Hannity Provides Good Reasons for Defending Immigration Ban

January 31, 2017

While many are outraged about Trump’s immigration ban, Sean Hannity is outraged, as well. Not by the immigration laws, however, but by what he describes as radical Leftists “coming unhinged over Trump’s executive order, mischaracterizing it in order to paint the president as an extremist, or bigot.” The reporter further provides the motive of resistance, “What it comes down to is very simple: Democrats, overpaid celebrities and the mainstream media are willing to endanger our lives to score cheap political points.”

Pointing out the fact that this is only a temporary ban not specifically directed to Muslims—a reality which #muslimban tweeters conveniently fail to mention—Sean depicts Trump’s recent executive order in a much different light: that is, as a safety precaution against terrorist-infiltration. He additionally notes that the mainstream media is responsible for demonizing actions which many Democrat leaders, including former President Barack Obama and even Hillary, once admitted necessary.

Meanwhile in the Christian realm, believers are divided over the obligation and political implications of love. Shouldn’t Christians accept with open arms the stranger in their midst? Others respond that Christians have a duty to steward the resources given them in protection of one’s own people. While the initial argument appears from first glance to be the most self-sacrificing and Christ-like, this author owns the latter view for a few different—and may I say, unashamedly—fairly good, common-sense reasons.

First of all, this is merely a temporary ban. It is not an order directed at any one class of people, but one which takes grave consideration in hand. More than Muslims and even more than foreign relations, the core of the issue here seems almost entirely extinct to today’s American mind: common defense.

Donald Trump has contextually never actually refused immigration of any kind unless it happens to also be illegal. Indeed, the president treats citizenship—as does his wife and fellow immigrant—as he treats all law, and that is, simply, it must be lawful. And isn’t this, after all, the predominant duty of the executive chief who is Constitutionally bound to uphold the laws of his nation? Following in the footsteps of the founding fathers and even Patriarch George Washington’s wisdom, Trump is determined to make national security his priority. Our own founding document provides focus as follows:

To establish: “…Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Note that the emphases require a nationalistic perception. James Madison even goes so far as to call it the “cardinal duty of every citizen.”

Despite Britain’s petition containing 1 million signatures to refuse a Trump-visit as well as former President Obama’s warning that “American values are at stake,” Trump remains unmoved. And rightly so. And shame on citizens who have neglected their “cardinal duty” of not only failing to support our president’s efforts at being lawful, but also for failing to apply a lawful attitude ourselves. Indeed, if any Scripture passage is to be utilized in upholding any action here, a review of Romans 13, I believe, is in order:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.” Romans 13:1-3

Advertisements

United Nations’ View of ‘Rights’ All Wrong!

November 27, 2012


The US Senate to vote on this treaty Wednesday, November 28, request your US Senators to oppose it tomorrow, Tuesday, November 27, 2012!

Link to 20-minute radio interview informing on the dangers of the UN Convention On the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

http://www.promosuiteinteractive.com/onlinedb/wrjzam/audio/2012.11.13-07.30.00-S.mp3

Visitwww.hslda.org/crpd for more info.


Onward Christian Soldier – A Tribute to Jeff Ziegler

March 5, 2012

The Church Universal has only two divisions.

  1. The Church Militant – Ecclesia Militans – are those Christians living on earth. They are the Christian militia who struggle against sin, the flesh, the devil and “… the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).
  2. The Church Triumphant – Ecclesia Triumphans – are those Christians who are in Heaven. Although progressive sanctification takes place through this struggle on earth, those who pass on to be present with the Lord are made perfect “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:52).

As much as anyone I have ever known, Jeff Ziegler was a man who understood the meaning of the Church Militant. On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Jeff became part of the Church Triumphant. He has been relieved of all earthly struggle and has been made perfect in Christ.

Jeff had suffered a cerebellar aneurysm in late 2009 and had been recovering from what is certain death in about 97 percent of cases. Doctors called his recovery late December of that year a “Christmas miracle.” Last week, Jeff suffered a heart attack while doing work at the Ohio State House. This was apparently unrelated to the earlier episode.

I first met Jeff when he was a speaker in our church, The Boston Worship Center, in 1987. A group of us took him on a “revival tour” of northern New England visiting several of the churches where a hero in the faith, George Whitefield, had preached. Jeff later traveled to England and Scotland and was able to preach in one of the pulpits frequented by Whitefield. In the 25 years I knew him, Jeff was a man driven by a vision for Revival and Reformation.

He went through quite a theological evolution in his lifetime. However, in all my dealings with Jeff, he was always Jeff. In the early 1990s, after I came to Florida to work on The Forerunner. Jeff would contribute frequent articles, which I’ve posted links to below. Our phone calls often went on for a long time and covered every topic imaginable. Jeff had a huge impact on my thinking as a young Christian involved in full-time missionary and evangelistic work. I saw him whenever he came to Florida and visited Cleveland for two conferences he organized. Jeff was always very gracious, yet direct when he needed to be. For example, he used to call me when I was doing print version of The Forerunner to give me names of donors that were generous with him. He did that without my solicitation just trying to help me.

Jeff took a role in leading several organizations throughout Ohio for the purpose of direct action in reforming culture and politics. One of the former members of his church recently described him as “a gentleman of the first order … he lived what he believed, a rare commodity in 2012.”

He later took part in video productions I produced, including God’s Law and Society and the following clip as part of a World Changers Seminar on the Capitol Mall in Washington D.C.

One of the hallmarks of Jeff’s preaching is that he always threw his whole heart and being into his message, speaking with the same forceful tone and volume no matter if it were a crowd of hundreds or less than a handful of people in a small seminar. We recently worked together on the Statesman Global Initiatives website and blog. Jeff’s most recent book, Republic Restored, was accepted into the Library of Congress.

Recent years had more than their share of personal trials and medical turmoil that took a toll on this soldier for Christ, but he can rejoice that he has joined the Church Triumphant.


God’s Law and Society: An Interview with Jeff Ziegler

Question:– Didn’t the Apostle Paul say that we are no longer under law but under grace? If so, then what is the use of the Law of God under the New Covenant?

Jeff Ziegler: The notion of being “under grace and not law” is something not to be underestimated or undermined. But what is it Paul is saying? We are not saved nor justified by law. We are justified by faith in Christ. It is His finished work alone that secures our redemption. However, how is it that we are to live our lives? Is it by every whim or every fancy of our own wicked heart — a deceitful heart that we cannot know? The Law of God has not passed away in terms of our guide for life in godliness. Jesus himself said that “not one jot nor tittle will pass away” until all things are fulfilled. Christ as the fulfillment of the law gives us the grace, which is divine almighty power effective on our behalf. He gives us the grace to live according to the law not to transgress the law. We see in Romans 6:1, “Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” And how is it we know that we sin? We have an unchanging standard in God’s Law.

Now granted, there have been portions of Old Testament Law that have been changed or nullified. For example, the sacrificial system is no longer needed and is repugnant to God because Christ is the final and last sacrifice. The dietary laws have been modified and changed. But the moral law is still binding. For example, the laws against bestiality in the Old Testament are no where repeated in the New. Yet no one will say that bestiality is somehow now under grace. It’s still sin. The ideas and notions of our conduct are in the Law of God. They are not options. They are commands. They have not been nullified or abridged in any way by Christ’s finished work. In fact, now that law is written upon our heart and our mind and we are given grace to follow hard after them in a way that was not possible in the old dispensation.

