, many chose to find a place where they could raise their children under a different law system. The migration to American offered this opportunity. Unfortunately, some had migrated to this land ahead of the European settlers. There were approximately 250,000 Indians of various tribes scattered throughout North America when the first colonists arrived. (The author is aware that the numbers, in the battle of political correctness, have been revised upwards of late.) Most tribes lived a nomadic existence. The continent was big enough that the tribes could travel about without too many conflicts with other tribes. Once a particular land had been hunted clean, the tribe would move to another area. This worked
to provide them a subsistence form of life until the invaders arrived from Europe. The new arrivals had a different form of law system. Their system involved, among other things, the belief that individuals owned a particular peace of land. One did not just move onto another, more fertile land, one cultivated a particular plot of land and was a steward over that land. The effort that one put into improving the land was passed on to one’s children through a legal thing called an ‘inheritance.’ Obviously, these two different views of land were bound to come into conflict. The Indians could not sell the land to the English because no one really owned it, and the English with their use of fences, were not welcomed. The two systems of law and two views of land ownership could not exist upon the same parcel of land. The Indians were not about to settle down and farm the land in the European fashion. It would have meant the changing of their whole tribal system. The Europeans were not about to give of their Bible and its teachings on law. Just as the wars fought today over law, these battles can never just be settled by adding another law. This was the mistake of the treaties signed between the Indians and the Whites. The treaties were nothing more than a temporary truce until a new conflict over law arose. Eventually the Indians became sub-culture in the North American landscape. In a similar fashion the fashion, as the religious fundamentalists in America lost control over the government, they retreated into little church enclaves or religious reservations. The fundamentalists are free to practice their religious beliefs as long as they do not do so outside of their reservation. In this age of political correctness, there are many who would like to see the Indian reservation system end. While there may be a delayed guilt over the past conflicts, there is also a lack of understanding of why the conflict happened in the first place. The same ones who want to free the Indians get very agitated when the religious fundamentalists seek to escape from their religious reservation. The modern phrase of the ‘separation of church and state’ is a term used to confine the fundamentalist law system confined inside the church building. What the term
really means is the separation of Biblical law from man-made law. The two systems cannot coexist. What is termed tolerance today is nothing more than a modern reservation system updated into a more socially accepted form. The new world order has conquered Biblical law inside the United States. As it seeks to extend its rule of law to the entire world, it is coming into conflict with other religious law systems. The resistence of Muslim fundamentalists today is the nature of the conflict we are experiencing in the Arab nations. They are fully aware that a victory of the new world order will mean the same fate for them, as the religious fundamentalists have experienced in America. The conflict between law systems is what the world is experiencing right now. As the whole world decides whether to unite into one belief, or whether the local tribes will be allowed to exist, we will be living in an age of fear and uncertainty. The world is headed for one system of law whether it likes it or not. Basically the history of the world has been the story of the Tower of Babel. This was the first attempt at a world civilization. It failed. The people scattered throughout the earth. Each successive attempt at a world civilization has resulted in its eventual defeat. The usual cause has been the empire became overextended. It moved beyond its ability to enforce its law system upon the people. In the early stages of an empire, people will scatter even further from its grasp. Just as many spread out and away from the Tower of Babel, history is the record of one people after another who have moved rather than come into contact with a one world civilization. As an empire became overextended, some tried resistence. As they became successful, other imitated their example, and the downfall was on its way. Just as history is the story of one migration after another, it is also the story of one empire after another that has tried to rule the world. The many attempts have not been futile. There has been a learning process. Notes have been kept. While the handbook for would-be world rulers will not be found in your local bookstore, such a book, in fact many such books, do exist in private hands. There has been progress in this area of understanding what is necessary to rule the world. In the
meantime, many minor battles are being fought. Any group that offers potential resistence to world rule is slowly being eliminated. The final answer for now is that there is no place to migrate to escape world rule. To hasten a one world law system, a worldwide internal migration is being encouraged. The peoples of the world are being mixed together. Any nation that has ties to some local law system will find that there are so many ‘foreigners’ living within its borders that resistence to world law will be impossible. The battle being waged today for world rule is disguised as world trade, world communication, worldwide immigration, a world entertainment structure, and a worldwide press. This process is obvious to a world traveler who visits a local mall. If he were to ignore any language indicators, he would be hard pressed to determine where he was. What once was called the ‘malling’ of America, has become part of the worldwide scene. Each mall is like an embassy for the new world culture. The uniting of the United States into a single nation serves as a template that can be used to integrate the world into a one world law system. With the nationalization of the press, entertainment, and schooling, pockets of local resistence are being defeated. Only one war was required to turn the many states into one national market. The Civil War brought men together into one national army and that army was used not only to defeat local resistence to national policy, but was used to destroy the local Southern culture. The South’s law system being based on the Bible had to be defeated. It would always oppose any national unity based on anything other than the Bible. That is the reason Sherman had to march through the South. That is why the South was subjugated to twelve years of military occupation. The Old South and its culture had to be destroyed. One world law system also means one world market. Everyone will eat burgers at MacDonald’s, wear Levi’s, and drink Coca Cola. Just as American companies flourished in the post Civil War era with a national uniform market, the new international conglomerates are lusting after a world without borders or cultural differences. Just try to imagine how many Levi’s are needed to cloth the nation of China. The transition to
this world law system is going on as you read. The battles you are reading about are disguised as some form of rebellion or terrorism, but the real reason is the same as the American Civil War. Some culture in some small land is not changing with the times. There is nothing like total destruction to destroy a culture. The destruction of Japan brought us the Honda and the Toyota. The destruction of each, little nation will result in a similar process. In closing, there is one nation today that is attempting to become part of the worldwide commercial system, while maintaining its own separate law system. That nation is China. Right now it is trading with the world and attempting to keep the world out. The Chinese Communist culture has let it be known that it will not cave into foreign intervention within its borders. They are the modern version of the Old South in the United States. The current policy is to avoid a war similar to the one required to break the resistence to national rule within the United States. The goal is to so commercialize China that the Communist philosophy will go the way of the Bible in the United States. If China manages to somehow resist the pressure, war will come over some contrived incident to force the new world order and its law system upon that land. 5 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL FREEDOM AND PLANNING One of the best kept secrets in today’s wars is that the very idea of freedom comes from those who have followed the Bible in their lives. There are many different kinds of freedom. The one we think of as freedom is based upon the Biblical idea. The word ‘freedom’ is almost like a condiment: It is just one of those things that is added onto modern life to add a little more flavor. And like most condiments, it is something that could be eliminated without the destruction of the best elements of life. People would still have jobs, own homes, have families, go to the mall, watch tv, and carry on their lives without much difference. While the early Americans were willing to die for their freedom, today just finding
a common definition that most could agree upon would be difficult. Each generation learns to define words according to their experiences in life. Also, those events that mold one’s life and character, are different for each generation. Those that grew up during the Great Depression had a different outlook and set of expectations than those that grew up during the fifties. One generation was happy to find any kind of work, another generation was looking for something called ‘job satisfaction.’ Those that went to war during the Second World War came home with idea of putting ‘real life’ behind themselves. They were looking for a home away from it all, a house in the newly formed suburbs. Those who grew up during the wild sixties wanted to experience earthly sensations as a means to enjoying the good life. Each generation had a different idea of what it meant to be free. Add to this mixture, the various races and religions which all have a different idea of what it means to be free. A Black American will certainly have a different idea of what it means to be free than a Unitarian living in Boston. A White Southern man will have another view of what the good life is and the role freedom contributes to the attaining of that life. He might see freedom in a negative light as it has been used as weapon against him and his heritage. It is as if freedom for him is a dirty word. There is also a mixture of religious faiths in America, all with a different idea of freedom. A Muslim Fundamentalist may regard freedom as something the group experiences, but not an individual thing. A Protestant Fundamentalist may regard freedom as the psychological liberation experience during worship. A person who is able to express himself emotionally in a worship service is said to be free. As all of these different ideas of freedom (and there are many more) are united under one government, there is obviously a conflict. Each group, in just this one area alone, looking for something different in a free country. The Protestant Fundamentalist wants the freedom to hand out tracts at a local mall. The Muslim may want the freedom to built an ‘ugly’ mosque
in a residential neighborhood. The ex-sixties radical wants the freedom to experiment with sex and drugs without legal restrictions: What do you mean that she was only seventeen? When the early settlers came to America they only had one idea of freedom, and it was easy for them to gain a consensus. Today, freedom had become the rallying cry of one special interest after another. Each year, new freedoms are added to our list of freedoms. While in the past, President Roosevelt may have talked about the four freedoms, the list has grown considerably since then. Each American should now be free from not only fear, but free from paying his medical expenses. The old freedom of religion has been changed from the freedom to allow one’s religion to operate in the public realm, to the new freedom of religion to put up a building and practice religious rites within that physical structure. The old freedom of being able to get a job has been changed to the freedom to work in a physically safe, and psychologically satisfying atmosphere. It is to be a totally non-threatening atmosphere. Obviously, the battles over freedom seem to imply that we live in chaotic times. This is true, in part, because our society has lost its cultural dictionary. While many of the founders of this nation may not have been Christians, the King James Bible was the dictionary of cultural life. One could agree with it or disagree with it, but one’s opinion was either pro-Bible or anti-Bible, but still one spoke in terms of what the Bible said. There is no common ground any longer for a whole society to communicate effectively. There are no longer any unifying concepts which can bind a nation together. Of course, the reference is about normal times. Anytime there is some disaster, there is some temporary unification over something everyone is experiencing. What can be done to bring some order to all of the chaos that is experienced in society today. The answer is to change the nature of society from being organized on the principle of freedom to one organized on the principle of planning. The only answer that seems possible in today’s world of chaos and anarchy is to impose an order. An imposed order is another name for a dictatorship. That word is avoided today. Every demand is made
out of the appearance of necessity. The leader appears to be a victim of historical circumstance. He wishes he did not have to take to actions he does, but the current situation demands he do it. The new style of leadership apologizes for the power he must use, but he feels he has no choice. One of the forgotten facts in this all is that societies in the past did achieve unity and a common purpose without a dictator or benevolent autocrat. Societies were organized around a common faith. A society will always have dissidents, but a common purpose in the past has been a reality. We are, today, so used to the conflicts and social battles, that the very idea of social peace without a strong central government seems out of the question. There again we have the idea of necessity. The central government if it relaxed its hold upon the social world, chaos would result. Immediately, it would say that new controls were needed. And they would be, but the unspoken fact would be that there is more than one source of controlling a society. This fact has been totally forgotten. There are many forms of governments beside the central government we all know. There was a time in American history when the local civil government in the town and county were able and allowed to handle most of the governing functions. If people disagreed with the local laws and customs, there were many other towns and counties where one could freely take up residence. In time there was a natural sorting. Similar to what we have in the state of Utah today, although they have surrendered much of their local freedom also. With the arrival of the national uniform code for all laws and customs, people no longer have to move to avoid conflicts. But there is also nowhere to move to find some form of freedom. With the arrival of the national chain of burgers, it is difficult to find good local foods. What is true of food is even more true of local customs that made each area like a different nation. Most people only think of civil governments when they think of governments. There are other forms of government. The church often served a community to bring order out of chaos. So did the labor union, and other social organizations. Private
schools also served as a form of government, not only through education, but through the teaching of discipline and the administering of justice. Each local form of government administered control. People who misbehaved could be expelled. That was a major event, not the minor thing it is today. To be left outside one of these organizations was to be without a community. It was to be alone. It was not good. People changed their behavior to conform. Order was maintained not by some dictator, but by the community maintaining control over those who would disrupt the communities standards. Freedom was not the right to misbehave, but freedom meant you had the freedom to move to another community where your behavior might be tolerated. Another lost fact in today’s confusion is the importance of a common faith for a nation. The idea that a nation can be organized around several different world views all with equal freedom is a very modern one. It is not an idea that has been tried and found successful. In past times, the invasion of a foreign nation has meant the obliteration of one or the other’s world views. Often during the Roman period, the invading armies would sometimes actually adopt the Roman customs. But no where was it possible for pagan or barbarian to live side by side with the Roman customs without one or the other becoming dominant. A society based upon multiple customs and beliefs may sound good, but it will not survive. There will be conflicts. The conflicts will result in one or the other side winning, or a dictator will arise to impose his order and world view upon everyone. One way or another, peace would be restored. Anarchy is not a permanent thing. Order will be restored. The only question is, whose order? Now we come down to the bottom line. Biblical freedom is not compatible with a strong central government in a multiethical social order. Either the Christians must be neutralized in some way, or the new social order will never stabilize. There will be constant warfare between the government a large segment of its population. The constant fighting would be a check upon the government’s plans for a new world civilization. There will never be a world order of any significance as long as Christians maintain
their ideas about freedom. The exclusiveness of Christianity must be eliminated. The idea that freedom means the freedom to carry on public activities outside of government regulation and control is contrary to a stable central government. Through history Christians have seen it as part of their church organization to also carry out charitable functions. Such things as schools, adoption agencies, food banks, hospitals, orphanages, and charities have been considered a religious activity. As such, these activities have been carried on without any regulations, and they operate as tax free agencies. The state looks upon this as an intrusion into its domain. The church is to perform the rituals of life, but they are not to interfere with government operations or operate organizations that duplicate government activities. The whole purpose of having a central government is to have one inclusive operation that everyone can use. The exclusiveness of the church operation is contrary to a world wide system of government. No one must be excluded from any important organization in any social order. Freedom must be confined to the private behavior of individuals without a church building who are performing a religious ritual. When individuals leave the church building, they now become members of a large and more inclusive order. Exclusiveness must be confined to situations outside the public realm. Freedom must be redefined to mean any behavior that is legal one is free to do. In any social order, no one is free to do an illegal act. No society could exist is individuals were free to do what the society condemns. When Christians claim that their religion allows behavior that is becoming increasingly seen as illegal, then the Christian religion must change to meet the circumstances of the time. To allow a medieval view of freedom to survive into the modern age is not only stupid on the central government’s part, it is disruptive of its attempts to rule the entire society as one. The new world civilization can exist only if freedom is confined to the ruling agencies. They cannot plan if there are restrictions upon their ability to implement their plans. The Christian faith as it exists in the Bible cannot exist side by side
with any government that desires to plan an orderly society. To have areas of society claiming that their behavior is outside the control of a government agency is to invite anarchy. Every religion must submit to the plans or anarchy will result. As the modern society becomes increasingly interlocked by financial transactions, the coming war will probably be fought in the area of the economic. Currently, churches receive many subsidies, tax benefits, and special allowances which can be used to control the behavior of Christians. Most people will fight only until there are economic consequences. The same will be for churches. As the new world government and its counterpart in a new world civilization becomes closer to reality, the war between the Christian church and the state will escalate. The churches and the individuals will face increasingly financial pressures to join with others in creating peace throughout the earth. To allow any church freedom would not only invite others to do the same, it would mean the possibility of new religious wars. As long as governments are allowed to plan the social order and to plan the activities of churches, there will be a world of peace. To resist this new freedom of government planning will result in one of the final battles of Western Civilization. Either world government will fail or the church will fail, but one of them must fail in their mission to the world. The new world civilization cannot coexist with the Christian version of the Kingdom of God. The battle in the United States has been to use textual criticism, Darwinism, Dispensationalism, revivalism, and public schools to defeat Christianity. These are the main weapons against the Christian Kingdom of God. With textual criticism the Word of God was made equal with all other scriptures and, in fact, all other books. The exclusiveness of Christianity was destroyed. It was just one of many attempts to understand the mysteries of this world and man’s place in it. With Darwinism, man became just another animal seeking to live on this planet. His place as a divine creature was lowered to one just above that of the ape. With no divine image, there is no divine mission. Man is here by himself to figure out how to survive like any other creature. Dispensationalism removed the Kingdom of God to the distant future after Christians had been removed from this planet.
