The Danger of Ecumenism

Just like all other regular bloggers, I make it a point to check out a list of certain blogs every day, one of which is Liberty's Torch.  Its main writer is Francis W. Porretto, the Curmudgeon Emeritus, who has no qualms discussing his religion of Roman Catholicism. I like most of Francis' stuff and I recommend his blog, so I'm not writing this to pick a fight.  I'm just offering some food for thought.  If you've checked out most of my blog, you probably recognize that I would be thought of as a Messianic Jew.  I just make that clear in the interest of full disclosure, even though the description isn't really adequate.

It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality.  He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church."  Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense.  Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church.  Let me also make this point:  wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion.  It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other.  It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.

Church bodies split up.  Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.

Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history.  Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.

Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked.  Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church.  BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century.  This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State.  Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.

I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?

Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century.  We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776.  They had enough.  They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament.  The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
 " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." 

Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for.  As well as many in the Church for next several centuries.  Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire.  People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.

The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria."  Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.

Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered.  There's the rub.  The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic.  He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion.  He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah).  His laws are laws.  Commandments.  Not suggestions.  Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion."  If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard.  Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.

But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."   Matthew 5:17-20  NIV 

I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion.  And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
³⁶     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’^[a]

³⁷ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."  Matthew 10:34-38 NIV 

Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.

The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity.  This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.

We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.

Exponentially Wrong

The piece I'm about to fisk can be found here.  I'm only going to deal with the first two paragraphs, because that's all I need.  When you start with an incredibly flawed premise, your conclusions can only be madness.

Read the piece below and see if you recognize the error before I deal with it.

When we practice the privileges granted to us by our governing documents, in this case, the Bill of Rights and bearing arms, we enter into an implicit agreement with the Union to recognize and act according to the State's rules and regulations for the use and ownership of arms. And as we agree to those rules, so does the government agree to act responsibly on behalf of our collective well-being.
In this manner, our relationship with our nation mirrors our relationship with our parents; both our parents and our nation raise us; both provide for our welfare; both teach us values and ethics; both act on our behalf for our well-being. And thus should we regard our nation; as a parental figure to be a moral example, an ideal to respect and to obey. For, if the dynamics of our relationship with our parents are mirrored functionally by the dynamics of our relationship with our country, so too should the convictions and loyalties that characterize the former persist in the latter.

Let me just start with the words before the first comma.  Privileges?   Where did you get such an idea Mr. Lelonek?  Our founding documents don't even mention privileges.  It speaks of inalienable rights that come from God.  It speaks of the purpose of a righteous government being to secure and protect those rights and never abrogate them.  Therefore, we don't enter into any agreement whatsoever to agree to any rules the State might make in direct violation of our God-given rights.

Has the government violated the Constitution by passing laws that infringe on our rights?  Oh yes.  We have an outlaw government.  This is pretty much beyond any question for those of us who have read history and understand it.

It is bad enough that this condition exists today, but for someone to come along and try to interpret it 180 degrees out of phase is infuriating.

To read the records of the founding fathers as they argued and hammered out the Constitution, as well as from reading both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, an intelligent human being understands that the founders understood government in all forms to be a necessary evil that must be chained down and guarded to keep it from doing the very things that you advocate in that tripe you call an opinion.  The Constitution was written to be the very set of chains that restrained government from being anything other than a servant to the people as sovereign individuals and the sovereign States who agreed to create the Federal government.

It was never intended for the government to see to any collective well being.  Any idea of a collective was diametrically opposite the goals of the founders.  Government was meant to stay the hell out of the way of individuals pursuing their own well being and happiness so long as they respected everyone else's rights to do the same.

To  draw an analogy to parenting in regard to government is outrageous.  I don't have enough words of contempt for such an idea.  Such is the language of totalitarian communist states such as North Korea, or Cuba.  Free people understand that human beings are flawed.  We understand that getting elected to office or being appointed to positions or getting hired as a bureaucrat does not bestow some super human understanding or intelligence for making better decisions in directing other people's lives.

In a more sensible time, it was understood that when a person reached the age to vote and be a responsible citizen, they would be capable of being a parent, not needing one.  It is not the job of government to provide me with welfare or anything else.  Even more important, it is not the job of government to take part of my life and liberty in the form of the fruit of my labor and my time in order to provide things for other people.

If you are genuinely ignorant of the true meaning of the founding documents, Mr. Lelonek, I suggest you get schooled on the matter.  If you can't comprehend the writings of the men who composed those documents over 200 years ago, then I suggest some courses at Hillsdale College in Michigan.  They specialize in teaching exactly what the founders were trying to and did accomplish and exactly why.

If you really do know the history and the meaning of the founding documents, then you are a most egregious liar and you would make the most perfect example of someone who deserves to be stripped naked, slathered with tar and dusted with feathers.  Then you need to be dropped off in one of the countries that attempts to govern according to the concepts that you espouse.
There are plenty of such places.  Please take as many other child-like folks with you who don't have the grown-up thinking and maturity to handle freedom and live in any of the countries with nanny-state government.