Of course, Christianity is ultimately personal and intimate. We come by the finished work of Jesus Christ into a living, real and vital relationship with God. The creation can touch the Creator — the Christ. That brings joy unspeakable and full of glory — there can be no doubt. But then what? This personal, real and vital relationship must be manifest. The Great Commission says that we are to be a witness unto all nations. We are to teach those nations all the things that Christ did depict and declare. That means that we are to enforce, declare and disciple the nations, every tribe, every kindred, every ethnic grouping under and according to God’s Law.

The idea that religion is only personal is actually heretical. That’s an ancient heresy called Gnosticism. They said that the material world was evil and the unseen world was innately spiritual. That’s why so many Christians in that era, and even today, have not had a proper view of sexuality, the family, the role of the Church, their role in society, and even the idea of work and creating wealth. They think the material world is evil. And therefore, they must cultivate material monastic ideas to be closer to Christ. But the idea of being close to Christ, the chosen fast of God, is to go out and set at liberty the captives. So whether it is preaching the Gospel to men so that they may be redeemed. Or whether that means going into the civil realm as a politician and declaring the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ there and ruling diligently according to the Law of God. Or whether that means being a home schooling mom and raising a generation of champions for Jesus Christ. At every realm, Christ the expression of the Gospel, His life is real and vital, and therefore it must have an outward flow.


Question:– Was the New Testament Church really a “New Testament” Church as we think of it today? In what ways was their situation different from ours?

Jeff Ziegler: The battle in America is between two ideas or notions and it is the Lordship of Jesus Christ versus the authority of the state or “Caesar.” And that’s really always been the question. Even in Christ’s day, in the Gospels we see that the issue is always framed around: What allegiance do we owe to Caesar? What are our duties? And what allegiance do we owe to Christ?

Romans 13 gives us the parameter by which we are to judge our actions in this way. Romans 13 declares what kind of civil magistrate or elected official is endorsed by God. This kind of civil magistrate be he a monarch, a king, a parliamentarian, a congressmen, a president, must affirm God’s law, punish wickedness, and affirm and reward righteousness. That is the kind of civil magistrate we are to obey. However, if the civil magistrate becomes tyranny to God’s ways and in fact punishes righteousness and rewards wickedness, by virtue of their call to obey God’s Law-Word in every jot and tittle, by His grace, Christians must be resolved to resist tyranny and to stand against such injustice.

While there was no implicit call to resist the tyranny of Rome by Paul, the fact that he gave us that filter in Romans 13 actually was a defense of the civil disobedience of the early church. The very preaching of the Gospel, the serving of Christ as the Lord of the nations, as He being God alone and no the Caesar cult, that was an act of civil disobedience. That’s the reason why the Christians were persecuted and hounded and sent to the catacombs and put into the coliseums in the fierce competitions and the persecutions of Imperial Rome. It was the fact that they were not obeying the Caesar cult. So Romans 13 is a defense of the Gospel, but when we act upon the Gospel, when we preach the Gospel, when we live the Gospel, it is inevitably going to bring us in conflict with Caesar — or the state that would be God.

When we look throughout the book of Acts and we see the Apostles, the deacons, and simple Christians being brought before civil magistrates giving an account for their faith and the Apostle Paul is one of these. And the question comes down to: When it is Christ versus Caesar, do we obey God and His Law or man? That is the issue between Christ and Caesar and on that there can be no neutrality, if we consistently live the Gospel, preach the Gospel, demonstrate the Gospel. Even the idea of rescuing babies — the early church were taking abandoned babies that were left under the bridge abutment to die by Roman paganism. They were taking them as their own and adopting them and raising them in the faith. That was against Roman law. A true Gospel expression will always bring us into conflict, not with the civil magistrate that God ordains, but with the civil magistrate who seeks to dethrone God and become God himself.


Question:– Can we really legislate the biblical standards of morality on non-Christians? The non-Christian doesn’t even believe in the Bible, so how can we even talk about building a society based on the Law of God?

Jeff Ziegler: The idea that we can be governed by many moralities, or pluralism, is really a myth. We are either in obedience to God’s Law or we are in opposition to God’s Law. Now there is a concern in a mechanistic sense that we are going to impose God’s Law through an ecclesiocracy, that is a rule through the clergy, or through some dictatorship as in an Islamic nation. That is a misinterpretation of biblical Law. Biblical Law when it regards civil polity, is the ultimate decentralized government. Scripture does not support nor trust dictatorships. The whole idea behind God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel was that man was coming together. He had all of his strength in one central location and had a global government. And God by once stroke of the hand decentralized that government and turned the languages against one another and formed nation-states from that one expression of a global tyranny.

That is the paradigm of the liberal. Liberals and humanists think in terms of statism. They must have the state to coerce and to force their ideas upon the people. They don’t have another way of thinking. The state is messiah for them. When they look upon us and see our ideas and notions, that we are fighting for biblical law being applied to all of life, they can’t think in any other terms. They think it’s going to be a top-down theocratic, oligarchic or monarchic system. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s not revolution or political dictatorships that we place our faith in, rather it’s the power of conversion. We are converting literally millions to the idea that God’s Law is supreme. We see these revolutionary trends in home schooling, in ecclesiastical reform, and in the civil realm as we elect expressly and explicitly Christian politicians — not simple neo-conservatives — but Christians who acknowledge God’s Law.

As we see this, one family at a time, one church at a time, one community at a time, one state at a time, America will be converted. It will be through conversion and not revolution that we see this great reordering and restructuring and reanchoring of our society to God’s Law. Now there will always be those who are autonomous rebels, who trample underfoot the Son of God, who count the blood of the covenant to be unholy. They will always seek to overthrow God’s rule. In the family, we see it with divorce and abortion. We see it in the church with ecclesiastical anarchists, those who will not be governed by sound doctrine. We see it in civil states. But only if they resort to violent means to overthrow godly order would they be suppressed. But they would not be suppressed by clergymen, but by a decentralized federal republic.


Question:– How did Christian philosophy influence our form of civil government?

Jeff Ziegler: There is great consternation and controversy about what Christ’s Lordship actually means in the real world. Most Christians will not argue with the fact that He does rule our lives. He is the ruler, the Lord, the King of their families and their church. But much beyond that, the idea of Christ’s Lordship begins to fall on deaf ears. The retort you often hear revolves around the time period when Christ is before Pilate’s inquisition and says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Let’s put this in context however. Christ was not saying that His kingdom was not manifest in the world. What he was saying to Pilate “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of society is touched by the kingdom of God.

Now how does this work practically? If every time we’ll confess, “Every knee will bow” before Christ, that He is the Lord, that monarchs, kings, state representatives, congressmen, and presidents must bow their knee before God. By what standard will they bow the knee? Yes, it gets back to God’s Law. The kingdom has no place in terms of seeking approval or legitimacy here in the earth. It doesn’t need the president’s approval to exist. It’s authority comes from the other world. And therefore it is superior and higher. But the kingdom is manifest in the world and Christ’s Lordship is manifest in the world in the civil realm, in the family, in every aspect of society, economics, science etc. Christ’s Lordship has the claim.

We talk about the crown rights of Jesus Christ. By virtue of the finished work of Jesus Christ, He has the right to rule. He has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He has reconciled all things in heaven and in earth, the visible and the invisible, the living and the dead. He rules over all. Christ’s kingdom is comprehensive in scope and absolute in its authority.


Question:– Were the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution drafted to uphold the moral laws of God — or were they Deistic humanist documents? If they were Christian documents, where have we gone so far off track?

Jeff Ziegler: There is no question that our Founding Fathers were an amalgamation of some Deistic humanists, Puritan thought as well as high Anglicanism, all mixed together and jostling for position in the context of our founding federal documents. However, there was an acknowledgment of man’s overriding depravity, the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely was not a foreign idea to these men. In looking at the Hebrew Commonwealth in its decentralized forms of government, our founding fathers in their wisdom, set about to create a system where there would be checks and balances against this idea of absolute power, government by man, tyrannical carnality, with three branches of government, all of which are supposed to work to counter balance the other. At least theoretically, they would keep in check any tyrannical impulse.