There was no need to Christians to quibble over details on this earth, as it was viewed as just ‘polishing brass on the Titanic.’ While the Christian may not agree with Darwinism totally, Dispensationalism removed any responsibility on the Christian’s part to institute the Kingdom on earth now. It was God’s responsibility. With the mission of the Christian removed, revivalism become ever more popular. Christianity became associated with an intense and liberating emotional experience. The false emotions generated created the impression that all was right with the world. How could something wrong feel so good? Christianity as expressed in revivalism was thus seen as the true expression of the Kingdom of God. Emotion became the bedrock of the Christian experience. Finally, the public schools removed the children from their parents and educated them according to the techniques of the central government. Through the facade of local control parents were conned into thinking that the public schools could do a better job of teaching their kids. It was a slow process and pockets of resistance were slowly defeated, but the public school became the standard of what a good education should be. Even when the churches eventually tried to rebel against the public school movement, all they could do was give a poor imitation of the public schools. They taught the same subjects with the same books. A little school prayer was used to sanctify the secular knowledge the children were receiving. The final result would be not different than a child in public schools. The child would grow up with a secular world view, because that is the view needed to get into college and attain some material level of comfort. Like the other battles fought between the central government and the church, the church has come up short. It teaches a false gospel in order to maintain its tax deduction. It teaches secular knowledge and world views in its school so they can receive proper accreditation. While it may protest the teachings of Darwin, it incorporates the findings of Darwinism into its basic theology. It applies the laws of evolutionary psychology in with its teachings from the Bible. The Kingdom of God is viewed, more as mankind’s struggle against the environment
than as a struggle against the rule of sin. Mankind is on a long journey to learn how to achieve a oneness with nature, and when this happens, men will be at peace with themselves and with the planet. The leaders in the church are constantly updating their message so that it will not be ridiculed by the ruling elites. The end of the church age is upon us. 6 THE BATTLE OVER THE ROLE OF FORCE IN ANY SOCIETY When people talk about their fears of Christians and their Biblical laws, their main objection, above all others, is the idea of the Christian use of force. It is termed a theocracy. The objection is that you cannot have any society where people are forced to behave in a way that goes contrary to their conscience. The history of the church and its rule in the medieval ages is repeated over and over. The modern idea of freedom is seen as the liberation of mankind from the rule of the church. The church is pictured as forcing people to behave in ways that is contrary to human nature. The Inquisition and the witch hunts became symbols of an oppressive society which modern man does not want to return. The dark ages are seen as one ruled by force while the modern age is one ruled by choice. The reason for this is the modern word game. In areas of necessity, it is not regarded as something of force. Taxes are a necessity. It is not seen as force. Environmental regulations and the fines involved is born out of necessity. The laws based on maintaining social order are vital as our society becomes increasingly multi-ethnic and more interdependent. These laws are becoming more and more intrusive as terrorism is becoming more of a problem. The many health regulations are seen as being in the interest of the general public. Housing codes, drug regulations, product safety standards, etc. are seen as the government’s role to regulate the entire economy for the general will. This can be contrasted with the church’s role in controlling interest rates, in seeking regulations for warfare, in protecting
guilds, and using various church agencies to protect the poor from exploitation. Looking back upon this age, the regulations seem minor in compared to today’s computerized tracking of every infraction. The costs of total regulation today are enormous. Of course, regulations are not the real reason the church is painted as authoritarian. The reason is its regulation of morality. It sought in particular to enforce patriarchy and monogamy. These are the two beliefs that moderns cannot accept. They will accept wage slavery but they will not accept monogamy and patriarchy. Those that would profit from man’s penchant for freedom from family responsibilities have catered to man’ weakness in this area. The willingness of mankind to give up the freedom that men experienced in earlier times for the freedom to be irresponsible is man’s Achilles heel. This is the only possible explanation for the submissiveness to the new world civilization. What would have caused a rebellion in previous ages is accepted today. Now some say that it is freedom from religion that marks the modern age. It is not freedom from religion however, it is freedom from the morality that religion teaches. Moderns are quite willing to accept some pretty strange religions, as long as intrusive moralities are not included. There is more today than just the rule of the central government. Through the use of laws and regulations, many other agencies also rule over mankind with force. The modern business corporation also rules over its employees with a force that would have not been tolerated in previous times. Because the retirement benefits package, employees are tied to corporations for life. Most are afraid to leave for fear of losing their chance of a good retirement. The longer an employee is with a company the more he is tied into the various company benefit’s packages. Also, the employee’s behavior is regulated while he is working to promote efficiency and to provide a harmonious workplace. The business also regulates the private behavior of an employee if it might interfere with the company’s business efficiency. The various tax collecting agencies, also rule over people’s
lives intrusively, behavior that in the past would have been regarded as a mark of a dictator. The amount information, an individual must share with the various government agencies, leaves little room for privacy. With the addition of computers and their ability to share information about people means a person has no privacy from anyone with computer-access codes. Also, the various trade guilds such as the American Bar Association, and the American Medical Association also rule over one’s profession. The decisions made by the various guilds, affects an individual’s life in more ways than people even know. Proper medical treatment, and who can treat a person, are decided by a guild that does not have the individual person’s real health in mind. The various trade treaties regulate what a person can buy and sell, and what price will be paid for some product or service. The individual has no choice but to buy the products offered by the major distribution centers. The threat of terrorism has resulted in new laws and regulations that all individuals must submit to if they want to live in today’s world. The threat of terrorism means that from this point on, all people will live under the restrictions other generations only experienced briefly during times of open conflict. The twenty-first century will be known as the century of permanent war. The freedom people used to enjoy during times of peace have disappeared forever. One of the most important new areas of control is the modern banking system. With paper money going away, no person can live without a banking connection. With the numerous monthly bills that must be paid to some distant provider of services, a checking account and credit card have become necessities. There is little room for freedom outside of the rules and regulations of a bank. There is no freedom from banks. And this is just on the local level. The international trade is done through international banking concerns. Even the person who wishes to travel cannot travel with just cash. A banking connection is necessary for every part of life. The interest rates charged by banks can make or break an economy. In some ways the banks can bring governments to bow down to the international system and controls.
The new international treaties, regarding the behavior of individuals is just starting to become apparent. The ability of an international court to rule over individual behavior is now recognized. Religions that discriminate will find themselves under increasing pressure to conform to new more tolerant attitudes. Individuals that harm the environment in some way could find themselves in an international court and paying damages to a foreign nation. The right to hunt and fish will also become regulated by international treaties and agencies. It will not be long before an international passport will be issued. Anyone not complying with the new global regulations will find their travel privileges revoked. The list could be extended for pages. The bottom line is that, despite the propaganda, we are living more and more in an age of total control. Yet, this age describes itself as the freest in the history of the world. While the Bible regulates moral behavior, the new world civilization controls just about every activity, except the sexual. In fact, with the spread of AIDS and the fear of over-population, these areas could well come under some new form of regulation. As time goes on, it is going to become more difficult to accuse the medieval church of being oppressive. The Bible will once again become the Book that people look to for liberation from the modern iron cage of freedom. At times it has been difficult for moderns to understand why the Bible depicts the execution of Jesus that way it does. People declare, why did the Jews get so excited about what one person was saying? There is a lack of awareness that in 27 A.D., there was quite a religious bureaucracy. The various scribes, lawyers, and religious leaders occupied a system that exploited the masses and ensured themselves the riches of the land for themselves. Jesus was not just a religious teacher, his teachings reflected a whole philosophy of culture and government and religion. His enemies knew that if the masses were to follow him, the whole social bureaucracy would be in trouble. Jesus came to declare war upon the privileged few who exploited the common person. Jesus, in a sense, was declaring war upon the
establishment. He had to suffer the same fate as any other traitor to the privileged elite. The role of modern Biblical scholarship is to remove the offense of the message of Jesus. If the actual implications of the Bible were taught, the ruling elite would crack down upon the church. Those who make their living off of the church need to ensure that nothing happens to the flow of money into their pockets. An activist Christianity would follow Jesus in His hatred of the exploiting bureaucracy, and would call for a revolution. This cannot be allowed to happen. In any war upon the church, the leaders are the first one’s to suffer. The people may revolt, but the leaders end up in prison or worse. The history of the church is the history of its leaders seeking ways to avoid confrontation with the ruling elite. The first American revolution, with its Articles of Confederation, was very close to a religious revolution to restore power to the common people. Christianity favors the power of the ordinary person and his ability to manage his own affairs. It is not the freedom to do as he wishes, but it is the freedom to follow God’s laws as he wishes. Such a government is never favored by an elite or any self-appointed group that thinks it knows better how people should be living their lives. When Christianity is taught, there is always warfare. The war against an elite system is the mark of Western Civilization at its best. The efforts of people throughout history to limit elites and to restore power to themselves is the forgotten aspect of the Christian influence upon history. It is a history that is not taught today. It might give people the wrong idea of what life is all about. The religious system that Jesus encountered was very similar to the administrative bureaucracy which has become part of modern life. The scribes, and Pharisees are the people who set up a religious system that could only be administered by the proper experts. The common person could not approach God without the hiring of a proper representative. The payment must be made in the proper temple coin, which the temple bank would be glad to exchange for you. Of course, the rates would not be favorable. If the person wanted to sacrifice an animal, he would pay to make sure his animal would qualify. If not, and it rarely
did, you could trade you animal for one that was acceptable. Of course, a small fee was involved. The religion was a business to fleece the common person. When Jesus came to restore religion to its intended purpose, he met resistence from those who had something to lose. The power structure in the Jewish religious system is typical of any system that seeks to perpetuate itself through the use of such techniques of administrative roadblocks, accreditation, certification, and licenses. Just as the Jewish priest had to certify each animal for sacrifice, so the modern person must go to the experts who have the proper status to perform the required function. The priest would claim that his services were only to protect the purity of religion, so the modern functionary claims that everything is done to maintain quality of services. Whatever the common man needs must be done through the proper person or organization, which of course is not free, or even cheap. One reason the elite opposes Christianity, is that it liberates him from a religious system. Formal religion teaches a person to be a pawn in the system. Such a religion requires experts and hired representatives to perform the holy functions for the common person. The person gives his money and the churches and its bureaucracy does the rest. It is a good system for training men to accept the type of society that the elites want to impose on the common person. The common man is to work and to hire experts to perform all of the other functions in his life. It has got to the point where the common person even has to pay to be entertained. Entertainment used to be something friends would perform together or for each other. Now they sit and watch others perform, for the usual fee. Back of this whole system is the philosophy of force. While animals have evolved and are subject to the forces of nature, mankind has moved beyond the forces of the natural world. He has done this by imposing his will upon the physical and social worlds. The reason that men are greater than animals, is that they have taken control of evolution. They have used force to attain the world that they desire. No waiting for the long process of evolution for man. He can use the force of his will to mold the