Let them tell you what is safe to drive, eat, and talk about.  Let them dictate to you what lightbulbs to use, whether or not you can pack your child's lunch for school, who you can associate with, how much money you should be allowed to make.  Go ahead, there's nothing stopping you.

We grown-ups who have worked hard and made good choices would like to be left alone.  We know how to handle sharp objects and things that go bang.  We've even been known to create fire on a regular basis and cook our own food.  Lot's of us actually can do math at levels high enough to balance multiple checking accounts.

Take you and your immature friends and find yourself a parent style government someplace else.  Leave us alone.

Hat tip to Joe Huffman.

Rights? Not According To The FDA

If you somehow thought that you lived in a free country (meaning the United States of America), you've got another thing coming.  The Federal Food and Drug Administration would like to disabuse you of the notion that you can decide what food you would like to ingest.

And doesn't it seem ironic when the "progressives" of the Democrat party tell everyone that there is a right to medical care while at the same time the FDA is saying, "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health."   Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031934_FDA_food_freedom.html#ixzz1JGgweONY
That's right.  The bureaucrats at the FDA think that all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution about the purpose of government being about protecting the God-given rights of the people is really just a bunch of crap.  They are your superiors and they'll tell you what you can eat.

Don't believe it?  Go read this article.  If you can find any evidence that it's a hoax, let me know.  Make sure you read the contents of Senate bill 510 that passed earlier this year as well.

Isn't that the kind of "Hope and Change" you can believe in?

Thoughtful Question

Col. Bunny over at Eternity Road asked the question at the end of a thoughtful piece.

"If life with the ridiculous, laughable, pathetic God of creation is so horrific and unbearable, what do you think it’s going to be like without God?"

 It is most interesting to me because he says he is not a Christian.  It is sad to me that over my life I have noticed that some of the most moral people I've met have refused to take on any religious label, and most often would make the point of saying that they weren't a Christian.  And here I am today, after a long time of wearing that label, now no longer able to, but for completely different reasons. I'm unable to wear that label because of the vast majority of people who wear it, but for whom it means little or nothing, and the resultant damage they do to it.  Perhaps I should one day post only on why I am not a "Christian."  I am a Messianic believer; a follower of "the way," as recorded in Luke's book of Acts.

In the developed world, we have so bought into scientism and materialism. Yes, scientism, not science. What used to be scientific endeavor has eroded into finding or making up data to support political agendas, rather than seeking the truth. The squashing of intelligent design theory and the global warming hoax have proved that in spades.  The modern world is so full of people who are so thoroughly confused about real science and the scientific method, that they simply accept anything the media tells them about "news" from the world of science.  Most people simply read or hear, "Scientists said . . ." or "Study revealed . . ." and they just buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel.  Then months or years later when it is revealed that the data was misinterpreted or the methods were sloppy or the conclusions incoherent and wrong, nobody pays attention.

In keeping with Col. Bunny's question, it is interesting to note that even many of the philosophers who doubted God's existence or denied it outright, at least thought about the consequences of their ideas. They reasoned that man is a wild beast and needs to be ruled by his superiors of the same species, and that using the concept of "God" is a good way to keep the herd in line.  I wish I still had all my files with the quote from one 19th century philosopher who said that if people didn't believe in a God, the elites would need to invent one to keep the people in line.   In the times of monarchs with absolute authority, this was known as "divine right," and was useful for keeping the people cowed. Philosophers all the way back to Plato have understood that people had to have some kind of belief in a cosmic being with ultimate authority or society would break down into anarchy. Of course, past tyrants would have salivated at the modern technology we have today that could make it possible to watch and threaten the masses into near complete submission.

Many who have dislike or outright hatred of Christianity love to ask, "What about the crusades?"  Young skulls full of state propaganda from government schools are convinced that "religion" is the cause of all the world's ills. Pay no attention to the fact that it was Nazi socialism, Lenin and Stalin's communism, Mao, Pol Pot, and others who adhered to a doctrine that specifically and militantly prohibited the God of the Bible from having any part in the ordering of their societies, and executed, -- not just killed in war -- murdered upwards of 50 million people combined.  I'd like to resurrect some of those people and ask them if they would prefer living under a king who believed he would eventually have to stand before the judgment of a righteous God, or if they thought the concept of living under the Ten Commandments was just too much of a burden.

The Hitlers and the Maos and those who would be our "progressive" leaders can't tolerate any fundamental, true belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Why?  To believe in the God of the Bible would lead to radical ideas about man being endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights.  People might start believing that man is not meant to be a slave to the state in order to serve the good of the masses. You true believers in the God of the Bible are a hindrance to our well-ordered society.

Life is hard. This is true for but a few buckets in the ocean of humanity. There is no system of human government which can change that fact. Not one. Whether you choose to work for material wealth like an Edison or a Ford, a Rockefeller or a Gates; or you decide to live on the streets and beg for your sustenance, life is a struggle. In a free society, men get to choose which struggle makes them happiest. In a totalitarian state, unless you are willing to lie, cheat, and murder, you will be told what struggle you will endure.