Unfortunately, that assumes these three institutions are appealing to God’s Law. No matter how good the system, unless it is under the aegis and covering of God’s Law, any system can revert to tyranny. It can be the tyranny of the majority of paganism, of humanism. Even in Israel, in the Hebrew Commonwealth, when they began to apostatize and fall away from God’s Law, what did they begin to cry out for? — a tyrant, a king “like all he other nations.” They paid the price for it in terms of wars, tyrannical suppression and taxation, and ultimately in the division of their nation in two separate entities and then the invasion of foreign pagan powers to bring them under the enslavement of their anti-God ways. So they ultimately paid the price and we will too if we don’t turn back to God’s Law.

When we can compare biblical law versus natural law, scripture is the final immutable authority on every subject of which it speaks. It is binding not only on the regenerate that is the Christian, but the unregenerate alike. You’ll either are following God’s Law and prospering accordingly, or you’ll be broken by it. It doesn’t change. So whether you acknowledge it or not, it exists, and all men are judged by its standards.

Now there is certainly natural revelation. God has made himself known in the creation — there is evidence of his creation everywhere. But ultimately it is not evidence that man needs. It’s conviction of sin and to have his miscreant depraved nature arrested. The role of the civil magistrate is to keep a biblical and sound order, to prosper the righteous and to punish wickedness. You can’t do that by natural revelation or natural law. Now it’s true that in a godly or predominantly godly society, men will understand natural law in a way that mimics or comes close to biblical law. We see that in the embryonic stages of our nation. However, natural law can be co-opted and pirated by corrupt alien and humanistic worldviews. Natural law can be interpreted from many different angles. In so doing, morality become relativistic.

However, that cannot be said of the Ten Commandments because not only do we have the explicit injunction “Thou shalt not kill” (or murder) or “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But we have case laws which interpret that law and how it is to be administered in the civil realm. So biblical law is superior because it is defined revelation. It is specific and applicable.


Question:– What about the “establishment of religion” clause in the U.S. Constitution? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution forbid the display of religion in the civil sphere?

Jeff Ziegler: The main differences between the Roman Empire under the Caesar cult and the early Church’s reaction to it and Christians today in a constitutional republic, despite the fact that we’ve lost so many of our freedoms, we still have remedy at law to begin to work within the process to restore and reconstruct our nation along biblical lines — simply to restore it to what it once was. Under the Roman authority, Christians did not have the means to defend themselves. Christians did not have the right to an appeal. But we have that process here. We have the right to defend ourselves. We have a Constitution. We have a Bill of Rights. We have elected representatives that we can work with, lower civil magistrates that we can work alongside, convert to the faith and even elect those who are explicitly Christian to these lower realms and then begin to work up into the governmental powers that be.

Reconstruction and reformation is a ground-up idea. The idea of seizing control of Washington D.C., of the Congress and presidency, is hopelessly naive. We have to reconstruct families. We have to reconstruct churches. We have to begin to work at the local level. We have to develop regional zones of kingdom influence. Within that realm, we are exhibiting, testifying, and working for the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. So in that realm Christians have a greater hope and an easier road to hoe than the early Christians did versus the imperial power of Rome.

It’s not as if this is a new thing that we are talking about. Our nation was founded under these strictures. If you go to any of the early colonial charters, the Fundamental Charters of Carolina, for example, there was a test for Christian orthodoxy for all civil magistrates and even land owners that they had to adhere to before they could be a recognized and vibrant part of the social fabric. We are not talking about anything that has not been done. It was done and accomplished in our nation and prior to the War Between the States, America prospered under such a mandate.

So we are not talking about Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. We are not talking about Islamic law. We’re talking about biblical law. If we go back and we look at the Commonwealth of the Hebrew Republic, before the kings, we see a very decentralized system of government. Many people have the notion that Moses was a dictator, but that was only in the initial stages of the Exodus, which was primarily a military operation. Soon after that we see that Moses was going to wear away the people and God not only gave 70 elders, but princes and captains of fifties and tens. So you had this incredibly decentralized system of government among the tribes of Israel. People could say it was inefficient, but the whole idea was a check and balance against man’s depravity. We modeled our constitutional republic after the Hebrew Commonwealth. That’s what we’re talking about here.


Question:– What about the idea that the government should be neutral and should recognize that we live in a democratic, pluralistic society?

Jeff Ziegler: Probably the greatest evidence of humanism’s collapse and the reactionary statist hand being felt is in the former monopoly that we call public education. Public education is no such thing; it’s government indoctrination. After all, whether it be Hitler, Stalin or Mao, tyrants always try to grab hold of the next generation to perpetuate their rebellion. The public school system on a number of different fronts is beginning to collapse — academically, economically because people are no longer voting for levies, and because it is becoming more centralized in Washington D.C. Centralization is never an answer. Any business man could tell you that if the public school elitists definitely wanted to succeed, they would not want to centralize, but that is what they are doing. As these things begin to happen, more and more individuals leave the public school system either for parochial schools, private schools or for home school.

The correct reason for home schooling is not simply the quality of education in the government run school system. It is to say that the government has no authority whatever over you children., You are the one who is ultimately responsible.

As more have home schools, as more move to the parochial schools what is happening is a literal depopulation of the public system. Laws are being enacted at the state and federal level to destroy the freedom the parents have over their children. Home schoolers think that they have fought most of the legal battles in the 1980s. Actually they are going to see that their own success is going to breed a greater backlash by the state against their efforts. Ultimately, the state believes, whether at the local municipality, state or federal government, that they own the children. And that is where the great backlash of a collapsing humanism is going to be felt. It is going to take courage, conviction and sound theology by Christian parents not only to resist the tyranny, but to fight for justice.


Question:– Wouldn’t a Christian Republic run according to God’s Law become oppressive to non-Christians?

Jeff Ziegler: Freedom, liberty, has one chief end, and that is to advance Christ’s rule, His reign, over all the nations and all the realms of the earth. Liberty without the sure anchor of Christian orthodoxy is really a Greco-Roman idea. It leads either on one hand to unfettered licentiousness and moral anarchy, or on the other, to a paternalistic tyranny. Because when you have moral anarchy, the state will move to suppress that anarchy. Without Christian orthodoxy, the hope of freedom and liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought is elusive at best.

When autonomous man seeks liberty from God, his first action is to revolt against God’s law in order to fulfill the lusts of his flesh. Thereafter this period of anarchy, the messianic state seeks to suppress this moral anarchy. At that point, you have tyranny. You have the liberal or the right wing imposing their own morality apart from God. And so the whole idea of liberty is connected intrinsically to the idea of God’s moral law. Liberty apart from God’s law is an impossibility. There is no neutrality on this issue. It’s either God’s law or chaos. And if we have chaos, we will have tyranny. God has designed all governments, whether they are fascist, communist or democratic republics, to gravitate towards stability. The only question is will it be the governance of God’s Law or communism or fascism or any other man-centered humanistic ideal. So man can have his licentious, lust-filled day in the sun. But he will pay a price in the ultimate loss of all freedom.

It is no accident that apostasy and heresy in the church and civil tyranny among nations walk hand in hand. The orthodox expression of Christianity is the final guarantor of our freedoms. And so if heresy and infidelity to orthodoxy gains ascendancy within the church, it will eventually work its way out into the civil sphere. People often ask me why we have such oppressive government in America today. And my answer is: Don’t point to Washington D.C., because, while it is Sodom on the Potomac, the real problem lies with the pulpits of America. Unless we affirm Christian orthodoxy and the resulting freedoms it has birthed and guaranteed throughout the years, we will continue to be enslaved by our statist masters.