physical and social world to meet his needs. There are no rules that man must follow. Evolution is not a moral force, but merely the means to attain the desires of man’s desires. The means is force. Man is free to use force to fulfill his needs. Today we live in a world of men who have used force to create systems. Christianity comes to the common person and offers grace, which is free, and liberates him from the philosophy of force. This liberation from the religious structure gives the person a sense of confidence in himself. If he can approach God personally, maybe he can do other things on his own also. Maybe he can create a government that the people can understand and actually serves to liberate the masses. Maybe he can operate medical and legal systems without the fleecing that goes on to liberate him from his money. Maybe he can run a business without the government’s intervention. Maybe criminals can be dealt with, in a manner that the local community desires. The list goes on and on. If Christianity liberates man from force, it opens all kinds of problems for the ruling elites. Christianity offers a system of known laws that can be kept. It operates a system that a common person can understand. The laws of Christianity are not full of loopholes and exceptions. When Jesus did good deeds on the Sabbath, he was in violation of the technicalities which had been introduced into the system. The laws of Christianity are to liberate, the laws of force are to enslave. Once this principle is understood, the ruling elites are in trouble. That is why there is a constant battle between the laws of the Bible and the laws of society built upon force. At times in history, the church has been captured by the elites and their philosophy of force. Christianity seeks the liberation of the common man from all force and it always at war with the ruling elites. The two cannot exist at the same time. 7 THE BATTLE BETWEEN PROGRESS AND ZERO GROWTH Progress is a dangerous concept. It raises the expectations of the common person. Those expectations lead to confrontations
with those who would impose the new world civilization. The Bible is a book that progresses from the creation to the end of the world. There is a constant progression of man’s understanding of his place and purpose in this universe. Change is always the enemy of the monopoly. Whether it is a government monopoly, church monopoly, or business monopoly, change is a threat. Any monopoly is very good at doing the same thing over and over. It is bureaucratic and bureaucracies do not adjust to changed circumstances. Of all of the processes on life, change is probably the most difficult to predict. The new world civilization seeks to somehow come to terms with change and to channel it within some narrow confines. One way to control change is to preach the doctrine of ‘zero growth.’ By seeking to confine change within narrow bounds, the bureaucracy can then see nothing that cannot be predicted in advance. The formal structure is not threatened. Each employee can find security in knowing that his job will continue throughout his lifetime. One of the main goals of humans is security. The monopoly appeals to those who have the strongest need for security and a life that can be predictable from day to day. One of the doctrines used to teach the doctrine of zero growth is the idea that the earth has reached it maximum population. Any further population and the planet will start to deteriorate. Ways must be sought to control growth and design a civilization that is totally sustainable forever. Whatever resources our earth has, there is a limited supply of all materials. The people of this earth must learn to live off of those resources that are renewable. Activities that consume resources, such as burning oil and gasoline, must be replaced by those that use fuels that can be renewed. This whole process of creating a new civilization requires that people be taught to lower their expectations of what life has to offer. The Christian idea that man is to go out and conquer the earth and seeking to expand his horizons continually is to be put aside in favor of a static existence. Man is to seek his pleasures in other areas than in trying to expand the horizons of life, especially the material side of life. Instead of exploring new ways
to produce ever more products, man is to seek his spirit for adventure in various sporting events. Whether as a participant or a spectator, sporting events offer the maximum enjoyment with the least expenditure of natural resources. Western Civilization is based upon progress and change. Life is seen as an adventure. Mankind is in war against nature and seeks to unlock the secrets of blessing from the earth. The earth does not reveal its secrets without much work, thought, and chance taking. This process carried over into the spiritual realm. Man sees the universe as having a beginning and an ending. In between the two events, man is to make a city out of the wilderness. With the Garden of Eden as an example, man is to pursue a paradise on earth. From the chaos of the wilderness, man is to build a kingdom reflecting God’s rule on earth as it is in heaven. Man seeks not only material progress, but spiritual and social progress. In every area man is to exercise his God-given talents to change the earth. Control and progress are always in conflict. Control requires a reasonable expectation of what each person will do, and what tomorrow holds. Control requires rules that apply to everyone both today and tomorrow. Despite what is claimed about Christianity being against change, it is only God’s commandments which are unchangeable. Everything else is subject to progress and change. It is the kingdom of man which sees the world from just the opposite view. The commandments are to change, but the life of man is to be controlled and subject to rules and regulations. It is not that Christianity is conservative and modernism is liberal, it is that they are conservative and liberal in different areas. The only change that is tolerated in the new world civilization is the change designed by man and one that fits in with the new world civilization. The change that occurs with Christianity is more like a series of revolutions. The ideal of Christianity constantly pushes man forward. He always sees the world as being better than it actually is. The problem with change is that it comes in bursts of growth. It is fairly smooth and constant for about five hundred years. But then the old structures can no longer contain the new elements of change.
This is when social and political revolutions occur. These revolutions are not as the French Revolution whose goal is destruction of everything, but more similar to the American Revolution which involves a new way of organizing the world. The civilization sought by the French Revolution is one of total destruction of whatever is related to Western Civilization. It is a war against the commandments of God. It is an attempt to replace every law with laws that are man made and serve the desires of each individual man. Even the calender is to be remade to reflect a ‘rational’ order. The rational order would seek to control every aspect of man’s existence and his relation to every other man. The government would be empowered to rule over all men for the good of every man. There would be rational rules which would be enforced for the good of every man. It is described as a new freedom, as man is set free from every restriction which Western Civilizations and Christianity had imposed upon man. The government would pass laws which would force men to leave behind their past and to enter into the new freedom of a manmade rational order. This war is also fought through the use of words that has added to confusion. To entice mankind into the new world civilization it is important that all people buy into the new program. In order not to alienate those who cling to Christianity or other religions, the new order tries to find a place for religion within the confines of a church, mosque, or synagogue. Religion is redefined to mean the expression of intense feelings in a worship service of some kind. The new religions would be subject to the control and regulation similar to all other behavior. The new faith must find expression in rituals and ceremonies and not in trying to evangelize one’s neighbor. It would not be allowed to seek to impose their views upon the new world order and its laws. The laws of faith are to be separate from public expression and are for one’s private devotion only. It is contrary to the new world order to have any public faith that would make any other person feel uncomfortable. The new world civilization will only have the freedom of the individual in mind and will keep him from any contact with any other religious faith.
In order to unite the world under one civilization there must be a giant leveling. Most will rise in the process. To them, the new world order represents a temporary progress. Those who have thrived under the former Western Civilization must be persuaded that there are good reasons for their declining lifestyle and lowered expectations. The reasons must be preached to the youth starting in government elementary schools. The doctrines of the earth’s over-population, and the belief that Western Civilization destroyed the environment must be instilled. Prosperity must be taught as a form of theft. Mankind in order to make themselves feel good went out and robbed mother earth. Those guilty of the crime of exploitation of foreigners and the earth must now pay the price for their past sins. One of the best ways to gain acceptance of the new doctrines is through the use of guilt. Because all men are guilty before God and have a natural feeling that something is wrong, this real guilt must be redirected onto false forms of guilt. All guilt requires some form of expatiation. The denying oneself of material pleasures and the preaching to others of the new doctrines, give a person that he has paid for his sins. The study of religious cults will reveal very similar behavior to the new world evangelists of the new world culture. As the children are taught the new doctrines, the age of lowered expectations will have been accomplished. This war is also focused against Christian doctrine. Surprisingly, the Biblical view of sex is one of the hurdles the new world civilization must overcome. With its belief in postponed gratification, this doctrine creates a man of character. He is willing to delay instant feelings for some future reward. This type of person will do the same when it comes to material comforts for himself and his family. When people come to use sex as a form of instant gratification, they develop a whole different set of character traits. Material pleasures are replaced by psychic pleasures. Entertainment becomes more important than the struggle to unlock the secrets of nature. The exploration of new ways to feel good becomes the source of life’s quest. In contrast to the world explorers such as Columbus who risked their lives to find and explore new lands, the new explorers are those who search for new ways to stimulate the brain to game
pleasure. The focus of research will change from the Biblical idea of creating a garden to one of creating a vision. The new world civilization must incorporate a new religion to help everyone gain the mental and social pleasures that the new order will offer to all of its citizens. If Christianity is to survive, it must accept its place as one of many faiths that allow men to enjoy the pleasures of this earth without guilt. The proper faith provides rituals to guide its members through the crises of life such as birth, marriage, and death. It must also provide a means where those who have feelings of guilt can have those feelings forgiven. And it must teach it members to become part of the new world civilization. Any faith that holds on to an outmoded sexual ethic will come under more and more pressure from its faithful to relax their standards. Any faith that sees the future in terms of material and moral progress will also come under increased pressure. The new faiths must function so as to held people function in the new order. The old faith saw itself in opposition to a constituted pagan order. Success in the new world is only possible if one has a faith that supports the new world beliefs. Those in opposition will end up in a fundamentalist ghetto. The pleasures of life as offered to the people by the new world order are essential. People cannot live life without some rewards. With no future rewards such as a very real heaven, rewards must be in this life. The only rewards available to the masses are the sexual and mental rewards. If a religion denies these rewards to its people, they will either force a change or they will give up such a faith. 8 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL ELECTION AND MODERN SELECTION No society can exist without some method of selecting its members for various functions and honors. Christianity has a definite selection system. It is a selection by God and the individual does not have a choice. His choices come only after his
selection. His being chosen is an aspect of grace. The new world civilization must also have a system of grace and selection. No society or social order can function without such a system. Not everyone can be a king or not everyone can be popular. Not everyone can be a judge or a stock broker. Every functioning society must give its people reasons for their current status in life. There is the Biblical doctrine of election. Individuals are chosen through no part of their own. The promised line was chosen to flow through Jacob and not Esau. God chose Jacob for this purpose before he was born. He was chosen before he had done anything to merit such a honor. At first glance this seems unfair. Why should Esau be rejected through no fault of his own? The answer is that history and life require some sort of choosing or election. Would it be more acceptable to have a dictator selected one over another? Would individuals then be angry because they were not chosen? Of course, they would. A society can also be based upon merit. Yet, even here, someone must establish the criteria for selecting one over another. Even if a test is given, someone has to design the test. And every test can be slanted toward one type of person or another. The very nature of a test is going to determine who is going to do the best. Even the best of tests does not say who is going to do a particular job the best. Tests decide who is going to do best in tests, just in case more tests are given. Even verbal interviews are very biased as better looking people achieve better on verbal interviews. If you are ugly, you want a written test. If you are good looking, you want a verbal test. In life there are many selections. Many come before we are actually conceived. The very genes of each child are determined before his birth. The type of home determines much of ones behavior and outlook. One reason our society has such a high level of discontent is that everyone is a victim in some way. Life is not fair. The numerous selective processes that start at conception and continue throughout life makes us different from others. Everyone feels that life could be better, ‘only if.’ The focus in such a society is not on what a person has, but on what he lacks. In comparison to others, we all fall short in many ways. In comparison to others, we all can find things we can do better.