The founders of the United States may have disagreed on many doctrines of various denominations of Christianity, but they all agreed on the basics of morality as expressed in the Judeo-Christian Bible.  People like Bill Maher and others can make all the baseless claims they want to about the founders not being Christians.  A few exceptions do not alter the history as recorded in the deliberations in Congress or the federalist papers or in the personal correspondence of those founders. And I dare you to walk through Washington, D.C. and point to the words and pictures carved into the buildings and tell me that the founders didn't care about the influence of the Bible on government in the affirmative. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the founders were indeed men of the Bible.  Dr. Benjamin Rush, signatory to the Declaration of Independence said that if the Bible ever got replaced as the basic primer for education in America, we eventually would not be able to build jails fast enough. How prophetic.  John Adams, the second president, said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Something Col. Bunny alludes to but does not state specifically is that nature abhors a vacuum.  We are all going to live by somebody's set of values.  There is no such thing as a valueless society.  Muslims, and yes, I mean ALL muslims, adhere to the doctrine of their prophet Muhammed, and they can all claim various levels of adherence to the dictates of this Imam or that Imam, but when push comes to shove, and the powerful clerics who exercise the real muscle and  issue the fatwahs and direct how Sh'ria law is to be obeyed, the rest of the so-called "moderate" muslims will fall in line.  Muslims do not believe in "live and let live."  They believe that all the world is destined to be under Islam; under "submission," which is what Islam actually means.  If you are not prepared to fight to keep this ostensibly Judeo-Christian society from being overrun by muslim jihadis, then welcome to dhimmitude under an Islamic caliphate.

So, which system do you want to live under?  If you think Islam is the way to go, you can convert and move to a country which already has Sh'ria in place.  If you like the fully socialized Utopian dream, Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela awaits you.  But how about doing the rest of us a favor and leave us alone.

Where We Started

It is good to think upon this on a day when we are on the verge of a new revolution in this country.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Let me paraphrase.  Let me expound on the things that I see in the text in a spirit of being true to exegesis in honor of the authors.  Let me not speak what I would wish it to say based upon some selfish notion of egalitarianism or other nonsense, but what did the men who were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor  mean to say.

The introduction above speaks to the understanding that in the late eighteenth century, the modern world believed that kings reigned  because God had ordained it.  That unless a king was so unredeemingly corrupt and evil that appealing to his good graces could bring about a correction of abuses of government, it would be wrong to go to war in order to achieve justice.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

I was once told that, if I didn't like how the government did things, I should move.  That if I didn't like the way the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution, I should just find another country.
I don't have enough words, or words that have the power to contain my anger or commitment to see the death and destruction of such evil.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

How many people ever consider that the men who created the Federal government of this land expected us to always be prepared to tell the Federal government:  "To hell with you, WE will tell YOU how it is going to be.    You don't dictate to us.  We dictate to you.  And when you start acting like you think you know better how we should live, we will put an end to your sorry and worthless existence."

The Constitution of the United States of America is the first governmental document in the history of the world that had the purpose of telling the government that, "You can do these enumerated things and no more."  The Constitution of the United States was a contract by which the People loaned the government very restricted powers to carry out just the minimum necessary things  that only a government could do in order to protect the rights of the people.  Contrary to modern misunderstanding, the constitution does not grant any rights to the people.  Let that sink in.  The Constitution does not grant any rights to the people.  The Constitution assumes that all rights are inherently belonging to the people from God.

I've read history.  I've read the Federalist Papers.  I hope to spend some time reading the Anti-Federalist papers.  From all of those sources it is abundantly clear that the founders of the United States saw government as a necessary evil.  Something akin to a pit bull on a leash that needed to be beaten back on occasion to make sure it didn't get out of hand.  One founding father compared government to fire; a useful servant and a fearful master.

If you wish to live in a land where the government will dictate to you which lightbulbs you can use, what kind of house you can build, how much sugar you can eat, what kind of medical care you can receive, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of job you can have, then you need to move to a country that already does those things.  Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, France, England, Mexico, etc.  The world is full of places that  already are happy to dictate every aspect of your life and pride themselves in providing everything you need as a "right."

I'm willing to make a deal with you.  You people on the left can take California and New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and most of the New England States.  Continue to turn them into the Democrat/Socialist utopias that you have so much confidence in.  Go ahead, show us how wrong we are.   We'll take all the other States and see what happens.

What makes me so angry about leftists is that they lie about what we conservatives want.  We conservatives just want to be left alone.  We want a very small government because we know that a government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything away.  We are willing to be offended by groups and individuals who have disgusting and abhorrent lifestyles because that is the price of freedom. We believe you should be free to make billions of dollars as long as you don't do it by force or fraud, or you can live as a hobo subsisting on the charity of people who voluntarily support your lifestyle, as long as they don't demand that the government tax us to support your laziness.

I have so much more to say, but I'm tired.