Question:– What can Christians begin to do from a practical standpoint to begin to rebuild our nation according to the standard of the Law of God? What would a Christian America look like?

Jeff Ziegler: The way that the state attempts to supplant God is to intrude upon the God-given rights of personal property and the pursuit of happiness — the things which are codified in our founding documents. This is true of communism, fascism, socialism and even a democratic republic. When the state begins to tax property, when it says that property which is given to you by God is now subject to their rule and their reign. You no longer own that property. You have become a serf through property taxes and income taxes. God gives you the power to get wealth. He is not the disburser of wealth, but gives you the power to get wealth to honor God. When they begin to tax income, property and things of this nature, they are intruding upon rights that God has given you. If they curtail your speech regarding the Gospel. We see that around abortion mills in these “buffer zones” where you cannot preach the Gospel or declare God’s Law. These notions to control the freedom to worship God are all signs of tyranny.

But the good news is this. Tyranny only goes so far and so long before it begins to burn out. First, because of its own corruption. Second, because there is only so much money and so much property to tax. Eventually, this insatiable appetite for more has to be curtailed by simple arithmetic. In America today, we have reached the point where moral corruption, infidelity to Gods law in the civil realm, humanism as a life assistance in the collegiate realm among the intellectual elite, Darwinism, all of these notions are coming to the end of their political and social life span. In fact, I can hear the death rattle in the throat of humanism. They know it. This is in one way encouraging, but in another way it leads us to the most dangerous period. Whenever these systems begin to collapse, men who have tied their fortunes, their lives, their reputations to these corrupted and fallen paradigms become very vicious and violent.

We see this in the old Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union began to collapse, it was uneven. We see anarchy, murder, the Russian Mafia. Yet there could be more political tumult there and in Eastern Europe. We don’t see the end of this yet. The same thing could happen in America. When humanism ultimately collapses and Christians rise to the fore, we could see things like the break-up and realignment of the United States. What is happening in the Soviet Union could certainly happen here. Those are dangerous times when one system is collapsing and another system arises. My great hope is that there is sufficient reformation and reconstruction in the church so that when the paradigm of humanism ultimately collapses, we will be able in the crisis to fill that vacuum. Otherwise, we’ll exchange one tyranny for another.


Jeff Ziegler: The Reformation Worldview

On September 3rd, 2000, a few Christian activists and scholars gathered on the Mall in Washington D.C. to conduct a day-long seminar on “world changing.” Exactly one year later, terrorists attacked Washington and New York. It became apparent that America must fight a long and costly was on two fronts. While international terrorism is being fought on one front, Christians activists must wage a war against a more subtle attack by anti-Christian “terrorists” within.

This seminar has become more relevant in light of the events of 9/11.

We offer this seminar to the next generation of world changers who can be used of God to turn our nation back from humanist domination.


NUCLEAR COMBAT! More Obama Nonsense, Israel and Iran

February 24, 2012

By Jeffrey A. Ziegler

Of all the myriad of questions I receive on a monthly basis, two subjects of late seem to be dominant. The first area: deals with me dying and God raising me back to life, and the second deals with nuclear war between Israel and Iran with variables on that theme lately engendered by the “Oaf and Chief” Obama and his delusional quest for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Given the many advanced technologies I deal with as it concerns National Defense, I have to be somewhat guarded in what and how I answer. But I hope to give sufficient explanations that will encourage you to dig for answers!

Q: What is your view on President Obama’s proposal to cut our nuclear weapons by 80%?? After all, don’t we have enough atomic weapons to blow-up the world 20 times over?

A: First: your statement concerning “blowing-up” the world is a lot of pseudo-science wrapped in propaganda. No matter the number of “warheads” possessed by the United States, it is important to note that these are WEAPONS that are targeted by the WEAPONS of any combination of our potential adversaries. Meaning “warheads” don’t deploy themselves at strategic points throughout the world and detonate to create a “doomsday” effect. The numbers of warheads and weapon systems are determined by how many will be lost in combat and NOT detonated! Such fanciful baloney has always been promoted by anti-nuclear advocates to scare the populace into unilateral disarmament. Such is the liberal ooze from which Obama has spawned and is in direct correlation to his radical desires to disarm our nuclear capability! Obama seeks to reduce our deliverable warheads from 5,000 to less than 300. In other words, 50 less warheads than Red China and 3,700 less than Russia. This warped notion places the remaining weapon systems in the US arsenal in a “check-mate” position in that they can easily be found, targeted and overwhelmed in combat. In practical scenarios, the U.S. is placed as the “blackmailed” nation to those left with overwhelming firepower. Obama seeks to reverse the US victory in the Cold War! Not to mention self-inflicted vulnerability to emerging nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea! One other point of reference is worth noting. In 1968: when I was in the second grade, the US boasted 37,000 nuclear warheads! Nuclear weapons have kept major powers in check and left the US mainland unmolested from annihilation. On this ground alone Obama must go! For the sake of your families, Obama must go! For future generations of your sons and daughters, Obama must go! For the sake of our sacred dead, Obama must go! For the preservation of liberty, Obama must go!

Q: What is the prospect of nuclear war between Israel and Iran?

A: There are a number of considerations that must be considered before drawing out various scenarios

1)  Israel is an “undeclared” nuclear power. (10-20 “atomic” weapons by 1968 and work on a “Hydrogen” weapon 1989. Today’s estimate: 273 warheads of all types -2009).

2)  Israel has other means to attack Iran (Though with great logistical problems)

3)  Israel has the means to deliver a nuclear attack with Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (Jericho II) and submarine launched cruise missiles (Harpoon and Tomahawk).

4)  Iranian nuclear facilities – (Research, Reactors, and Missile bases) are spread over 23 different localities. Some are hardened against “conventional” attack. This presents a logistical challenge to the Israeli Airforce (Chel Ha’ Avir) which is basically a “tactical” air arm without the general “strategic” capability needed to attack the Iranian structures in a comprehensive fashion. In other words what is a relatively easy objective for the Americans to achieve using “conventional” forces is “herculean” for Israel.

5)  Hence: if Israel were to opt for conventional means of attack (F-15, F-16 with “bunker-buster” weapons), it would be best employed in conjunction with US forces both in “combat” and with “logistical” support. Example: US aircraft carriers in the region (Enterprise, Abraham Lincoln, and Carl Vinson) equal the entire Chel Ha’ Avir in number and far exceed in logistical capability and striking power. A U.S. assist for the Chel Ha’ Avir would ensure the obliteration of the Iranian threat for at least 20 years using “conventional” weapons!

6)  As Obama has demonstrated no inclination to help Israel or to take on Iran militarily, Israel is left with little time and only her own nuclear strike capability to counter the Iranian threat.

7)  Therefore, while there are many details that can and should be covered on our topic, for the sake of this Q&A, the use of nuclear weapons against Iran will not take place if there is a joint American-Israeli conventional response or if the Americans act alone. However: the absence of American might increases dramatically the possibility of nuclear combat in the region. Time will soon tell the story!

FOR MORE SEE WWW.S-G-I.ORG

 


CHRISTMAS 2010 THE IMAGE OF GOD, THE INCARNATION, AND THE SPIRIT OF HEROD

December 5, 2010

Jeff Ziegler, SGI President

Jeffrey A. Ziegler: President SGI

Matthew 2:1-8; 13-18 “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,  Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. . . . And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

St. Matthew’s gospel depicts here the infamous Herodian persecution of his own people. On the surface, Herod’s murderous rampage would seem just another ruthless political ploy the likes of which have been habitually played out upon the stage of world history. However, what is at stake, in these all too familiar verses, moves far beyond mere political intrigue.