The question that every functioning society must answer if there is going to be social peace, is this one: Why am I doing this in life and not something else? If a society cannot provide an answer to this question, then resentment and envy will reign. When that happens, there will always be social turmoil and unrest. No system can be fair. Even allowing market forces to do the selecting is a choice. Why allow the market to choose? Why not allow a wise bureaucracy to choose? A society must have some answer, and it must be accepted by the majority of its members. One of the purposes of the government school is to teach the children the legitimacy of the selective process. In the twelve-year program of government schooling, a constant process of selection goes on in the educational process. Some students do better at sports and concentrate there. Some do better in shop classes and achieve success in that pursuit. Some do best in intellectual tests and decide to stay in that area of their success. Some do well in none of the formal classes and look to extra-curricular activities such as drama or scouting. While the student is not aware of it, he is being encouraged to accept his limitations and the processes that honor some over others. The various failures, that he encounters, are designed to be a message to him about his very nature. He is also being taught that this process is honest and fair. He is supposed to accept the decisions of this schooling process as reflecting reality. The Christian idea of election has been criticized as being totally unfair. The new world civilization is described as being the best way to allow each member of society to find his place in the order. The social order also has in place procedures for eliminating possible handicaps. Some members because of their race or physical condition are not able to compete in the selective process. The system moves in with various programs designed to help those individuals succeed beyond their failings in the school and social system. These programs are designed to head off any idea that life can be unfair. The government steps in and helps those who have feelings that the selective process was slanted to favor others. Even with all of the procedures in place, there is still a high
level of dissatisfaction. Even if one has failed numerous life experiences, no one wants to be at the bottom of the pyramid. And yet, every society closely resembles a pyramid. There will always be those on the bottom. A rolling ball might make a better figure to pattern a society after in terms of curing resentment. This is the Marxist idea. Everyone does every job throughout his life. One day he is a farmer and the next day he is a banker. And so it continues throughout life. And the rewards are based upon need, not upon some selective process. This sounds nice on paper, but every society needs specialists in some operations, and those who are willing to work harder to get more. These people must be rewarded in some way. Election is being chosen by God. It is not just about salvation, but about one’s role in life. God even controls are genetic heritage and our social status to mold us into the persons he has chosen us to be. Every obstacle in life is there because God has put it there. Every difficult situation is a gift from God to teach us something. Some are chosen by God to hold the more exalted positions in life. Some are selected to be at the bottom of the pyramid. The Bible does provide for principles that insure a flat pyramid, but a pyramid does exist. Each individual is taught that his place on the pyramid is designed so that he can serve and be an example to others on that level. And with each reward in life, there are responsibilities. Those who have more responsibilities, more is expected of them. In one sense, the Marxist idea of equal reward is an idea borrowed from the Bible. Each person will be rewarded according to how he handled the responsibilities that God gave him. Rewards are according to faithfulness in each position of life that we find ourselves. To be faithful steward for God at the bottom of the pyramid entitles one to the highest of rewards. The Bible does not look upon one’s place in the social pyramid as being the main purpose in life. The truly great things that God gives to people can be enjoyed at each level on the pyramid. Because the new world civilization is based upon a material pyramid, with physical and financial rewards based upon one’s place upon that pyramid, most assume this is the only kind of pyramid. The new world civilization is based upon a trading society
with material rewards for everyone. The goal is to make even the bottom of the pyramid a financial success. In time, with world peace through world order, the whole world will prosper. The monies spent on warfare will be diverted to the financial reward of everyone. From the richest to the poorest, all will exist in financial prosperity. The world is on the brink of a new age. Because of poor planning and constant waste of resources, the planet has never been able to provide for its peoples. Now with the computer and the ability men have to plan using its information processes, the world is being transformed into a financial paradise upon earth. A final word in closing about the flat pyramid that the Bible proposes. The Bible forbids such things as an income tax, a property tax, and perpetual debt. These are designed to aid the poorer members of society and to keep the rich from exploiting the poor. The richer members of society are also help accountable for their treatment of the poorer members. While the rewards and blessings of God are not regarded as important in our new world civilization, in a Biblical culture, such blessings as mental health and a happy family are considered of great importance. Also, society is regarded as unit. It is not just the accumulation of individuals. It is a giant family that grows out of the many small families. One fact often overlooked that people, because of man’s sinful condition, always compare themselves to others. The fact that the poorest person today lives like a kind in ages past means nothing to the poor person. He compares himself to those further up the pyramid. As long as society is organized around any system that ignores the sinful side of man, it will have problems. The new world civilization looks to training, education, prosperity, and various free services to alleviate what the Bible regards as man’s sinful nature. The new world civilization sees sins as a lacking in some area. By supplying man’s every need, it is hoped that the sinful tendencies can be extinguished. The new order is based upon entirely different principles than the Bible. If the Bible is correct, then the great new order will fail just as every other
civilization is history has failed. 9 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL HISTORY AND EVOLUTIONARY EXISTENCE Is there a goal for which mankind is striving beyond material enjoyment? Is there some purpose for which mankind is called to perform beyond just existence? The modern tendency is to see life as something that is lived from day to day: A person enjoys today and he will enjoy tomorrow when it becomes today. Each day becomes a day to enjoy. Long term planning, if it exists in people’s lives, consists in planning for future pleasures. You see some remnant of the old Christian belief in the yard around many homes. People have tried to turn their home environment into a miniature Garden-of-Eden. There is more pleasure in the actual work involved in building it than in some useful pleasure. In fact, working on one’s miniature paradise is an end in itself. The satisfaction gained from striving in one’s yard, is how the Bible views all work. Man was placed into a garden by God, and from that pattern, he was to go out into all the earth and imitate that garden. The life of man was involved in more than just raising a family and supplying for their needs. It was to use those god-like qualities that he found within himself. One of those qualities is the desire to transform the chaos of the earth. He was to take a world that was ‘without form and void’ and fulfill his task of doing what God had done in the beginning. Man’s life was to imitate the God who created him. Man’s happiness is to be sought in creating new life, providing for that life, and making the world a place that can be called ‘good.’ As man has progressed through history, he has discovered that the earth had many more treasures in it than just plants and animals. The very materials of the earth were all put here by God and each material had potentials within it. When God created sand, he saw the potential of not only glass, but in a sense, computers also. It was all there from the beginning. It was there to use to create the earth into the place that any ‘god’ would want it to be. This purpose of man is something that, even the
most evil of cultures, has had difficulty in erasing. When Christians explored the earth and came upon pagan cultures, the thing that impressed them most, was the attempt to destroy God’s image in man. The life of the savage was based upon a day to day existence. Future planning was beyond them. Even long-term construction projects were rare. The exceptions seem to be monuments to the gods to placate them, and some form of primitive housing. The more sophisticated the culture, the better the housing. The American Indian often lived a nomadic existence. There are not many sites to visit which display the great monuments of the American Indian. While this is not the place to go into detail, the great monuments of the South American Indian and the early Egyptians reflect a culture that still had large remnants of theistic belief. As the culture deteriorated, so did the desire to construct great things. Civilization has always been marked by the remains of great buildings. The mark of a great man is to build for future generations. The cathedrals that still mark the European landscape, often took one hundred years or more to construct. The projects were for one’s descendants. Men labored for a purpose that was greater than just the pleasures of a day. The great buildings are not just physical structures, but represent a faith in the future. For the Christian and for Western Civilization, life has a purpose that is greater than one lifetime. The transformation of the earth is something that is the story of history. Western Civilization is a history of mankind’s desire to obey the command of God to transform the whole earth into something that only a child of a creator God could do. The proclamation of existence is seen in the new world civilization. Life is to be lived in terms of daily pleasures: The ball game, the movie, the good restaurant, and the liberty to enjoy various ‘sinful’ pleasures are the goals of life. The great goals of life are in terms of increasing the number of people that can enjoy such pleasures, and the prolongation of life as long as possible. Through increased planning in the economy and through increased medical research, the goals of a long and pleasurable
life can be within the reach of all upon the earth. The new world civilization can be seen in terms of achieving these goals. The goals of Western Civilization placed other matters ahead of these. The foundations of Western Civilization were based upon the family, the community, the ownership of property, the local church, the local school, and sound money. The assorted ethics that so infuriate the modern man were in place to protect the above institutions. The men of Western Civilization did not see such things as sexual morality as an end in itself, but as part of the sacredness of the family. In the new world order’s destruction of the family, the sexual ethics associated with the family seem very antique. Some of the changes have been very subtle. The change from gold and silver backed money to something called legal tender, no longer even seems important to modern man. Money is no longer a receipt for wealth, but is a medium of exchange that has been borrowed into existence. All money today is based upon the credit card. The user, whether an individual or government, creates money into existence with the promise to repay the money at some future date. Money is not a form of wealth, but a form of debt. (This will become important later in the discussion of slavery.) The goal of existence is to have each person leave the earth when he dies to be as nearly to its original condition. The perfect life is one whose ashes are scattered back to the earth upon death. The ashes will give back to the earth everything the person took from the earth. The result will be a stable world. A world that can continue to sustain life into the eternal future, or at least until the sun becomes dark. The goal of life is not the construction of a great civilization to pass on to the future, but the goal of maximizing life’s pleasures while minimizing life’s pains. As history progresses, there should be ever more pleasures, and fewer and fewer pains. And this is all to be done without the disturbing the earth and its environment. The earth in the Biblical narrative has both a beginning and an end. The new world civilization sees both as irrelevant. The universe is seen as eternal, a form of a god. It is to be worshiped, and treated with the respect of a god. While the ancient sacrificed his children to the god of the earth, the new sacrifice, is
an abortion. To keep the earth’s population stable, children must be sacrificed. Too many children and the resources of the earth will become depleted. The very depletion implies an end to the earth. An end means the goddess earth is not a god, but part of creation. The earth in the Bible has a very short life, at least by eternal standards. It was created for man, and when the purposes of God are complete, the earth will cease to exist. In the interval, history is the story of man learning to create after the image of God. One of the important questions of this battle is the question: To whom does the future belong? The Bible teaches that man is eternal, whether he likes it or not. He must live his life in terms of eternity. There is not escaping this. This belief has consequences for any culture. Man is motivated to take care of himself. If life ends with his own existence, then it does not really matter what happens after one’s death. A nation may try to inspire respect for future generations of earthlings, but it will be a losing effort. It makes for good propaganda, but it does not motivate a large number of people. The only way to care for the planet under such conditions is at the point of a gun. People must be forced to care beyond their own life spans. Unfortunately, this ultimately leads to a government that must control its subjects from cradle to grave. In the new world order, the people must live as if there is no tomorrow, and yet also live as if they are going to be around for the life of the earth. This is the predicament the new world civilization finds itself. It must indoctrinate people into both beliefs. A hedonistic culture needs a government to rule over them or they will end up in war with each other. Anyone who frustrates their hedonism must be opposed. This leads to more and more divisions within a society. One man’s pleasure is another man’s restriction. While the government tries to limit pleasures that divide a society, this becomes difficult as group’s search for new ways to enjoy their short existence. One of the flaws of a pleasurable existence is that pleasures require an increasing intensity. There are limits to pleasure that no government can provide.
A culture based upon personal pleasure through its belief that existence is all that each person possesses eventually breaks down. Because there will always be disappointments in life, there must be those who see personal service and charity as an important part of life. A belief that this life is a preparation for something bigger and better leads many to sacrifice today’s pleasure for some greater good. A culture must be based upon this type of behavior. Government provided services are always limited, and they never provide the psychic and personal needs. Governments can provide physical needs. That is what they are good at doing. They cannot care. Only people can care and real caring is part of a total world view. Life and culture require that there be some greater good. A goodness that is more important than immediate pleasure. Also, a great culture requires that those who postpone pleasures will not go unrewarded. The idea of not only judgment after this life, but rewards are also part of the Bible and Western Civilization. There is not only a heaven, but rewards for the good deeds done in this life. Western Civilization is based upon the fact that not even one glass of water given away to help another shall not go unrewarded. This is quite a motivation. It is what entitles a culture to be called great. Hedonism will ultimately destroy the motivation to live for service and for another. That is why a decaying culture exalts abortion. A child is no longer a gift from God to be trained into his likeness, but a drain on one’s pleasure. Beliefs always take time to bring about the consequences that are latent in every belief. The belief in evolutionary existence leads to the idea of hedonism. If one’s life ends with one’s death, then there must be no planning which goes beyond one’s death. If life has no great purpose, then today’s pleasure is the only reality that can be proven to exist. A man knows what feels good and what causes painful experiences. Life becomes centered around the god of pleasure and the devil of pain. A government may try to impose larger goals, but they will always be just that, ‘imposed.’ The consequence of evolution will always be a dictatorship. In the absence of a great ordering power, the state must move in to supply that need. One final item about the belief in evolutionary existence.
Man is definitely finite. He knows he is going to die. Corporations and governments do not know this. Under the new world civilization, these two entities seem to take on a life of their own. While men will not be rewarded for serving each other, there are rewards, and immediate rewards, for serving the giant powers today. The striving to achieve these temporal rewards serves to replace the need to serve the Kingdom of God and the culture of Western Civilization. As this war between a great historical purpose and mankind’s immediate needs, the consequences are being worked out in history. The battles going on today are not just a temporary disturbance, but are the consequence of two great civilizations locked in battle. 10 THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE BIBLICAL UNITY AND THE NEW SOCIAL UNITY When civilizations decay, they often forget the foundations upon which their greatness was built. One sign of such a time is the temptation to pick the fruit off of a tree while at the same time cutting down the tree. The connection between the tree and its fruit are forgotten. The Biblical idea of the Trinity laid the foundation for Western Civilization. It provided a tree that provided many of the fruits of our existence that we enjoy today. Because this is no longer understood, the Trinity is being discarded, even by Bible-believing Christians. The fact that ideas have consequences has been suppressed. The new world civilization is based upon the fact that men can create a civilization in the clouds, based upon the fruits of civilization men desire, without a sound philosophical foundation. Ideas are not relevant in the new world civilization. The ability to create anything that man desires seems to be within our reach. Our desires are based upon our material needs. Modern technology appears to have opened the doors of heaven to our every desire. Our every entertainment and diversionary desires are available for everyone who has even modest means. With the
purpose of life having been changed, no one seems conscious, that part of the human foundations have atrophied during this period of technological marvels. For most of history, the goals of mankind have been social. The relating of persons to persons, in ever more fulfilling ways, has been the object of men’s desire. One of the purposes of civilization has been to provide the means so that social life can be maintained without too much effort. The peace of mankind has been sought through some form of unity. There has been unified states that have sought to bring men into one nation, so that social life could prosper under such a powerful umbrella of security. There have been attempts to provide a unity through a common religion. The battles between the Catholic Church and Mohammedan were for the control of the world and to provide a unity for mankind. If all men could be united into one religious faith, the social world could grow without disruption. Because such a social unity is not as important today, the religious wars are considered an act of primitive men. Modern men want to achieve a unity based upon world trade and material gain. The new unity will be based upon a common bond of hedonism. The early days of the Christian Church were marked by a series of spirited councils. The Apostles’ Creed, the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and Constantinople were all part of the growth of early Christian thought. Christians were working out the implications of their beliefs and setting up standards. The goal was to achieve a unity through the definition of truth. Error was thought to be the destruction of unity and civilization. If the heretics could be eliminated, a social order could be achieved which would bring peace and unity to mankind. Rather than using the military or a bureaucracy to achieve unity, it was believed that truth could conquer the world. If error was opposed and exposed for what it was, man would choose the good against the evil. It was thought that no one could consciously oppose truth once it was firmly established. The unity today is sought not in truth statements but in democratic elections. Once the people have spoken, then the truth has been established. The election results give society its standard in which to seek a unity. If various groups feel that the