The spirit of Herod is the spirit of resistance, recalcitrance, and rebellion to the rule of God. This insolence is always manifest in one form or another with attempts to destroy “the image of God” upon man. The Incarnation, or God becoming flesh, represents the ultimate expression of “the image of God” resting on the perfect man, even the God-man, Jesus Christ. In Christ, the power, grandeur and absolute authority of the other world is revealed over and against every temporal earthly realm. Herod is caught up in the great conflict of the ages and moves to exterminate the One who is both fully God and fully man, at the same time, yet diminished in neither aspect. Herod, whose god is his belly would not have the celestial image of the Christ eclipse his own pathetic existence and hence defiles his nation in a bloody holocaust of the innocents.

This was not the first time the battle over “the image of God” was fought. In fact, it is a battle that still rages across all spheres of government whether these conflicts be found in self, familial, ecclesiastical or in civil forms.

IN THE BEGINNING

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

In the creation, God makes man in His image. Immediately connected to this act rests the idea of mans dominion over every aspect of life. Authority and earthly governance is exhibited by the image of God upon man. In Genesis 3:1-6; Satan tempts man with the offer of even greater power. No longer contented with the status of “image bearer”, a delegated administration, Adam succumbs to the offer of becoming as a god himself. Adam attempts to breech the creator-creation distinction resulting in the annulment of the perfect communion between God and His created “image bearer.”

Nonetheless, in Genesis 3:15; God initiates a war that will reestablish “ the image of God” through  successive generations of  faithful people or “the seed of the woman” culminating in the new Adam; Jesus Christ, the definitive “image bearer.” Theologically termed the “protoevangelium” its promise ordains the crushing of the serpents power and the complete suppression of his seed. Herein the conflict is fixed. God’s image resting upon His people, exercising authority in terms of His inscripturated will against the minions of Satan and their maniacal quest to extirpate the witness of godly rule in the earth.

THE ORDER OF BATTLE

The narrative of Genesis 4:1-2 renders a tragic accounting of this battle on a familial level. Cain and Abel offer their sacrifices before God. Abel’s devotedness and love for God marks his sacrifice as superior to that of Cain. Undergirded with the vitality of faith toward God, Abel presents the greater testimony, exhibits the greater favor of God and with it, a greater authority that according to Hebrews 11:4 speaks even to this day. Cain is eclipsed and provoked to jealousy. He singles out his brother for murder in order to remove his righteously provocative deportment. The way of Cain is alive and well in the hearts of men. Such lives are marked by bitterness, envy, slanderous mischief and blame-shifting, and when the lust for illegitimate power is at full song, are more than capable of murder. Suppression of the “image of God” can and often does become very personal and familial resulting in whole households being thrown into chaos.

This familial fury is again illustrated in Genesis 37 as Joseph’s brothers seek to silence “the dreamer” first by leaving him for dead in a pit and then by selling him to the “Ishmaelites.” The image of God upon a man signified in earthly dominion is again the pivotal issue around which these heinous acts of envious suppression revolve. Genesis 37:8; and his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? Or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. Unlike Abel, Joseph’s testimony is not destined for martyrdom, but instead rises to administrate Pharaoh’s Egypt, and subsequently, exercises rule and authority over his less than admirable brothers

Less dramatic, but perhaps more typical, is the narrative of Hannah found in I Samuel 1:1-14.  Hannah, desirous of a son wholly dedicated to God, entreats the Lord with an indomitable spirit and strong crying and tears. She will not be comforted. She is zealous for the testimony of God. Yet, she is faced with continual harassment and cruel mocking both from within her family and the current ecclesiastical regime. Hannah’s husband Elkanah, was married also to Peninnah, who had born his only children. Of Peninnah, the Scriptures tell that she set herself against Hannah and “… provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.” Elkanah, though he loved Hannah added absurdity to Penniniah’s cruelty when he exclaimed “… Hannah, why weepest thou? And why eatest thou not? And why is thy heart grieved? Am not I better to thee than ten sons? (In a contemporary sense it is shocking to see just how many “churchmen” have the same arrogant, immature attitude about their wives and children ),Then, it follows that Eli the priest of the Lord, apparently unaccustomed to such inspired, passionate, and purposeful praying as  demonstrated by Hannah, adds insult to injury as he observes Hannah’s intercession. And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth. Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.

While no violence is done to Hannah, her testimony and her desire for a greater testimony through her son is scorned, undermined, and lampooned, both by her husband and the priest From a ministry perspective: I have observed, rather commonly, the insanely jealous behavior of husbands who have threatened their wives for “praying too much” or because they have gained satisfaction from being used of the Lord. The lesson of Hannah teaches that at the end of the day, all those who would compete with the Lord for attention have lost the race before it starts. All who mock or seek to efface the image of God upon redeemed humanity are destined to declension and final destruction.

GOVERNMENT AND THE USURPATION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD

While it has been explained that unregenerate men, and even regenerate, but obstinate men, strive against the “image of God”, such conflicts are not confined to personal relationships. The spirit of tyranny exemplified by Herod against Christ, has always found fertile ground in civil government.

Governmental wars against the authority of Christ and His image bearers generally fall into two hellish stratagems. The first, hinges upon blatant tyranny and persecution. Biblically, this is best portrayed by Pharaoh’s oppression of the Hebrews as found in Exodus 1:7-22. Persecution, enslavement, and the murder of innocents are all driven by Pharaoh’s fear of the might, power, and multiplication of God’s chosen and blessed image bearers.

Again, at the civil level, this same madness is demonstrated in I Samuel with King Saul’s ever increasing jealousies and hatred for David. Political machinations against the anointed man of God abound including attempted murder, as Saul seeks to hold on to power. Machiavellian political thought undoubtedly benefited greatly from Saul’s example.

As our theme anthem from St Matthew’s Gospel declares, Herod was driven by the same devilish designs as Pharaoh even adopting the tactic of generational genocide though, in his case, such designs were forged against his own people. The spirit of Herod is the spirit of tyrannical totalitarianism and has been manifest in the civil realm throughout world history. Whether this took on the form of Roman Imperial persecutions, various dictatorships and pagan empires warring against Christianity, or the modern exemplifications of such evil; Fascism and Communism, all sought the eradication of the image of God in order to establish their rebel claims to ultimate authority.

However, it is the second stratagem which poses the greater threat to God’s people. That being the power of governmental coercion based upon false doctrines pertaining to man and his perceived sense of autonomy from God. No better example of this can be found then in the building of the tower of Babel as found in Genesis 11:1-6. Mankind is of one voice, collectively banded together, blinded by the lust to make themselves a name in the highest places of heaven, so as to dethrone God and place man in His stead. The desire to be as God brings contempt for the mantle of “image bearer” and hence man; corporately repeats the singular original transgression of Adam. This is the rationale of President Obama.

In a contemporary sense, this motif replicates the anthem of Humanism. Humanism, replete with its own manifesto is a full orbed religion that aspires to the deification of man through statist, pagan and occultic influences. In repudiating Christian orthodoxy, principally the notion of God’s transcendence, Humanism becomes an amply articulated antichristian worldview. The humanistic notion elevates the state to the place of God and positions it as the author and protector of life. Ergo, from beginning to end, man is to be dependent on the state.

The world-life-view of Humanism can be depicted as a scientific-intellectual elite who has through time, reinvented God and ethics in man’s image; the antithesis of the Biblical record. Thus man as a god engineers a “superior secular culture,” ever evolving into a forced egalitarian cooperative society: theoretically resulting in an utopian ideal. The progress of the state is akin to divinity itself and therefore any religion that would impede such progress, or would attempt to decentralize its power is regarded as retrograde, fit for marginalization and eventual eradication. This was the anthem of the French Revolution and all other utopian social-political movements.

Humanistic thought wars against the image of God in the political realm through coercion. Such states erode or confiscate private wealth so as to take away the power of dominion and governance from individuals and transfer the same to the state. Less personal liberty means more political license for the state. The state places itself as the final defining authority over life and death and thus seeks to take on god-like transcendent qualities. Such regimes redefine ethics, and wars against the immutable truth of God’s will subsequently moving to expunge all reference to the God of the Scriptures and the “image bearers” who follow in His name.

NO RETREAT

Luke 11:29-33 This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

The Incarnation addresses how we are to then live. To be an “image bearer” practically means we cannot hide our testimony “under a bushel.” We must know Christ as greater than Jonah. Meaning we are to know the power of the forgiveness of sins, of victory over death and the fear of the same. (Jonah is a prophetic symbol of life from death especially as displayed in the finished work of Christ) We must know Christ as greater than Solomon. Meaning, we are to know and have confidence in His imperial reign demonstrated on earth as it is in heaven. (Solomon’s kingdom was used here as an example of the pinnacle of earthly power and to show the superiority of Christ’s authority and reign)

We must resist those who would seek to destroy the image of God upon man in whatever sphere they may be found. We must not heed the siren song of humanism. But we dare not retreat into the cultural ghettos of anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, semi-agrarian, naively nativistic forms of monasteries. We must embrace the “protoevangelium” delineated in Genesis 3:15, subsequently ratified and ennobled in Christ’s finished work (Romans 5:17) and applied to His glorious church (Ephesians 1:22-23). Anything less, denies the Incarnation in time and history and allows the way of Cain and the spirit of Herod to ply its wicked trade in the earth. Christmas 2010 MUST be the demonstration of the Incarnation in power!


Seduction and The Brass Ring

Jeffrey A. Ziegler: President SGI

In light of our last elections; it is paramount to note that the career minded “politician” who esteems the accolades of man, and thinks of himself as an indispensable element in the grand scheme of the history, is a man most dangerous to all things pertaining to the life and greatness of the Republic. Such “public servants” are susceptible to the “brass ring syndrome” or the “offer” of intrigue and self-aggrandizement.

The true statesman can ill-afford such dangerous thinking even though the idea of statecraft itself is a message at odds both with popular political culture and the dazed ranks of the media. Most “offers” or quick “promotions” will come at the expense of a robust accounting to the Constitution and the spirit of its framers. The temptation to “tone down” immutable moral positions, to wink at disloyalty to the nation, or to be “bought” by money or fame are constant, real, and present dangers. On the national scale, this moral plight is evidenced by the breach of our national security by Red China in exchange for political donations to the Democratic Party. Also, President Obama’s placating of 911 terrorists as a means to accrue leftist favor, strikes at the very core of justice and moral political leadership. Local politicos, desiring to be esteemed, respected, and loved, will often trample under colleagues in their own party, or make league with their opposite number in a rival party just for personal advantage and gain. They arrogantly view the electorate as the “great unwashed,” fodder for their own selfish ambition. These tricksters are the chief reason for perennial low voter turnout now taken as a given throughout America. Since the Quixote like efforts of Perot in 1992, political editorials have marked the rise and fall of marginal “third party” forays. Yet, that the notion of a third party is talked about at all, is a sign of the moral corruptions rife within American political life.

For the young people who desire the challenge of public service, remember, the desire to be liked is a snare! When you are engaged in a political reformation, or you are advancing a return to Constitutional norms in the civic sphere, don’t expect to be “loved” by all! Such thoughts are historically ignorant and naively foolhardy. The statesman seduced by the siren song of popularity and the whims of the pollster, leaves his constituency at the mercy of wolves bent on their destruction. The more desperate a politician is to be liked, the more willing he is to sell-out, in order to prop up the illusion of success and progress.

The true Christian statesman cannot be bought! Oh, he may have times weakness. He may grope and stumble as a blind man through seasons of arid personal trial. But even through these manifold tests, he would not consider infidelity to the sacred trust of public office. Only those who consciously accept “the deal” could be marked as political prostitutes. Naiveté may be “cute” in a child, but it is deadly for the statesman. Is it any wonder why a novice should not be considered for public life? A true politician must eschew childish thinking. He must be aware, alert and have a mature acuity for his surroundings. His discernment must be properly exercised by reason of use and circumscribed by a sound understanding of biblical orthodox thinking. He must develop the capacity for strategic thought so as to define the battlefield rather than allowing his ideological enemies to define it for him. He must have an overarching, unflinching political social theory undergirded by a biblical worldview. If he enters into the public arena without one, corrupted political paradigms, or some special interest, will provide one for him!

At minimum the seduction of the brass ring makes for obnoxiously arrogant public servants. When played out to its furthest extent, such machinations lead to the reinforcement of the strong by the weak, the socialization of the unsociable by the antisocial, and the suppression of individualism by individualists. In other words; the creation of a great chasm between the rulers and the ruled. Such corruptions are the bedrock for tyranny.


Defying Existentialism for Biblical Education

Whitney Dotson

Whitney Dotson, SGI Contributor

A most prominently utilized scholastic philosophy in contemporary academia explicitly deems the child the central determiner of actuality. Perception into the classroom of this persuasion would reveal that pupils are encouraged to seek academic and personal liberation through the means of internal discovery, experimentation, and self-reliance—hence resurrecting the supposedly idealistic premise, “Man becomes as he lives.” Accordingly, varying views and perspectives may be presented the youngster; he alone, however—without adult supervision of influence—must conclusively decide for himself whether or not the offered material represents truth harmonious with his personal preference. Based upon the principle that the greatest ambition of humanity is to recognize and cultivate one’s individuality within the world, the theory of existentialism predictably frowns upon methods which seek to frame and mold the child—and which endorse moral absolutism at any level (Clark, p.17). Such is strikingly resonant of some recent attempts professedly intent upon manifesting the “best interests” of national youth. Introduced to America’s Congress in 1989, the UN Convention On the Rights Of the Child seemingly proclaims adolescents’ rights in areas of religion and conscience (Farris, p.489). Planned Parenthood also similarly of late insisted that children “try” varying forms of sexuality in order to decide which is right for them, re-echoing the 60s mentality, “Do what feels good.” What is not usually predicted in adopting the presuppositions of such a theory, however, is the moral anarchy inevitably awaiting its unfolding. Frustration ensues as every man resolves upon a set of facts to himself founded solely upon circumstance, emotional whim, and common agreement; legal chaos is inescapable for the simple fact that man has historically proven himself erroneous, inconsistent, and prone to greed. A less foreseen yet characteristic result of humanism is a consistent disregard for law. An integrated curriculum approach which denies the philosophical goal of existentialism in the biblical denotation of knowledge and divine and parental authority, in contrast, is alone able to effectuate a society of liberation, beginning with moral and spiritual redemption, and concluding in the external permeation of governmental restoration.