search for truth has not been completed, then they are free to campaign for a change in the next election. The unity is a sacred unity and a belief in the eternal process of election, truth, new election, and new truth. As mankind progresses, he is refining his beliefs through numerous campaigns and elections. There is constant discovery of new truths as mankind progresses from election to election. The combat of the elective process serves to bring mankind ever closer to a cosmic truth. This truth is not knowable, but the process is knowable. As men have faith in the unification through the free election, men are able to achieve a social peace on earth. The goal of the new world order is to spread this faith in democracy and the elective process to the entire globe. Even the most primitive society can be on the road to progress if it can learn to have free elections. This explains our evaluation of other societies solely on the basis of what type of elective process is used. In the communist world when it was at its prime, there were elections, but only among the party members making private choices in limited elections. Party and committee meetings were often democratic in a sense but the electorate was definitely limited. Many members of society were excluded from the voting process. While in other nations, if free elections were held, then those nations were regarded as being on ‘our’ side. What a nation or people believed or did, was irrelevant, as long as the elective process was in place. The state is the voice of the democratic unity. The election is the license for the state to act. The electorate may only vote every four years. In between the state acts as the agent of the people. While the figurative unity is in the people, the working unity is in the state and its power to impose its will upon the people. No society can have two sources of unity. The state, because of this, must oppose every other system upon which unity can be based. Just as a religion with two gods is a religion on the decline, so a social order with two sources of unity is a divided one. It is a period of disorder until a new unity can be determined. The early church sought to base the unity on society on the unity of the Godhead. This God created every fact in the
universe. The war of the various unities is one of the stories of history. You can trace history by studying the various unities used throughout the ages. To the extent that the Christian God is given content and definition by a creed or council, to that extent any other source of unity will find offense in such an understanding. When the state is supreme, it will try to either eliminate God or other sources or unity. If God cannot be eliminated, then the content of such a Biblical God must be eliminated. A vague and sentimental God is no threat to the unity of the state. Abstract statements or mystical beliefs are the allies of any strong government. Such systems offer no counter system of unification. One of the more common ways to eliminate God from the battle of various unities is to confine God to the mystical realm. This God provides man with good feelings as he communes with nature or finds some ecstasy in some experience. The one event that must be subverted is the incarnation of God in Jesus. The new world order must redefine this relationship if it is to have a philosophical unity. If God can become a man then another unity than the state has entered into the universe. If it can be proven that Jesus was just another man, made divine, this can be incorporated into the elective process. Every man or any man is capable of becoming divine and a source of unity. Also, a state may become divine. In this universe, any unity will be considered divine. Anything that claims to be the center of the universe and its meaning will take on the form of a godhead. All social orders must have some divine essence. If the Christian God is driven out, if Jesus is no longer considered divine, then the vacuum must be filled. In a materialistic age, this vacuum will be filled by some entity such as a government or philosophical system. The important point is that even if the idea of the divine is eliminated, the characteristics of the Christian God cannot be eliminated. A God by any other name is still a form of God. The divine requires a unity. It requires omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. As has become obvious throughout this discussion, there is
no avoiding the divine. It is impossible to live, think, govern, or relate without some idea of the divine. The battle is never over whether there is a god, but where should that god be located. The Bible locates the divine in the Creator of the universe. To deny the God of the Bible is always done in terms of another god somewhere. The fact that deception is used during this argument should be of no surprise. The Bible refers to the Devil as a great deceiver and the father of lies. That those who oppose the Christian God should lie then should be of no surprise. The defense of the Christian God has always been based upon arguments of truth. It is a description of reality. It is not an attempt to create a world view but a description of the universe as it was created. The prime enemy of the Bible and the Christian God is the modern centralized state. It offers a totally different description of the ‘real’ world. In order for the state to accomplish its goals it must have a nation who will not oppose its reign. Most individuals who have been educated under government supervision have been captured by the statist view of reality. They go along because for them it is the only way they know. Also, the state designs a total system of control that rewards those who are compliant with the statist view of reality. Most citizens will see as true something that works. ‘What works for me,’ becomes the reality check for the average citizen living under the government’s controlled social vision. Every god must take care of his people. The Biblical message, from cover to cover, is the story of God’s providential care for those persons that He calls His own. The centrist state in order to become divine, must imitate the Christian God. It must take over every aspect of society and use every institution to fulfill man’s every need. If man has a mental problem, if he is poor, if he is socially deprived, if he needs education, if he needs health care or if he needs a job, then the statist god is there to help his people. A citizen no longer prays to God for a need, but fills out the proper application form requesting some service. There appears no need for the Biblical God when everything he used to do can now be accomplished better and more efficiently
by the total-care government. One of the purposes of this study is to show how this whole process has come about in today’s world. One of the tools used is the old ‘bait and switch’ technique used by con artists throughout time. The state has fostered a religious faith thad offers its people a plethora of blessings. The American Christian Church has redefined the Biblical message into a series of material blessings, and spiritual feel-good mental states. Because these goals can actually be better attained through the centrist state than the local church, the people switch their true allegiance from the Christian God to the secular state. Without even realizing that the Gospel message has been switched on them, they eagerly give their first loyalty to the state. One of the methods used to reduce the church’s message to some vague heavenly reward has been the Americanization of Dispensational Theology. The real world has been placed beyond the reach of the Church and the Christian message. The Church is, in fact, not the real purpose of God at all. The real purpose is to be found in the nation of Israel. No Christian can ever be part of this race of people. It is a separate plan of God. The Christian is to celebrate the church and its evangelistic message of salvation in heaven for the Gentile. The main goal of the local church is to save souls through preaching and fellowship. The rest of the world’ problems are not of their concern. In a short time, all of the Christians will be transported to heaven, and then the Jews will reform the world as the Messiah will establish the nation Israel as the center of the earth both for government and religion. One of the problems with this method of eliminating the Christian opposition is that it establishes a future conflict between the various centrist states and the nation of Israel. The state is merely using this doctrine for its own good. The Jews of Israel regard this doctrine of their national and world supremacy as a description of reality. They are the true people of God destined to rule over the whole earth. There will eventually be a show down between these two international orders. If the earth is eternal, then there are those who see a long battle ahead for control of the whole earth and everyone in it. The wealth and power of the
earth are such that organizations will fight and die for such wealth. Whichever side wins, the result will be a new unity. The new world civilization is the first step in that unity. The Biblical unity in the God of the Bible must be eliminated. In the history of Western Civilization, the idea of personal freedom was born when the power of ancient governments was denied. The government of Rome and others were denied the power of the Godhead. Man was to achieve his purpose outside of the confines of the state. In fact, each individual person was freed from the state to serve God. He was accountable to this God and not to the government. This limitation of the unity of the ancient state marked the beginning of the Christian West. As the old unity in the state is being resurrected, the idea of freedom is also disappearing. The freedom that the Bible talks about cannot be achieved except under the protection of God who guarantees the nature of man and his freedom from sin. The freedom of the modern state is freedom to be an animal who is managed for his own good. Freedom exists to do those things which promote the unity and prosperity of the state. The Christian freedom is something entirely different: It is the freedom of man to rule over himself, his family, and the local community. There are areas of life which the government has no power to control, even if it has the best interests of mankind as its primary purpose. Man’s freedom is guaranteed because of the many spheres of limited power which have no authority over any other sphere. The Biblical unity is a diversified unity. The rules of God guarantee the freedom of all spheres of activity. The only restriction is that each sphere obeys God’s revealed laws. With unity firmly established in God, His laws, and His Word, diversity is free to prosper. 11 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL COMMUNITY AND MODERN INDIVIDUALISM In the Bible, the individual exists in his relationship with others through various independent institutions. It is necessary to
keep repeating, but ideas do have consequences. While the masses think that life is lived in terms of their everyday desires, their lives reflect the beliefs of their culture. One of the least understood facets of life is that the institutions of a society reflect a religious view of man. Every person growing up in a society will tend to view that world as the only possible world. It is accepted as a given. The problem of living is to adjust one’s self to the various obstacles that society presents. Social rebels are not born from the failures of society, but from those that look upon the world from a different perspective. The modern idea of freedom is based upon a whole set of beliefs that originally had foundations in a pre-capitalistic society which lived in terms of a Biblical view of reality. It was based upon various associations and these groups had power to influence their members. A person achieved freedom through his membership in these associations. The free individual apart from any group membership was not the understanding of freedom. If a person wanted to be totally free, it would have been necessary to escape to some wilderness. Such an ideal of wilderness freedom became the new ideal of the industrial society. The liberation of the individual from every form of social obligation became the goal of the new freedom. The two views of freedom are at the basis of many of the contemporary social conflicts. The Biblical idea of communal freedom is at war with the capitalistic idea of the isolated individual free of all associations. The modern world’s social structures have grown up around the idea of the capitalistic view of man and his human nature. Capitalism and the factory system require individuals who are free to move from one factory to another. The new corporation needs individuals who have no obligations more important than his loyalty to his job. It needs workers who will sacrifice their lives for the rewards that the corporation can give. The new society of the factory system must have individuals who are seeking monetary rewards, and the status and power that giving onself to the factory offers. As a society grows up around such a system, social organizations develop to support it. As a person escapes from the Biblical ideals, it becomes necessary to replace them with other
ideals. As a person escapes from Biblical associations, it becomes necessary to replace them with other forms of relationships. One of the secrets of the new society is that there are choices involved in the structuring of a social order. Once those choices are made, a reality is built up around them that makes those choices appear as the only possible ones. This is confirmed by the fact that once the support structures are in place, it looks like any other lifestyle would be not only not work, but it would be impossible to live by. It is true there is no retreat to some past, as to return to certain aspects of the past would be admitting a social virus into the environment. A good example would be the introduction of the patriarchal family into American society. Such a family is based on the power of the father to make decisions for his family without outside interference. It is based upon a system of one vote for each family. The father as the representative of his family is entitled to cast the vote. It would consider the family as the basic economic unit and such laws as child labor laws would not apply. If the family owned a business, the children would be expected to help in that business. If someone in the family was in need, then the father would talk to other families about possible solutions. It would not be a government’s decision or responsibility. The family would unite with other families to form other associations such as a church, a school, a club or grange, or even various welfare societies. Such an institution as described above could not be allowed to exist in a factory-based economy. It would eventually allow the total destruction of such a system as more and more members of society adopted the patriarchal family. The two systems of organization cannot both survive in the same social system. When it is suggested that a society can support both systems, the reply is always that you cannot turn back the clock. That is true. But you can make value choices and allow those choices to gradually remake the total social order. Just the factory system required a hundred years to destroy the traditional family-based culture, so any changes will also require time. It is not a question of being old fashioned or not, it is a question of which kind of
freedom will be allowed to exist. Is freedom communal or is it something that an individual can enjoy all by himself? That is the essence of the battle. Our current society has lost entirely the concept of communal freedom. This is why such remainders of the old culture are having so many problems. It is difficult to keep alive, a remnant of the communal culture in an individualistic age. This is best seen in the present predicament of the institutional church. The church is to be a gathering of families. It is to be a powerful structure that meets not only for communal worship but for communal action. The communal action part of the church is basically over. It is no longer a gathering of families represented by their fathers. It is a gathering of individuals who want to add religion to their assortment of emotional experiences. Thus the successful churches in today’s culture design programs for the busy individual who wants a pre-packaged experience or has some need connected with working and living in a factory system. Religious ceremonies and day care services are part of the foundation of a church that has survival as its main goal. Other churches try to maintain a skeleton of a church left over from the days of family worship and church social authority. You see a handful of the old and the dying who remember church experiences from their youth. It is a deadening experience except in their minds and their attempts to keep something they feel is important alive. They know it is a dead experience, but there is no other choice for these faithful remnants. The individual freedom culture is based upon competition, contract, hedonism, and personal property. The factory system was based upon these traits. A whole culture was based upon the protection and expression of such a belief system. While the battles have raged between the Biblical idea of freedom and the new individual freedom, the new world civilization is progressing to another type of freedom. As government tries to eliminate personal contracts in favor of government supervision and as the government tries to eliminate property as a left over from the age of exploitation, there is a new freedom being formed. The new freedom has been reduced to the freedom to feel good and to feel good for as long as possible. It is strictly an individual thing and is
something an individual can experience without others, without property, and without any real purpose in life. If there is one hero to the modern mind, it might be Robinson Crusoe. In being stranded on an island, he came discover his true self and talents he never knew he had. He became a great person by being separated from civilization. The regimented lifestyle of England did not bring out the best in Crusoe. In his isolation, he became the person he was meant to be. Such is the myth that is held in many minds. The fact that the real story differs from the myth does not matter. The important thing is that men become their true selves only as they learn to separate themselves from their parents, and from the restrictions of civilization. The individual person is the true rock of reality. A good society is one that encourages each person to become a great individual. The social order exists to produce great individuals. Individual happiness and pleasure are the products of a great civilization. Such organizations as the church, the family, and the school exist only in order to support the individualistic system. At least this is the non-Biblical view of reality. The Bible, without trying to get too technical, talks about the reality of the Godhead as being a Trinity. This Trinity is a reflection of the world that God created. God is not a solitary individual. God is three persons in a corporate unity. Individual expression is displayed only without this corporate oneness. God is three and yet he is one. Both are true and both facts represent a true description. In philosophy, this arrangement is described as the truth of both ‘the one and the many.’ Man lives in a universe where both the individual (the one) and the many (the group) are real. In non-Christian cultures there is a swing between the two realities. At times, the individual is given total power. The resulting society in time becomes anarchical. Social order breaks down, crime runs rampant, and mental problems proliferate. In reaction to such a breakdown, the resulting swing pushes society into a centrist state or dictator. The one man and the corporate world become the true reality. Individuals only find the purpose in life by serving some corporate or national ideal. In time the
government becomes totally oppressive and rebellion sets about destroying the iron cage in which everyone lives. The individual is given free expression again, but only until anarchy results. And the cycle continues. In following the picture of the Biblical Godhead, the Christian sees the social order made up of both communities and individuals. An individual is real and he is a responsible being. He has been given talents and responsibilities from God. However, the corporate realities that God created are also real. The individual is to find expression of his individuality within these corporate structures. The individual is not best when he is running wild seeking personal pleasures, and the corporate community is not best when it tries to fit individuals in some regulated mold that only serves the interests of the group. The balance between these two expressions can only be found in the Bible and the teachings it provides. The limits placed upon both the communal and individual expressions are necessary to avoid the extremes. If this is not done, society and civilization will fluctuate between the extremes of individualism and the extremes of dictatorship. The primary group for learning this lesson is the family. A Christian social order requires the training of each generation into the reality of a world where both the ‘one’ and the ‘many’ exist. Not every child is born a philosopher, but every child is to be born into a family unit that is to teach the child this basic pattern of reality. The child learns to be an individual, but he also learns to be that individual within a family. He has individual gifts and talents, but those are not just for his personal pleasure, but are to help and serve the other members of his family. The child learns both the importance of the individual, and also what the individual has been created to do. He learns that the best freedom is the freedom to be oneself within a social unit that both loves and cares for him. The child can run away from home to be himself, but in a good social order, he quickly learns that freedom of expression in a vacuum is meaningless. This is the reason that in unstable societies, both the dictator and the anarchical individual attack the family. It is the enemy of both. Sometimes the two extremes form a partnership to destroy
the family. After the family has been eliminated, then each side is free to decide whether totalitarianism or anarchy should reign. From the Biblical perspective the health of the basic patriarchal family is the foundation of society. If that unit is healthy, then other groupings such as the church and the school are healthy. Also, if the church is healthy, then the centrist state is kept within its Biblical boundaries. Without the Bible as a guide book, and without the enforcing power of the church, the centrist government always seeks out more power than it was designed by God to possess. Just as the individual freed from morals becomes anarchical, so the government freed from Biblical restrictions becomes totalitarian.