The founding thesis of the existentialism movement declares the absence of any fore-present meaning within the universe (Stanford). Accordingly, no certain purpose or significance lies within surrounding matter or order except for that which man imputes it. Resembling the naturalistic autonomy pronounced by prominent philosophers of the age, this mindset denies fixed presuppositions of any kind. Consequently, man himself is understood as retaining little meaning outside of personal progression and development. He is not regarded as he inherently is, but as he may become through exposure to varying influences. Contrary to common perception, philosophical precepts have great influence upon a society’s mindset. It can only be blindly deduced that disclosure of a certain worldview is received in indifference. The child who believes his individual existence is resolved solely by himself will also act accordingly. No authority, hence, will bear application to his circumstance, and no universal coherence will subsist; value will be viewed only in relation to personal gratification. Morality and the concept of life itself will degenerate into insignificancy as every man becomes his own judge. Nothing is consistent or congruous, and original value is refuted.

Regarding the theory as a type of hopeful breakthrough in the history of civil rights, intellectual institutions are progressively incorporating existentialist principles within curricula. Systems of grading are discarded for fear of stereotyping the child. Options of child-centered curriculums are becoming increasingly customary which cater expressly to the desired direction of the student; the end, rather than the means, is accentuated. Stuart Hart, Deputy Director of Canada’s International Institute for Child Rights and Development, proposed a symbiotic connection between the terms “internal voice” and “child’s rights.” The hypothesis followed that true education necessitates the securing of certain freedoms towards the ambition of self-discovery and expression; implied therein is the bereavement of all imposing authorities contrary to the individual will, assuming exclusively the moral ability of man. Hedonism and utilitarianism hence come in to play as a system of ethics is chosen based upon the “greater good” of society, and the pleasure of the individual personality. False democracy surfaces to recognition in a vain attempt to secure equality without responsibility or pronounced absolutes. Rationalism, moreover, is opposed as people consequently embrace a morality through which truth is discerned in accordance to what satisfies them sensually and specially. Resultantly, education is signified by a comprehension of pluralism in which the materialistic and supernatural are simultaneously recognized, but in which the concrete is always exalted as superior. The thorn of man rests therefore not in any internal conflict, but in the failure to expand as a human being whether it be academically, sexually, or psychologically. The relatively correlating end of all instruction is that every youngster seeks to define himself by reducing the reality of his surrounding atmosphere to whatever understanding suits him. Such demands a venture of learning through experience, and as little enforcement or authoritative imposition as possible. Presupposed is an evolutionary view of man; concluded is the usurpation of authority, including that which is most basic and relevant to national prosperity: parenthood.

As is the case with nearly every human deduction, existentialism is an interweaving of truth and falsity. Accordingly, the child is treated as a citizen whose civic expectations signify little more than options, but whose conscientious freedoms are boundless. It emphasizes the responsibility of man, and commendably encourages his betterment most typically through the instruments of moral revival and genuine undertakings; however, a Scriptural understanding of the nature of man and a biblical apprehension of knowledge would reveal that neither of these ambitions can be achieved apart from the acceptance of divine sovereignty and moral objectivity. While child-centered education correctly proposes the little one a moral creature and opposes the blank slate mentality supported by conspicuous thinkers of the recent past, it nevertheless erroneously overestimates the youngster’s ability to discern.

Statistics reveal irrefutable benefits concerning parental involvement and child-welfare. Children who do not experience active participation from parents in their lives later experience emotional, academic, and spiritual imbalance. Clearly, parental authority is a vital and inseparable element to the child’s well-being. Parenthood is a natural right, ordained by God from the institution of the family for one main purpose: to glorify and manifest Him. It was divinely designated in God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and to assume dominion over the whole created world (Genesis 1:26). It is innately related to the cultural mandate in both verbal text as well as social order. Parentage, the cornerstone of the family and foundation of society, leads the nation as the smallest and most common unit of influential power. The parent incomparably signifies the initial restraining hand of evil in the life of the following generation, and essentially represents the child’s earthly manifestation of God. Subservience and respect for parental authority typifies a responsibility to God from the smallest among us. It is biblically intended that this early training so permeate the child as to secure the proverb of his never “departing” from it (Proverbs 22:6).” Such, in turn, pervades the remainder of the offspring’s subsequent choices as an adolescent and then as an adult.

It is erroneous to restrict knowledge to the devising of man. John 20:31 expresses the fact that it is through the facets of both natural revelation and special revelation by which we know and love Him. Unregenerate man may experience the tangible universe and thereby deduce knowledge, but he is confined to the mere experiential; following is an acceptance of reductionism and utilitarianism in which information is analyzed restrictedly. Knowledge, in truth, constitutes so much more than what is commonly acknowledged; empiricism, reason, and even some amounts of mysticism do not judicially delineate the scope and purpose of factuality. This is partly due to the fact that understanding is not often recognized in its varying forms, and because it is exclusively viewed only temporally. The biblically integrated-curriculum, in contrast, approaches data in the foundational conviction that Scripture is its ultimate Standard; As Creator, God has ultimate authority and patent over all of His creation. While diversities do undoubtedly endure, they do so appropriately united under a common Sovereign for a common purpose. Intellectual studies of the sciences and languages are all observed in subservience to a common hermeneutical presupposition: mainly, that the end of all is to glorify Him, and that all in creation directs explicitly back to Him. History is not a social science beginning with man and determined by him, but is an aspect tied essentially in nature with the studies of mathematics, logic, and even grammar. Data is not discerned by how it may benefit the person, but is rigid and objective. Should one fail to apply certain hermeneutical principles in interpreting it, the fault lies with the interpreter, and not with the interpreted material.

While some of the philosophical goals of existentialism seem beneficial, it is critically important to remember that unless the nature of man is considered within biblical light, every seemingly noble ambition ends consistently in oppression. It is noteworthy to consider that some of the most recognized existentialist advocates were also initially and progressively influenced by the creeds of Karl Marx. In Marx’s perception, the State distinctly possessed the highest potential for providence; not surprisingly, it was also regarded with superior esteem to every life-aspect. State parties correspondingly possessed the greatest potential in improving society, and assumed the authoritative role in moral and social issues. Obviously, existentialism is not without its deifications.

As Dr. Rushdoony and true Biblicists have confirmed, there is no possible state of “neutrality.” Two primary ends of education exist. Every humanistic worldview deems man the originator, furtherer, and consummator of knowledge. A theocratic-dominion worldview conversely perceives God the Derivation of all information. Rather than denying all but that which can be tested or comprehended by the human mind, believers recognize God’s infinite sovereignty and omniscience in the abstract and concrete, the tangible and intangible. Every aspect and nook of actuality subsists to be acknowledged by man in perception of God’s original intention and purpose. Following submission to this view is a sensible perception of the world. Information is scanned inevitably by inherently biased perspectives: humanistic or biblical. Scripture clearly asserts that every man has inherited Adam’s curse, was conceived in original sin—and is fully capable of effectuating his own, as well. Scripture affirms the fact that no one can counter evil in and of himself, for he knows and desires nothing else (Romans 3:23). The biblical doctrine of total depravity teaches the innermost ravishments of sin. Man’s ability to reason logically, morally, and emotionally were all sorely damaged by original sin. Though alone in creation in retaining some sense of rationality, man has nonetheless been impregnated by a spiritual darkness devastating to his formerly perfect ability to reason.

Unity is manifested as God is recognized as Lord and King. Fixed truths and order were manifested the moment He breathed the words “Let there be…” Time and space were effectuated “In the beginning (Genesis 1:1).” All natural laws were suspended as were His ethical expectations, represented first in the Law of Grace and then by the covenantal statutes. No divisive pluralism exists, then, as all is the Lord’s—no dichotomous responsibility to God and to fellow man. As revealed in the Law itself, right conduct towards God signified a similar, balanced consideration for fellow man. In addressing the greatest commandment, love for God preceded yet enabled love for humanity. Though the world may continue to hope in a democratic system of government and ethics, such idealism is simply not possible wherever humanism reigns; an informative inspection would prove that every man-generated regime has succeeded in producing only tyranny and chaotic anarchy.