12 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL SLAVERY AND STATIST SLAVERY One of the goals of the modern world is the total elimination of slavery. The Bible states that slavery is part of the governing world order created by God. There will always be slavery in this world as long as sin exists. The question is never whether to eliminate slavery or not, but which kind of slavery will a society adopt. One of the easiest techniques in talking about an issue is to present it as two sides to a question. Black versus white makes discussion so much easier. This is done with the slavery question. The modern world is pitted against the brutal stories of slave ships and the atrocities of slave labor camps. Presented in this way, the choice is easy. All would prefer to be a modern slave to the state, than take the risks involved in the ancient forms of slavery. In the modern world of political rhetoric, every person who feels confined or restricted in any way, claims they are being treated like a slave. A slave has come to mean anything a person does that he does not want to do. Women claim marriage is a form of slavery. Entry-level jobs are described in terms of slavery by the young. Clothing manufacturing in foreign lands is
described as slavery. Anytime a minority does not get their way in politics, the cry of slavery is used to raise the level of political rhetoric. Government schools are equated with slavery by disgruntled students. It is obvious that any discussion of slavery is closely tied up with a society’s view of freedom. Because freedom has come to mean being released from any obligation to another person, the concept of slavery has been enlarged beyond past understandings. The Bible has a totally different idea of freedom and it also has a totally different idea of slavery. Both ideas go beyond the narrow debates of freedom versus slavery that is found in today’s political debate. The modern portrayal of slavery based upon the American plantation is the Old South. The picture was glamorized to an extent in the movie mini-series Roots. While the plantation was the exception, with most slaves living with their masters in the same homes or sharing a small farm, this image is what most people think of when they picture slavery. This image is used to prove to modern Americans are not slaves. No one is any longer part of a plantation, and so we are told how we are now all free. The poetic uses of this word are just that: Most realize that there is a vast difference between the plantation and marriage. This image has been converted in the political sleight of hand that rules modern political debate. The people are told over and over again that they are now free. While some minor improvements still need to be made, the contrast between contemporary life and a symbolic past allows the modern forms of slavery to escape unnoticed. It also allows the history of the United States to be used for political ends. Everything that the Old South believed is discredited in the same breathe that slavery is decried. The right to choose one’s associates is now considered racism. Local communities are considered exclusive. Patriarchy is anti-democratic. Private schools are elitist. In the name of freedom from every belief associated with the Old South, a new form of slavery is slowly being implemented. In the Bible, short term slavery is allowed. This form of slavery was used for the enforcement of debts, for the paying back the victims of crime, and for the care of those who chose not to experience the insecurity of freedom. The system was
basically designed to encourage the idea of individual accountability and responsibility. The person who took on debt or who committed a crime was treated like an adult. The system of slavery was a safety net that did not treat individuals like children. Adults were expected to act like adults and to be responsible. To act otherwise involved consequences. A child trained in such a system grew up realizing that his actions were related to the community in which he lived. To live within a community meant being responsible. There were charities and various ways to obtain aid. But to enter into adult transaction required adult responsibilities. When government or some other agency steps in and removes the consequences from actions, then a whole new philosophy is introduced into society. The idea of a man being held accountable to God is one of the first ideas to go in a society that institutes adult day care techniques into the social order. A nation’s social order will be patterned after their view of reality. If they believe in the God of the Bible, then they will build social structures that reflect the values of the Bible. The Bible teaches that not only is each man responsible for his actions on earth, there will be an ultimate accounting after death. The social order will allow individuals to experience the penalties and consequences of their decisions. This not only teaches each person to live in a socially responsible manner, it prepares each person for the life after death. The social order is designed to reflect the reality that has been created into the universe. One of the reasons for the strong reaction against Southernstyle slavery is to disguise the trend toward wage slavery in the new world order. The masses are told over and over that they are free because they can go home at night after work. The fact they their lives are regulated and controlled to an extent that would have caused rebellion in times past is a well-kept secret. The income tax allows the government to keep close track of every citizen. The various other taxes, which include the property and inheritance tax, allow for further monitoring. The Social Security system again acts as a monitor of individual behavior. With increased government aid and services, the individual is
constantly filling out forms and relating personal details. There is very little that has not escaped a tax, license, permit form, or some form of monitoring. With increased taxes, and the inflation of the money supply, the individual has become more dependent upon a vast economic system. The age of the independent entrepreneur is over. There has been a steady attack on such trades as the farmer, fisherman, and logger. These people all operated to some extent as independent individuals outside of the normal social forms of control. Each of the above jobs is more and more becoming part of the new corporate world. The formerly free working man is now just a part of a giant international corporation. His survival depends upon his pleasing some bureaucratic standard established by some foreign corporate office. With the number of independent jobs decreasing, the chances of quitting a corporate job and finding another job is often quite difficult. The former free person finds his daily life controlled by the various government agencies, and the corporate world. If he fails to please any one of the various bureaucracies, his future as a ‘free’ person becomes in jeopardy. There are various safety nets from which he can apply for aid, but these are designed to demean his person and to keep him alive at the poverty level. The attempt for any person to achieve any kind of decent living outside of the normal channels is becoming almost impossible. If a person could transport himself back in time, he would find very little difference between himself and the slave in ancient times. The appeal to his material wealth as a sign of freedom is not really an issue. The slave often lived at the standards of the typical small farmer. The poor white farmer in the Old South often resented the slaves who at times had a much better standard of living. The manufacturers of the northern states thought it cheaper to employee people rather than have slaves. An employee was on his own away from the workplace. The employer did not have to care for him or worry about his health. He had little investment in the individual worker. If one worker died or became disabled, there were others who could be hired and trained quickly. The slave system, with the high investment in each worker, led the
slave owner to take care of his investment. The large manufacturing factory had little investment to protect. Every different economy has different economics, and it is important to understand how each one operates. With the current tax level at about 55 per cent, the worker is paid a lot of money by the employer and then the government takes it away to care for the worker when he is not at work. The modern worker has little more freedom than the slave in the Old South. In fact, the slave had some distinct advantages. Slavery was usually limited to just his physical labor. Because the system operated out in the open, there was no need to brainwash the slave into the proper frame of mind. The worker today must undergo years of training in government schools in order his mind will accept the modern form of servitude. He must learn to live a life that is totally regimented to the support the factory system and the services it provides, and at the same time believe that he is a free person. Learning to live under the two contradictory states results in constant inner tension which results in social, mental, and physical problems. The Bible, instilled into Western Civilization, a different idea of freedom. This idea of the free and responsible individual, who was a king with his own domain, was part of Western culture. This individual was always at war with any government that sought to increase its wealth or power at the expense of the individual free man. Many of the basic laws of Western Civilization, such as the Magna Carta, were laws to restrict the greed of the king and to protect the common working man. The idea of man created by God to be a free person served as the foundation for these revolts against the king’s power. The greedy king was always referred to as one who was usurping powers that did not belong to the king. Without the Bible and its definition of man, and its limitations on every area of power, the common man would have no reference for his personal freedom. Even the American slaves learned of political freedom from their reading of the Bible. Many of the slaves educated themselves into the patterns of Western Culture and were able to understand the difference between real
and false freedom. This is why most of the blacks supported the South in their way against the North. They could understand the difference between the wage slavery system offered by the North and the possibilities of personal freedom within the Southern system. Most wanted nothing to do with the type of impersonal freedom offered by the North. The empires of Greece and Rome were based upon a statist freedom. It was the cruel form of slavery that comes to mind when people think of slavery. Because it was subsidized by the government, it was able to survive. The slaves that belonged to individual owners in a free market system always found themselves treated well. With no taxes to subsidize the farm or plantation, the business must be operated in an efficient way. No normal owner would destroy his investment. He wanted to pass on his business to his kids. The result was a personal relationship between the owner and his slaves. In the state system, each slave was something that could be discarded by the state at its pleasure. There were always more slaves available free to its conquering army. With a zero cost of procurement, the state had little interest in preserving individual lives. The Bible gave significance to the life of each person. Those who were one’s slaves or part of one’s household were also of significance. Abuse was not only poor for business in a free market system, it was a sin which the person would have to answer to someday. Western Culture was based upon the value of each person, the limitation of powers in each area of life, and the idea of eternal judgment by God. Out of these beliefs developed the limited monarchy, the common law, the free market, private family, and the gold standard. A whole civilization developed around the Bible and its associated beliefs. This old culture is at war with the new world culture and the corporate slavery planned for every individual. 13 THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT This historic battle starts with the Tower of Babel in the Old
Testament portion of the Bible. The desire of man apart from God and His standard, was to create a new world standard, that would have the same characteristics as God’s standard. There are some truths that are apparent no matter which kingdom a man belongs to on this earth: The future government will be worldwide, and the government will be based upon a worldwide law. The conflict between the two kingdoms is inevitable. There can only be one world government. Two would be a contradiction. There can only be one law system. No law can be a law if there exists other laws which limit its effect. There is no escaping the conflict from the two kingdoms. In the current state of affairs, the church for the most part has tried to live in peace with the kingdom of man. The church has tried to stake out a territory which is free from the government of man. This temporary truce allows the church to exist as meeting place to perform rituals that enable people to endure the struggles of life. The church is permitted to exist as long as it recognizes that the final court of law resides within the government and not in the church. For the sake of peace, the church has surrendered its message and its law system. New theologies have been taught to the people to explain why the church no longer confronts the government and its evil law system. The reign of God has been placed in a future age when the church has been removed from the earth. The church today is to teach only the salvation of grace–that is the forgiveness of sins. The Kingdom of God has been postponed to a future time when the Gentiles have been removed to heaven and the earth will be returned to the Jews who rejected the message of God through Jesus the Messiah. While the church waits for their deliverance from the Kingdom of Man, it is to proclaim a message of salvation through the ‘born again’ experience. After the Christian accepts this process, he is to live a moral life outside the worldly kingdom. His life is to be a moral life in an evil age. The Christian is to center his life around the church and its fellowship and meetings. Each week the Christian goes out to be an example of a moral person. He hopes that by his example and his telling
others about his church’s message, others will become born again and join his church. The sign of a good church is that it is large and growing ever larger. A good church will have multiple programs to entertain the Christians and have expansion plans. The individual Christian is encouraged each week that he is on the right path and that he is doing God’s will. This assurance is designed to help him live in peace and escape the warfare that is going on in the world. By centering his life around the home, and the church the Christian is able to form a small cocoon that serves as his home in this world. While the government and its worldwide kingdom expand, it is content to allow the church to exist in isolation. Rather than provoke the Christians into some form of resistence, they are allowed to carry on their activities in isolation. Once the kingdom of man has become a reality, then the church will be forced to become part of it. To allow it to exist, apart from the government’s kingdom, would be to allow the seeds of resistence to germinate outside the government’s area of supervision. The church and its theology must be integrated into the philosophy of the new world civilization. At that time, the peace treaty that now exists between the government and the church will come to an end. Eventually, the church will have to find another expression to its beliefs than the Bible. Even new theologies will find it difficult to explain why the Christians are still here on earth when the kingdom of man has been inaugurated. Their peace plan will have been shown to be a fraud. The churches will probably adopt some type of improved Bible based upon universal psychological principles. It will be a book of devotional and inspirational poems and stories. It will focus around the performance of social rituals to enable persons of all beliefs to feel the passage of time and the sacredness of life. Currently the American Indian is being groomed as an example of the type of faith each person will need in the future. The new world faith will teach a reverence for all of life and all acceptable, government-approved behavior. The reverence for life will include the limitation of technology and the proliferation of government programs of help. The whole planet
will be looked upon as something alive and will be endowed with the powers of life. It will include a modern version of nature worship, and an appreciation of life which evolved out of the chemicals of the earth. The earth will be the compared to an enclosed chamber that creates, cares for, and recycles life over and over. The role of man during his stay on earth will be to leave the earth in the same shape as he found it, and to teach the young to have the same reverence for the powers of the earth. The new worldwide kingdom of man will be a culture of the worship of life and the orderly behavior of all individuals. The new religion will encourage behaviors that give man a sense of well being in a world with no promises beyond this life. Science will do its best to give every man a good eighty years of life and the enjoyment thereof. As each man takes his place in the order, peace will reign. He will be free to choose his forms of association and pleasures. The kingdom of man will provide multiple choices for the free individual. Life will be organized around entertainment and the culture of enjoying the pleasures of life. The movie, the ball game, the theater, the zoo, the amusement park, and the good meal will form a web of pleasures and diversions. To satisfy man’s need for cosmic purposes, various hobbies will become more and more important. Business will issue various collectibles and many will form collections of such trinkets of movie tie-ins and sports memorabilia. The collection of antiques will provide a sense of continuity with the history of one’s culture. It will also give the collector something to pass on to his kids as a form of eternal life. The importance of family traditions will be encouraged as the way to feel that life has a meaning beyond this temporary life. The collection of family keepsakes and photographs will be copied from the way the Japanese keep family alters. Ancestor worship can provide a suitable substitute for the rewards of heaven. By living a good life on earth, a person will be remembered favorable by his descendants. The structure of this new earthly paradise will be shaped like a pyramid. There will be one leader who controls a committee of
twelve who in turn controls a committee of three hundred. It will continue like this all of the way down to the masses. This is the nature of any man-made method of control. Government today is seen as methods of control. In order to rule the earth every method of control must be implemented. Any area outside of the world government could lead to a taste for more freedom by the people. Thus, every person must feel the control over every aspect of his life. The very idea of any personal freedom outside of government must be seen as insanity. The paradox of all of this is that when world government comes, it will be celebrated as the victory of freedom over the forces of superstition. It will be proclaimed as the greatest era of freedom in the history of the world. Freedom will be defined as the freedom from all authorities other than the government. It will mean freedom from all rules other than those enforced for the good of the planet. It will mean the freedom from all responsibilities other than those owed to the state. And finally, it will be the freedom to be employed at all times at a job that best suites the needs of the government and the individual person. The only coercion in this society will be against those who fail to seek the good of the planet and who still believe in religious superstitions. The Biblical kingdom that is at war with the new world kingdom is almost the exact opposite of mankind’s new order. Jesus warned of looking for some organization or some leader. The Kingdom of God would not look like a normal kingdom, but would be almost invisible to the naked eye. One of the signs of a false kingdom would be the emphasis on the same things that mark a secular organization. It would be based on rituals, power, organization, and status. It would appear to be very similar to a business corporation. It would have structure that would appeal to those who desire the self esteem that comes with belonging to an important business or government. The Kingdom of God would have none of the rewards that is associated with most normal kingdoms. One of the problems when studying the history of the Church, is that it is often written from the point of view of the accepted idea of an influential kingdom. All of the things that the
Kingdom of God is not appear in the history books as the history of the church. This leads to a very distorted view of history. The history of the world is pictured as a war between the organizational church in all of its glamour and the governments of man. There has certainly been a war between the two organizations. It is very difficult to write a history about the Kingdom of God because most of its events are not recorded in the typical historical annals. When a historian goes through records to write his history, the true history has not been written down for him to peruse. Thus, the historian writes about the only struggles he can find. This distorts not only history, but the Bible also. The records that the historian uses are used as examples of God’s working in history. The impression is given that God is trying to replace the governmental structures with one of his own. The organization of God’s kingdom would be identical to the government’s, but it would have people in charge whose first allegiance is to the Church and not the state. The Church may allow a parallel governmental organization to maintain some power, but the supreme court would be in the hands of the Church and its officials. Everything the government did would need final approval from the Church’s courts. Also, such services as welfare and education would be in the hands of the Church. The government’s role in men’s lives would be limited. The role of the church in men’s lives would be totalitarian. Such times of freedom in history have actually accrued during times when the two organizations of the state and the Church have been more or less equal in power. As the two powers struggle for the allegiance of the people, promises are made and freedoms granted. In America, the strong influence of the colonial churches resulted in a constitution which left immense power in the various churches. The fact that the United States had no church similar to the Catholic Church structure in Europe has been very deceptive. While the churches had competing organizations, they did unite in their distrust of a secular and governmental kingdom. The American churches were powerful when it was necessary to oppose the Kingdom of Man.
In fact, American history can be written as the struggle between the Kingdom of Man as represented in the United States government and the Kingdom of Man as represented in the powerful churches on the American continent. The history books, of course, picture this as the struggle between the church and the state. The government’s kingdom wants a separation of church and state. The church’s kingdom wants the government to rely on the churches for its legitimacy. Many of the battles fought in U.S. history have actually been battles between the church and the state. The government has discovered that military battles rally the people around the Stars and Stripes. The churches always lose power during military campaigns. The church leaders’ interest in peace is actually a result of their desire to preserve their influence. Aside from this more obvious battle is the secret battle between both of the above kingdoms and the Kingdom of God. Because this kingdom is not important historically or politically, it has been ignored by just about everyone concerned. That even the churches and their power structures have ignored the Kingdom of God, is the most surprising. When histories are written no one writes about the Church as if it belonged to the same kingdom as the government’s power structure. One of the main purposes of this book is to reveal the forces of history and the battles that have destroyed so many from an entirely different perspective. The Kingdom of God is part of history and there is a great battle between this kingdom and the twin kingdom’s of man. Why is the Kingdom of God invisible? History records what a culture deems important. The works of the Kingdom are not considered worth mentioning or recording. The love in a family according to Biblical standards, the education of one’s children, the service to one’s neighbor, and the helping those in need in one’s community all fall off the powerful’s mental radar screen. They are not seen and therefore they do not exist. It is back to the sound of a tree falling in a forest with no one there to hear it. So much of the work of God’s kingdom is like that tree which no one is there to record the sound from its falling. There is also a totally different view of the role of government in God’s Kingdom.
The worldly kingdoms are all in the shape of a pyramid with the most powerful on the top and decisions moving from the top to the bottom. Power, money, and status move from the bottom to the top: Those at the bottom having none of the above. In simple terms, the pyramid of God’s Kingdom is turned upside down. Most of the money, power and decisions are kept at the lowest level. The kingdom views reality as actually containing many governments. The local school, the family, the church, the club, and the county government are all supreme in their own spheres of influence. In only the most extreme cases are decisions appealed beyond the very bottom. The church makes decisions over people’s lives and so does the father in a family. Both are expected to make decisions along Biblical guidelines. The members of the family are expected to handle problems within the extended family network. If a father is abusing his role as a Biblical father, the relatives might intervene first. Then the local church might intervene. In the last resort, the county government might intervene. In all of the cases, the problem is handled by people who are one’s neighbors and who care about everyone concerned. It is not a bureaucracy seeking to perpetuate its rule and power. As communities and families follow the Biblical guidelines for living, the Kingdom of God is being extended. Such a proper functioning system never makes for news headlines. It is just the people of God doing what God wants His people to do. One person helping another according to Biblical doctrines and standards does not make for great empires. There would be a world wide interaction, but no worldwide struggle for power. One county may trade with other counties or one county may trade with cities around the world. Such trade would be transacted because it is in the interest of both to do so, but it would not be a central government’s economic policy. It would not require a vast army to enforce such a system. Violators of trade would find themselves out in the cold with no trading partners. There would be the trading of information, but no attempt to coerce another community into some controlling structure. God’s kingdom would spread throughout the world, but
not by the edge of a sword or the point of a gun. Man’s kingdoms always require force. Mass transportation and mass communication are molding the world into a vast network. The current battles are over who will control this worldwide trading system. There are several different groups who desire the immense wealth and power that would come from controlling the world’s trade and governments. The United States, the Catholic Church, the international financiers, Zionism, and several secret fraternal groups are all implicated to some extent in this battle to create a kingdom of man over the entire earth. All of the above, have been successful to some extent at one time or another. They have even united at times in their attempts to crush one of the others. In the end, only one of them wants to reign over the earth. The purpose of this book has not been to document which of the above groups is responsible for any individual act of control over historical events. The purpose is to declare the Kingdom of God and the events in history which have been used to suppress God’s power over the whole earth. The Bible declares that before the end of history, the whole earth will acknowledge that God’s laws and His rule are supreme. Not every person will become a Christian, but the whole world will have to live by the rules of the Kingdom because that will be the accepted way of living life. No matter where a person will travel in the future, he will be able to see the Kingdom of God in operation on the local level. There will be no world leader or visible organization, but the kingdom will rule, nevertheless. We are back to the time-honored argument that ‘you can’t turn back the clock.’ Every age thinks that its age is the final age in history. Every even in the past has worked to produce the best and final solution to the world’s problems. All that is needed is a little tweaking of the system. Any change is seen as a threat. Any proposed new system meets with total opposition from those who have a stake in the current state of affairs. When the first cars were produced, they were not very practical. No paved roads, no gas stations, and infrastructure to support all of the other automobile’s needs. The first cars were a threat to whole industries, including the buggy whip makers. Yet change
occurred. In fact, the whole world changed around something new. The same process works with new ideas. New ideas about banking, new ideas about something called a suburb, new ideas about flying, new ideas of entertainment, and a host of ideas and inventions, all started small and succeeded against all odds. Those who sell coal do not like natural gas. Those who sold toaster ovens do not like microwave ovens. The list is endless. Every proposed change meets opposition from those who have an investment in the current state of affairs. Criticism of new products and services is to be expected. Criticism of new ideas is the natural way new ideas are given life. Every threat requires opposition and the loudest opposition will cry out against the best products and the best new ideas. That is the free market system of history. History does not stop. There are always conflicts unless one side can stop change using the ‘point of a gun.’ And that only works for one or two generations at the most. 14 THE BATTLE BETWEEN BIBLICAL EDUCATION AND STATIST EDUCATION The Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God have two entirely different ways of teaching the young about life. In one sense, the Biblical idea of teaching is one of education of the child in the techniques of knowledge and the Biblical view of life. The state looks upon its educational system as saving the child from the environment in which the child is involved. The state view of education is based upon the view that a child is an animal that has developed to its current stage through evolution. In the past, the forces of nature acted upon children to help them develop into adults. The problem with nature is that it is random, and success is accidental. The world has developed to such a stage that only an education that understands mankind and has the whole world in view is fit to educate the young. For centuries, parents educated their own, but the children became just carbon copies of what their parents knew. This
system works for a culture which is static. The long history of such times as the Dark Ages testifies to the failure of parental education. The world cannot afford to have another thousand years of stagnation. With modern technology, change is inevitable. Parents are only concerned with preserving the times of their own childhood. Their memories of their youth are passed onto their children. That will not work in a technological age. Parents today cannot even show their children how to set the clock on the VCR. A new age demands a new way of educating the youth into the mysteries of technology and its use. Parents often grew up with the memories of the Depression and World War II drilled into them by their parents. They added onto these memories the fear instilled during the cold war and the chaos of the Vietnam War. These memories created a conservative attitude toward life. The youth of today must be educated with an attitude that trusts the future and those who are in charge of controlling the forces that would destroy civilization. While the past must be taught, it must not be used to create distrust in the policies of government officials and the various agencies charged with controlling the chaos in the natural world. One of the number one goals of education must be to eliminate such fears. If governments allowed parents to educate their children or to control the educative process, then each generation would resist the future and its possibilities. Parents have a different agenda than for their children than the state has. The state thinks of the whole world and the integration of the children’s minds into the minds of others around the world. Someone must look at the bigger picture than just small town education. Only the government that interacts with the whole earth is able to pass on that vision to the children. Local education means just that. Global education is the future. If the children are not introduced to the future of mankind, they will become dependents upon society as they will not fit into the culture that is growing into a global community. The new education is designed to prepare the children for life in a corporate world. It is an entirely different world than the one the Christian wants to prepare his children to participate.
The Christian with his belief in a personal God, attempts to prepare students for a personal world. Children are to grow up with a view to serving God and their community. They are to develop personal skills and learn how to live in a world where personal interaction is supreme. The church is also to based on personal interaction and not a corporate structure. In this age where the corporate form rules supreme, the church has now imitated the corporate world. The corporate world and its rules and regulations are the new reality. The corporate view of reality is based upon a different view of man, the universe, and human nature. If men did evolve, then any talk of human nature is not possible. Men have been conditioned by their environment to behave in certain ways. Men have survived through the forces of evolution by looking out for number one. The child is born with a giant ego and immense needs that it wants the world to fulfill. One of the purposes of the new education is to take this ego-centered, needy child, and convert that monster into something that is useful to both the nation and the corporation. This will involve further evolution being performed upon the child. He must be trained to exhibit certain behaviors and not just learn factual knowledge. What type of child is society looking to produce? He must still have needs, but needs that can be supplied by society. The personal needs that a child brings into the world must be changed into needs that the corporate world can supply answers. The hedonism of the child is to be deflected into the cultural forms that are designed to fulfill these appetites. The child is to be remanufactured into a machine that wants the products that society is selling. The child is to learn to be a consumer. He is to look to entertainment, consumer products, and consumer services as being able to supply his every need. There appears to be a tendency for children to be content with just a good family. This tendency must be changed into something that society can use to support the cultural norms. Few people realize that education serves a purpose and that the parents have little awareness of what actually is being done to their children. Education is preached by everyone concerned
as one of the primary goals of society. The assumption is that if education does not take place in a government school, then it is not happening. The old idea that the parents were responsible not only for the curriculum but for the actual education of their children is a lost ideal. Education was done by the parents to pass on their skills and a lifetime of learning to their children. It was assumed that the parents would want what is best for their children. After all, the retirement of the parents depended upon how well they trained their children to earn a good living. With the government taking over the retirement responsibilities for everyone, it has been assumed that the parents would no longer care for their own children. The self interest that they had in a good education had been taken away. The new view is that many children were the result of accidents or the result of parents who were against abortion. The high cost of raising children today and the low return on that investment has created an image of parents who have children for some primitive selfish purpose. One of the goals of education is to liberate the children from their parental overlords. The new fad of government-run day care facilities tries to lower the age at which the government can take over the care of all children. As we have been talking about all along, there is a growing bond between governments and corporations in the goal of ruling the world. In the evolution of the universe, there has been the evolution of the processes in control of the evolution. The survival of the fittest is too slow and too haphazard. The new evolutionary process is a carefully constructed bureaucratic maze designed to help those who play the maze game, and not to help those who refuse or cannot jump through the official obstacle hoops. There is a government-corporate world culture. Those who submit to this culture are reward accordingly. There is no longer a need for the type of individuals who conquered the frontiers of the world’s wild lands. The school system is designed to train the new child for the new world culture. One-room schools did a great job of creating educated individuals. Those schools, with the older students helping to teach the young, created individuals who knew how to serve, and the joy of helping another. The new school wants to
produce an individual who knows how to navigate the corporate world. The small school must be destroyed and mammoth corporate schools built in their place. The children must be segregated by age: There will no older students instructing the young. The school building will be built around the factory architecture. One student will no longer bond with one teacher but the student will move from specialist to specialist throughout the day. This process creates an impersonal order that is ruled by specialists. The student moves around the building by following the tyranny of bells, and time schedules. The student is encouraged to major in some specialty. The student also learns to escape the rigors of this maze through the use of pleasure and entertainment. Just as Wal-Mart employees are encouraged to bond with the company, so the student is supposed to develop a ‘school spirit.’ Most of this spirit is to find release through his attendance at sporting events or school activities: These activities are designed for students only–not for the parents or the community. The student is being trained to enter the world of corporate reality. He is being weaned away from his parents and the community in which he lives. The new world culture also demands a new curriculum. The new person need not be especially proficient in “reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic.” Only the elite need such skills. The new curriculum teaches a new ethic for a new culture. It teaches the students to live in a multi-racial grouping. It exalts the various ethnic private cultures and their role in the new world wide culture. The schools might have an ‘ancestor dress up day.’ The students show up wearing an outfit their ancestor might have worn. The various cultures of the past are pictured in terms of different foods, different customs, different clothing, and different sexual ethics. The fact that these various cultures were based upon very different religions and very different interpretations of the world is down played. Religion was the foundation of most cultures. This is no longer acknowledged. The new child is just another part of the environment. The work of parents is seen as a polluter of the child and his
environment. In the same way the government cleans up an oil spill, the same techniques can be applied to the cleaning up of the child’s polluted nature. The goal is to restore the environment to an unspoiled condition. The child must be returned to his perfect nature before being subjected to parental pollution. Once this has been accomplished, the government’s role is now to regulate the child’s new environment in the same way it regulates the earth’s environment to prevent corruption. The goal of the government’s schooling is to clean the child up and then prepare him to live in the new, multi-racial, and multiethic culture. The child must be so trained and selected that he will not become a polluter as his parents were. The best students are routed into leadership positions. In the future, there will be a greater need for Wal-Mart employees than for doctors. The school system must serve society by training pupils for the needs of society and the needs of the corporation. There is no need to train a nation of leaders who are all capable of understanding how the culture works and molds them. The student needs to be able to work at the many entry level jobs and to enjoy spending what money they do earn. They must want to raise only one or two children of their own. They must be made to feel guilty for waste and to understand that any prosperity comes only by destroying the planet. The individual person must understand that the earth is very poor and while it can be pleasant, the dream of riches for everyone is a false dream. People become rich by discriminating against minorities, and by exploiting the environment. The new world culture cannot tolerate such opulence. For the Christian education was also the introducing of the child into the realm of the eternal. Life was not only love and service, it was something that could last forever. An understanding of this was part of all education. Education could not save the child, but without an intellectual understanding of the Bible and the ability to read it, there was no hope of entering into heaven. Education not only was designed to help one pursue a career, but it was designed to give one the tools of understanding the eternal order. A person who understood personal discipline through his schooling was more likely to
become a Christian than one who had no idea of the value of personal self control. The Christian school and the government school are designed with a purpose in mind. Each has a different world and culture in mind when it develops a curriculum. Each sees the child much differently: One the product of love, and the other as the product of natural forces. One sees a good child that needs to be trained into a particular direction, while the other sees the child as being born already corrupted, and the parents and school are there to lessen the inherited corruption. One sees basic reality as being a personality, and the other sees basic reality as being purely material. The differences between the two educations are immense. These differences are never discussed, and the differences between the Christian and government school are reduced to one of test scores. Which system can turn out the most proficient test taker? 15 THE BATTLE BETWEEN GOD’S JUDGMENT AND MAN’S JUDGMENT Every culture has a way of enforcing it standards upon its members. If any culture loses this ability to enforce its standards, then it is no longer a viable culture. This is seen in the trademark and licensing wars. When a manufacturer no longer enforces its licenses or trademark, it is considered by law as having abandoned its right to own that trademark. It can no longer take anyone to court for violating its ownership of such rights. The same thing applies to every culture. Jokes are made about political correctness, but that is just one culture trying to enforce what it believes are its rights. Every culture through all time enforces its standards of culture. No culture is accepted by everyone living under its jurisdiction. Even the most popular culture will find some who wish to rebel against the system. Usually rebels are in a minority and can be dealt with through ordinary social ostracization. When a culture is in its ascendency or in decline, it will find itself under
attack from organized opposition. Such organized attacks must be judged and held up to punishment and ridicule. Looking back upon other cultures in history, it is often amusing to the modern man, to list the various behaviors and beliefs held up for punishment. Many suffered greatly during the Dark Ages as they refused to assert their belief that the water and wine during communion actually turned into the blood and body of Christ. Others suffered over various beliefs about the proper method of baptism. While seeming minor, these small disagreements were attacks on the weakest links in a culture. Such attacks if not thwarted will result in other attacks. That is why a culture, when viewed from the outside, appears very narrow. It is not that cultures cannot tolerate differences, it is that cultures cannot tolerate even small differences over the core beliefs. In the new world culture, the beliefs of ethical and racial pluralism are core beliefs. Those who in even the most slight manor joke or challenge such beliefs must be punished. The media, in our culture, is full of examples of people being judged and punished in the public eye for minor racial and ethical slurs. To use a racial slur can end up costing a person his job. The penalty for cultural crimes is often more severe than crimes which are merely bad behavior. The same is true with those who challenge the foundations of a government. It is one thing to rob another person, but the attempt to protest the legality of the current tax system, lands a person in more trouble and expense than he can handle. It is easy to see which cultures are most vulnerable and where their weakest links are by the behaviors which held up for public ridicule. The banning of Christmas carols in primary schools looks very ridiculous on the surface. But it reveals a fear on the part of the new world culture. If the culture is to succeed in becoming worldwide, not even the smallest expression of Christianity must be allowed to remain. Even the smallest expression must become cultural incorrect and an offense to other religious faiths. Christianity must be made to appear as being rude, arrogant, and intolerant in the new world cultural system. To allow minor expressions of this faith would open up
the possibility of a revival of Christianity. Christianity also requires a discipline within its churches and within its culture. It is no different than any other cultural system. While the Bible is very strict in regard to the Ten Commandments, it is quite tolerant of many behaviors not covered by such laws. There is no vast regulation or control system. One reason that the system is often pictured as oppressive is that most of the Biblical regulations concern property, sex, and worship. These three give offense to moderns more than anything else. The vast freedom allowed outside of the few regulations is not appreciated because of the restrictions in these three areas. The pictures of religious intolerance are often in its enforcement of rules in these three areas. The oft-quoted statement, ‘judge not that you be not judged,’ is used to condemn Christians who form or apply any judgments. That other verses require Christian judgment is overlooked. What critics of Christianity have in mind is not a definitive understanding of the Bible, but they desire to keep Christians out of the public forum. To not make any judgments would mean a person would go through life without any defenses against evil. To not make judgments would open a person to a charge of fatalism, which is what it is: Whatever will be will be. Life must be accepted as it comes and no discernment is necessary. All that is required is to live life on a minute to minute basis. Judgment is part of living and making daily decisions. Any survey of secular governments must reveal that every government that is not limited by the Bible, ends up making more and more judgments about every little detail of life. As governments gain power, that power must be justified and maintained. Ever increasing judgment is applied to every area of life. Even the taxes become ever more complex and require more and application of power for their enforcement. When men seek to free themselves from the judgments of God, they are replaced with judgments that are far more severe and intimidating. The bottom line is not freedom, but the desire to be free from God. Most people will gladly replace obedience to God with slavery to another man. It does not make sense, but it is in a backhand
way, the proof of what the Bible is saying about man’s rebellious nature. 16 THE DEITY OF CHRIST VERSUS MAN’S DEITY
One of the myths of the twentieth century is the idea that a secular government and culture are possible. We have dealt previously with the impossibility of being totally neutral in the face of the facts of the universe. Every fact requires a system of interpretation. That are no facts that can be interpreted outside of some system. Only something divine can create an interpretive system. A mere mortal would never be able to gather all of the facts and make some systematic analysis. Even if some mere mortal mind were to gather ninety-nine per cent of the facts into a coherent system, there is always the possibility that there is some fact, as yet undiscovered, will yet bring about the downfall of such a philosophical edifice. Every culture must have a deity that provides a system of interpretation. If the God of the Bible is thrown out, then He must be replaced. Either a false church will arise, which claims to speak for God, or a dictator will arise who claims to speak as the final authority. When anyone wants to analyze a culture, the first step is to locate the divine in that particular culture. If you can identify the divine center of a nation or culture, then the rest of that group’s behavior will make sense in terms of that particular divine. In the United States, the divine is located in the government in Washington, D.C. Every problem seeks out Washington for some solution. Every need seeks satisfaction through some government-imposed solution. Every political difference seeks to find its view validated by the Washington power structure. Just as the Catholic Church has the Vatican, the United States has Capital Hill. The battle between the early church and the Roman Empire was a battle for the location of the divine in society. The Romans realized quite early that neither Caesar nor Jesus could share their divinity with another. One or the other would have to go. In that particular battle, Jesus won out over Caesar. The next stage in
history was a battle between the new church structure and the person of Jesus. The battle was fought over the nature of the divine in the body of Jesus. Was Jesus a man who attained godhead, or was He incarnated as God? And if God came down and inhabited a man, did his human nature become God? The solution arrived at by the early Christians was that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and his two natures did not intermingle. He was God, but His humanity did not become God. It was a temple of God. This solution declared that the incarnation was a one-time event. Human nature can never become divine and human institutions can never become divine through some divine occupation. There was a total separation between the divinity and man. The only contact is through the mediation of Jesus the Messiah. Nevertheless, the history of the world is the attempt of various men and their creations to become divine and have the authority of the godhead. There was no evolutionary process that any man or system could grow into a form of the divine. Every attempt of any man to attain divinity will only result in chaos. To locate divinity and its attributes in some temporary man or system will invite rebellion from their subjects. Every human god is not satisfied with just ruling, but in time wants to be served and worshiped by everyone. Every temporary god wants to take on the character of the real God. In the Bible, not only are earthly manifestations of God forbidden, the powers that God delegates to man are to be separated. The story of the Bible is the separation of the priest from the king. The separation of the church and state is important to the success of any culture. Unfortunately, this separation in today’s form means the separation of the government from God. This is not what the Bible has in mind. The powers of the church and the state are separate powers, but both hold their powers only under the authority given to it by God. Neither the priest nor the king is to take on the character of God, or to lust after the power and worship that belong only to God. This separation of the church and state is not a separation of the material from the spiritual. The current idea is that we live in
a physical realm and a material realm: The church rules over the invisible spiritual kingdom, and the state rules over the material world. This is not what the Bible is talking about. When Jesus became man, he inhabited a material body. The body is part of the spiritual. Jesus was not a ghost inside a body. His body while not mingling with His divinity, was not alien to His person. Christians today, not understanding this, attempt to escape from the body and its rigors in an attempt to become more spiritual. The church rules over the material world just as much as the state rules over the world. The separation is in terms of jurisdiction. The church is to be involved in education and welfare. It is not the role of the church to raise an army for a defense of the land. And it is not the role of the state to try to feed every person in the land who is hungry. Neither the church nor the state is to be spiritual in the modern sense of the word. Both are to deal with the realities of this world. Both are to rule under the authority given it by God. Both are limited in their powers and neither is divine nor to be worshiped. Also, neither is to attempt to supply the needs in men’s lives which only God can give. This is not a perfect world, and all men everywhere will go through life with some needs left unmet. Any attempt to supply men with their every need is an attempt to replace God with some human institution. The history of the world has seen both the church and the state attempt to become divine. The current stage of the divine state in the twenty-first century will meet the same fate as the attempt of the medieval church to become divine. The Bible appears to teach that there will be a third stage in history. This will be the final stage in man’s history. The state and the church will unite to form a one world rule. Each will attempt to support the divine powers that each covets so dearly. There will be one great attempt to cure man from his sinful and fallen condition through the power of the state bureaucracy and the rituals of the church. The Bible predicts that the two powers will be defeated and at the end of history only one power will be left standing that can offer to men the cure that they have been seeking for six thousand years. One of the purposes of this study has been to take the
masks off the world in which we have to live. So much of our daily struggles are disguised from our own mind. We seek cures for things which have no cure and we try to heal problems which all of the wrong solutions. The story of history is the chronicle of man’s attempt to admit his real need and the fight over who is allowed to heal that hurt. After all of the misdeeds of history, there are very few who will not admit that mankind has a problem. There are also very few who do not see a need for some form of divine help. The battles have been over where the divine is to be found and what part of man needs to be cured. The Bible states that the final conclusion of history will read thus: Man’s problem is sin caused by his rebellion from God, and the cure is the Cross of Jesus, the Savior of Mankind. Children used to be trained to think in these terms when they learned their Mother Goose. The story of Humpty Dumpty is a picture of reality: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, All of the King’s horses, And all of the King’s men, Could not put Humpty together again. No religion and no government can put Humpty together again. History records the failures. More failures will ensue until all mankind recognizes that only the Cross of Jesus can put man back together again. The story of history has been a constant conflict. There have been repeated attempts to find the key to mankind and the meaning of existence.