Every secular government which has in the past arisen and fallen has done so at the hand of pure humanism. Judeo-Christian standards have historically proven to be the primary choice for orderly, liberating governmental principles and structures. Documents such as the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution all directed to a common Source in reflection: the Bible. Benjamin Franklin has been cited for founding America’s tri-branched governmental structuring upon a Levitical passage. Numerous Founding Fathers unanimously agreed upon biblical virtues as deterrents to moral anarchy. It was once observed that without the existence of government, men would degenerate into brutish behavior; for without accountability, he would exercise his “free will” to the expansion of worldwide transgression. In the same way, a child without some form of authoritative liability will also succumb to lawlessness. To do so would only be an inclination of his nature. The impeding and consistent result of existentialism in both the classroom and the municipal sphere are inescapable legal hostility and moral nihilism.

Discipline initializes with the mind (Romans 12:2). Biblically depicted as the seat of reason and emotion—at times even including reference to the heart—the mind is denoted the seat of spiritual warfare, and the determiner of spiritual growth. It is singularly through the command to dwell upon that which is good and pure—to resist the conformity of the lusts and wiles of this world—by which we are enabled to “put off” the old man and the satanic inclinations of his ways. Contrary to the sensual constitution of the existential philosophy, Scripture exhorts first a wisdom based on trust and internal acceptance. Experience is not precedent to understanding. Action is a natural consequence of knowledge properly imbibed—a response rather than an antecedent. It emphasizes the will over emotions, and logic above passions. Scripture confirms that the heart above all things is desperately wicked, that its discernment alone cannot be trusted. Though God has most certainly inscribed His Word upon the hearts of men and left them without excuse, they are nonetheless crippled by a wicked nature. It is only through a fear of the Lord—a compliant trust and reverence for God as Truth alone (John 14:6)—by which we may attain the smallest glimmer of hope in acquiring an education which not only improves the academic mind, but society, as well.

A definite relation binds true knowledge and morality. Education is, in essence, a discipline surpassing mere factuality. It involves every aspect of the human whole: body, spirit, soul, and mind, and postulates subjugating them to the revealed character and will of God. Accentuated is a restoration and re-training which initializes with spiritual redemption, and proceeds externally. Discipleship is synonymous with learning. Additionally implied is a need for correction or re-channeling from unruly to orderly; presupposed is a natural inclination towards rebelliousness, and a lacking of generally presumed virtues. Human nature evidences a need for authority. God ordained several figures as earthly representatives of His unlimited domain. In the realm of civics, governmental justices and figures of royalty were commissioned; in the religious scope, priests were delegated. Within the family, parents were distinctly designated the roles of “teacher” and “disciplinarian” in which divine obligation consisted of training the offspring dispensed to their care, imparting to them wisdom and correction, and providing them with model examples. Children, in turn, were to respect these figures in the understanding that they were divinely appropriated for the origination of wisdom. Contrary to the dominating opinion of the time, independence is not achieved at the removal of legality of authority. On the contrary, statistics reveal an increase in immorality and crime where legality is not present. The notion of learning “hands on” is simply not applicable nor advisable for every area of life. It is necessary that everyone perceive the significance of impartial standards


SALUTE AND CONGRATULATIONS!

Ronald E. Young

Ronald E. Young, Ohio State Representative, SGI board member

To Ronald E. Young for winning elected office as Ohio State Representative! Friend of 30 years and SGI board member we look forward to Ron’s service!

CHRISTMAS 2010!

ORDER “REPUBLIC RESTORED”

http://www.republicrestored.com


911 PRAYER 2010

September 12, 2010

Let us pray that God Almighty assist us to remember. God grant our greatest desire  to meet our foes in combat intellectually, theologically, and at every level to decide the issue. Lord, our soldiers, under your hand have acted like men worthy of freedom!

God assist us to remember, that we fight for all that is dear to us on earth; our homes, our families and our liberty. Keep us far from those who would not fight for these for they are not worthy of the name of man.

God assist us to remember our sacred dead in NY, PA and in Washington DC! and with their passing by the hand of rash Islamists, give us the victory! May we anticipate a riddance to the world of Muslim oppressors, followed by peace and prosperity!

God assist us to remember the LIVES of 911!

God assist us to remember that we fight an enemy who gives no quarter, and regards neither age nor sex. Assist us to remember that lives have been destroyed! Assist us to imagine our wives and daughters trudging mud and water, and your children crying for bread as slaves,and then remember that the author of all this woe is ISLAM; that the arch fiend Bin Laden is now within our grasp; and that the time has come at last for us to avenge the blood of our fallen heroes and to teach the haughty dictators of Islam that Americans under God, can not be conquered and that they can and will be free. May we all nerve ourselves for the battle at every level! The battle of ideas! Knowing that our cause is just and that we are in the hands of an All-wise Creator! May we strike the great blow of victory! May our watchwords be “Remember 911! Remember the blood of Islam!”

In JESUS name

AMEN


AUGUST 2010 SOUND OFF – Q&A with Jeff Ziegler

August 10, 2010

Q: What is the stand of SGI concerning the proposed Mosque at Ground Zero?

A: The entire debate is quite exacerbating in that most people are ignorant of Islamic goals and doctrines. This is not a debate between liberals and conservatives. Nor is it a ground of contest between Democrats and Republicans. It has nothing to do with Constitutionalism, Libertarianism, or freedom of religion issues. The pivot argument revolves around Islamic thought on why it is paramount to put a memorial mosque at ground zero. For Islam, making memorials on the ground of militant victories is in their view “a divine mission.”

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

Notice the gold crowned “Dome of The Rock” sits on top of the old “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem. This actually means something to Islam – a sign of dominance. So too, the whole 911 New York/ Washington DC attack is seen as an Islamic victory over The United States. It is not an internal Islamic debate between so-called Islamic moderates vs. extremists. It represents in Islamic victory to be memorialized on behalf of Islamic goals. Based on this proper military evaluation of Islamic martial goals, no permission for the mosque construction should be considered. It is yet another “act of war” by Islam and its supporting states, and not some rag-tag group of terrorists.

Q: You can’t be serious about the previously expressed idea of invading Mexico to stop illegal immigration are you?

A: I am very serious about this. Herein are some brief illustrations. Remember, illegal immigration is not a race issue! Nor are issues about “anchor babies”, Arizona law, or Obama machinations at the forefront. The fact that successive Mexican presidents have endorsed waves of illegal immigrants since the late 70’s coupled to underground Mexican revolutionary cells existent within the US and again supported by Mexico, constitute multiple acts of war by Mexico against the United States and warrant a full retaliatory response by the US against Mexico.

US M-1 tank on the move

An invasion of Mexico would end illegal immigration in reality. Breaking up said territory into states and covering the same with the US Constitution would finally free Mexicans from generations of corruption and despotic rule. Energy reward would also be ample. Again the Mexican government is fundamentally and essentially at war with the United States! Ideas and actions have consequences. It is time they (Mexico) paid!

Q: Are there real differences on the healthcare debate between Democrats and Republicans?

A: Of course there are vast and nuanced differences! So much of that has been aired in other forums that I feel no need to recapitulate here. However; on major policy advances the two parties are uncomfortably the same. As an example: Dr. Mark McClellan former director of CMS under President Bush essentially wrote vast portions of what is today called Obamacare. McClellan a “Republican” is today associated with the liberal and statist Brookings Institute. For more on this see Dr. Bob Moffit at Heritage Foundation or Grace-Marie Turner at Galen Institute.


%d bloggers like this: