Creation, Providence, and Eschatology

Creation, Providence, and Eschatologyastronomy

By Rev. R.J. Rushdoony

 David, faced with enemies, an uncertain future, and costly moral choices, prayed earnestly:

  1. Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
  2. O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
  3. Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause.
  4. Shew me thy ways, O LORD: teach me thy paths.
  5. Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day. (Ps. 25:1-5)

MMan, having been created not only by God but in the image of God, lives in terms of an inescapable purpose which is basic to his being. Man was created to serve and glorify God and to become a working citizen of the Kingdom of God.

Man thus has a given nature by virtue of his creation. This nature ‘the fall’ cannot alter. The fall is a moral, not a metaphysical, fact. Fallen man cannot evade the nature of his being. He is God’s creature, created in God’s image. His moral rebellion against God does not alter man’s being; it simply perverts the goals thereof. Thus, to state the matter theologically, fallen man substitutes for God’s eschatology his own man-centered one.AAB

Eschatology is defined by the dictionary as the branch of theology which “treats of death, resurrection, immortality, the end of the world, final judgment, and the future state.” The root of the word is eschatos, last. This definition is accurate yet limited. Eschatology is much more than a concern about the end, or the last times. Eschatology sets forth the goal of man and history and is thus inseparable from purpose.

reaching out to GodEschatology is thus a very intensely practical concern. Questions such as, Why am I here?; What is the meaning and purpose of life?; What should we do, and why?; and, How will it all end?; all have to do with eschatology.

The eschatology of ‘fallen man’ is humanistic, man-created and man-centered. It seeks to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless world, to establish a thin edge of meaning against chaos and the void. Not surprisingly, humanistic eschatologies end in despair. Having no doctrine of theistic creation, man for them begins and ends in the void. Again, having no doctrine of providence, their brightest eschatological hopes operate against the frustration of brute and meaningless factuality. Often, on borrowed, Biblical premises, humanistic eschatologies will flourish briefly. Thus, the belief in progress was a secularized version of the doctrine of providence, and it flourished for a time on that borrowed capital. In time, of course, it was apparent that any belief in progress, without the presupposition of the God of Scripture, is rootless and futile, and the faith has waned accordingly.

Humanistic eschatologies regularly appear as the great hope of fallen man, but, in due time, they give way to defeat and despair. Socialism, the state, statist education, sociology, psychotherapy, and much more have been eschatological instruments, designed by fallen man to usher in the humanistic millennium. These are neither the first nor the last of such instruments. Certainly, the sexual revolution and existentialism have been eschatological and their promises extravagant at times.

Man requires a valid goal: the image of God within man mandates his being and requires man to move in terms of God’s ordained purposes. Augustine, out of his own experience, saw this, as he made clear in his Confessions: “Our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee.” Francis Thompson, in “The Hound of Heaven,” made the same point, which, of course, was first set forth by David in Psalm 139.

Creation has a purpose, and that purpose is God-ordained and is written into the being of all creation, so that all of creation, organic and inorganic, moves in terms of that purpose. Paul, in Romans 8:19-23, makes this clear. Any deflection from that eschatological goal, from that purpose, is death. Sin, as the deflection of man from God’s eschatology to a man-made one, is thus clearly death. Creation is thus inseparable from eschatology.

The same is true of providence. All of God’s providence moves in terms of His glorious and eternal purpose. Thus, the declarations of eschatology cannot be separated from the affirmations of providential care which Scripture sets forth. For example, in Psalm 34:7, we read, “The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them,” and in Psalm 91 we have a moving account of God’s providential care of His Son, Jesus Christ, and of us in Him: “for he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways” (Ps. 91:11). The Lord’s care of His covenant people is not for their sakes, but for His covenant’s sake, and for His eternal purposes. It is eschatological. There is no other cause in the universe which is ultimate and determinative than the triune God and His eternal decree. The goals of providence are not man-centered. Rather, it is man himself, willingly or otherwise, who is God-centered. Man’s being is thus governed by God’s eschatology.

David, in order to better understand God’s purposes and his own place therein, prayed: “LORD, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am” (Ps. 39:4). David prayed that he might be ever mindful of himself as a frail creature. Frail, chadel, means frail, rejected. David sees his own being as fallen; at best, it is still frail, and no purpose of man’s can supplant God’s purpose. Therefore, David’s prayer is not governed by any neoplatonic withdrawal but by a desire to serve God in terms of God’s purpose. Not man’s eschatology but the Lord’s must govern us. Hence, David says:

  1. Surely every man walketh in a vain shew: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.
  2. And now, Lord, what wait I for? My hope is in thee. (Ps. 39:6-7)

The eschatologies of men are a “vain shew.” All their accomplishments and wealth are nullified by death, and another man gathers of their labors. David’s hope, however, is in the Lord, whose purposes alone prevail.

The goal of history, the meaning of eschatology, cannot be sought within history but only in God. Neither the Jew nor the church, nor the millennium, are the goals of God’s working, but only Himself, and His eternal Kingdom. God’s purpose in history far exceeds the salvation of man, or of the Jews. He is emphatic: “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isa. 42:8).

If our doctrine of creation is weakened, then our doctrines of providence and eschatology are weakened. The word of God is a seamless garment; rending any part thereof is damaging to all of it.


Taken from Systematic Theology in Two Volumes, p. 164f

Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (1916-2001) was the founder of Chalcedon and a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.

See more at



Posted in Eschatology, Theology/Philosophy, Unity, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Charles Spurgeon Preaching on Socialism

Charles Spurgeon on SocialismFabian Society

HG Wells 2by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Apr 2015

At a moment in which we must fight the advancement of socialism into the field of healthcare, among other places, I think many may find the following excerpts from Charles Spurgeon helpful. Additionally, since so many American Christians—especially of the fundamentalist and Baptistic traditions—seem to believe that the Gospel does not pertain to, or does not address, politics, economics, and social order, I hope our more pietistic brethren will find the direction of a stalwart Baptist such as Spurgeon instructive.Liberal gods

A chance encounter reading a Spurgeon sermon while I studied at seminary a few years back left his quotation against “Christian Socialism” welded in my memory. That encounter spurred this further study.

Spurgeon’s comments against socialism appear as early as 1878, but pick up more frequency after 1886. There is a good explanation for this time period: a group known as the Fabian Society organized in 1884 for the purpose of advancing the ideas of Karl Marx and establishing England as a socialist state. In 1889, the well-funded group circulated The Fabian Essays written by sympathetic celebrities (and members) such as George Bernard Shaw, SidneyHG Wells Webb, Beatrice Webb, the theosophist Annie Besant, and on-and-off, H. G. Wells; the essays gained wide popularity. Liberal churchmen (called “broad” at the time) baptized the Fabian ideas and called it the “social gospel,” or “Christian Socialism.”

The goals of the Socialist group built upon the atheistic system of Marx with a few bold twists. Aside from the standard Socialist ideals of the abolition of private property, and government monopoly over education, credit, and business, some of their goals were:

  1. Government control over all insurance (universal health care).
  2. Elimination of the significance of the family.
  3. Elimination of the significance of religion.
  4. Justified use of force if necessary to attain socialistic goals.
  5. A universal system of pensions (universal retirement).[1]

SpurgeonSpurgeon sniffed out the godless, anti-biblical scheme and preached against it from his pulpit. He continued this, apparently, to the end of his life. What follows below are relevant excerpts from his sermons during the period:


Did I hear a whisper that ministers are nowadays very broad, and have given up the old gospel. I know it, and I am not surprised: the builders are the first to reject the chosen stone. Christ owes little to preachers, and some of his worst enemies are found in their ranks. Unconverted men are in too many pulpits, and are seeking out many inventions to set aside the pure gospel which exalts Christ Jesus. Let them alone, the ditch is gaping for these blind guides. Our Lord can do without them. He owes his victories to himself, and to himself alone; and, therefore, let the faith of his people rest in peace, for if they will have patience they shall see greater things than they have yet beheld. Our text saith that it is not only the Lord’s doing and marvellous, but it ismarvellous “in our eyes,” which it could not be if we did not see it. We shall see and we shall marvel. Some of us may have passed away, but you who are younger may live to see modern thought obtain supremacy over human minds: German rationalism which has ripened into Socialism may yet pollute the mass of mankind and lead them to overturn the foundations of society. Then “advanced principles” will hold carnival, and free thought will riot with the vice and blood which were years ago the insignia of “the age of reason.” I say not that it will be so, but I should not wonder if it came to pass, for deadly principles are abroad and certain ministers are spreading them. If it ever should be so, do not, o believers, for a single moment despair, but rest certain that the Lord is about to do a marvellous thing in the earth, and that he will lift up once again the stone which the builders have again refused, and cause it to become more than ever the headstone of the corner. Never dream of defeat. Be calm amid all the din of controversy, for the hand which holds the gospel must win the victory. This is the Lord’s doing and we shall see it.[2]


In the early days of Christianity, multitudes of Christians were tormented to death because of their faith in Jesus. There was no excuse for it, for they had done no harm to the State. Christianity does not come into a nation to break up its arrangements, or to break down its fabric. All that is good in human society it preserves and establishes. It snaps no ties of the family; it dislocates no bonds of the body politic. There are theories of socialism and the like which lead to anarchy and riot; but it is not so with the mild and gentle teaching of Jesus Christ, whose every word is love and patience.[3]


I fear lest in any of you there should be even the least measure of despising the one lost sheep, because of the large and philosophical methods which are now so loudly cried up. I would not have you exchange the gold of individual Christianity for the base metal of Christian Socialism. If the wanderers are to be brought in, in vast numbers, as I pray they may be, yet must it be accomplished by the bringing of them in one by one. To attempt national regeneration without personal regeneration is to dream of erecting a house without separate bricks. In the vain attempt to work in the gross, we may miss the practical result which would have followed working in detail. Let us settle it in our minds that we cannot do better than obey the example of our Lord Jesus, given us in the text, and go after the one sheep which has gone astray.[4]


For ninny a year, by the grand old truths of the gospel, sinners were converted, and saints were edified, and the world was made to know that there is a God in Israel; but these are too antiquated for the present cultured race of superior beings. They are going to regenerate the world by Democratic Socialism, and set up a kingdom for Christ without the new birth or the pardon of sin. Truly, the Lord has not taken away the seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal, but they are, in most cases, hidden away, even as Obadiah hid the prophets in a cave.[5]


The practical point is, brothers and sisters, since we want to do good, let us preach up our Lord Jesus Christ as the sovereign balm for every sinner’s wound. If you want to be philanthropists, be Christians. If you would bless your fellow-men with the best of all blessings, convey to them the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Do not believe that there is anything you can do for your children which will be more effectual than teaching them about Jesus. Do not think that anything in the workshop can soften the vulgarities, silence the blasphemies, and end the profanities of your fellowworkmen, like setting Jesus Christ before them.… Oh, let us keep on with the subject of Christ crucified! Whatever there is not in our shop window, let us always have Christ as the chief article of our heavenly commerce. Whatever there may lack of grace and beauty in our speech, and our outward appearance, may there be no lack of Jesus Christ, set forth among the sons of men; for “men shall be blessed in him,” and not without him. Great schemes of socialism have been tried and found wanting; let us look to regeneration by the Son of God, and we shall not look in vain. Nothing has come of newfangled preaching, from the first day till now; but never has the old faith of Jesus failed. Men have been blessed in Jesus, and they shall be blessed in him as long as the race shall exist.[6]


The next thing, dear friends, is that we must prove that the old faith produces much love of our fellow-men. You know that, nowadays, the watchword is, “the enthusiasm of humanity.” It is a curious thing that those churches that have such a wonderful “enthusiasm of humanity” speak of us as if we were always talking of God and forgetting men. Well, well; which of these new-fangled churches has an orphanage? It is very fine to talk about Christian socialism, and what you are going to do for the poor; but what have you done? Much of it is just chatter, chatter, and nothing else. But the godly, who feel that God is all, are, after all, those who care most for men; and those who believe most firmly that the unbelieving sinner will be lost are the men who are most anxious to have him saved.[7]


The god of modern thought exceedingly resembles the deities described in this Psalm [115:8]. Pantheism is wondrously akin to Polytheism, and yet differs very little from Atheism. The god manufactured by our great thinkers is a mere abstraction: he has no eternal purposes, he does not interpose on the behalf of his people, he cares but very little as to how much man sins, for he has given to the initiated “a larger hope” by which the most incorrigible are to be restored. He is what the last set of critics chooses to make him, he has said what they choose to say, and lie will do what they please to prescribe. Let this creed and its devotees alone, and they will work out their own refutation, for as now their god is fashioned like themselves, they will by degrees fashion themselves like their god; and when the principles of justice, law, and order shall have all been effectually sapped we may possibly witness in some form of socialism, similar to that which is so sadly spreading in Germany, a repetition of the evils which have in former ages befallen nations which have refused the living God, and set up gods of their own.[8]


Christians today simply must follow Spurgeon’s example in decrying the false paradise of socialism. This means addressing social and political issues, even when other Christians and certainly most secularists disagree (in fact, especially so!), but from a strictly biblical and not Marxist or socialist way. Socialism itself stands absolutely antithetical and opposed to Christianity as it for one denies the commandment against theft of private property (and that’s just the beginning). The original socialists themselves intended to supplant the faith, and hated it as a rival. Christian scholar and journalist David Aikman mentions an interesting anecdote in his book on atheism, The Delusion of Disbelief. He writes:

The strong linkage between politics and religion in the late nineteenth century was having a profound social impact, one that deeply troubled Marx and Engels. The following story illustrates just how it incensed them. While playing a well-known Victorian parlor game with Karl Marx’s daughter, Engels answered with a single word a “Confessions” question (“What is your favorite motto?” “What is your favorite color?” etc.) that asked whom he most hated in life. “Spurgeon,” was Engels’s curt, one-word answer, referring to the English Baptist… whose sermons in the 1850s to the 1880s drew as many as twenty thousand people, many of them working-class folk. Why did Engels hate him so? Because Spurgeon was diverting England’s urban working class away from atheist revolutionary socialism to Christian parliamentary reformism.[9]

We should take up Spurgeon’s example and start diverting fellow Christians, and others as well, away from the temptation to believe that government socialism will take care of us. It will not; and every nation so far that has installed so-called “universal health care” now sees regular shortages, rationing, waiting lists, denials, delays, and diminished treatments because of it. Millions are oppressed and literally thousands have died waiting for healthcare simply because socialized medicine cannot respond in the way they need. It’s a death trap.

Along these lines we should consider the wisdom of Spurgeon, who in commenting on the proverb, “Knock at no door which thou wouldst not have opened,” explained;

Or it may open on a sudden, and thou wilt stand confounded. When persons speak for a cause which they do not really believe in, they may have to pay dearly for their words. Some who defend Socialism may soon have too much of it.[10]


The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the name of ‘liberalism,’ the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. One of the traditional methods of IMPOSING statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.” (Norman Thomas; American Socialist, 1927)


[NOTE: This is a slightly revised version of an older article which can also be found as an Appendix in Joel McDurmon’s book God versus Socialism.]


[1]See the summary in Michael Lloyd Chadwick, ed., “The Age of Democratic Socialism,” The Freemen Digest, July 1, 1979, 5–6. [2] “The Headstone of the Corner,” Sermon No. 1420, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (MTP) 24 (1878), 452–453. [3] “To Those Who Are Angry with their Godly Friends,” No. 1929, MTP, 32 (1886), 781–782. [4] “One Lost Sheep,” No. 2083, MTP 35 (1889), 310. [5] “A Dirge for the Down-Grade, and a Song for Faith,” No. 2085, MTP 35 (1889), 341. [6] “Jesus: ‘All Blessing and All Blest,’” No. 2187, MTP 37 (1891), 92–93. [7] “Dare to be a Daniel,” No. 2291, MTP 39 (1893), 41–42. [8] Treasury of David, exposition on Ps. 115:8, 940–941. [9] David Aikman, The Delusion of Disbelief (Carol Stream, IL: SaltRiver, 2008), 106–107. [10] Salt Cellars: A Collection of Proverbs and Quaint Sayings, 2 Vol., 1:351.

Article from



Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social-Justice vs. Christian-Justice in Indiana

occupy and the eliteSorry to Disappoint the Social-Justice Warriors,

but the Faithful Won’t Yield on Religious Liberty

 by David French

April  2015

 The conventional wisdom is that moral opposition to same-sex marriage will eventually evaporate — that even orthodox religious communities will learn to accommodate new cultural realities, and those few who don’t will ultimately be irrelevant, living on the margins of society. Evangelical churches will cave. The freedom rallyCatholic Church will cave. Jews will cave. In just a few, short years the Christian churches in America will look back at opposition to same-sex marriage with the same kind of shame that Southern Baptists view their segregationist past.

That conventional wisdom is garbage. It’s based largely on a bigoted, ignorant view of the Christian faith, and it ignores recent history. The Left has drunk its own Kool-Aid for so long that it actually believes its rhetoric about church history and teachings.

RELATED: Indiana’s Law Is Not the Return of Jim CrowTravel Trend Myanmar Tourism

We’ve been through this before. When Roe v. Wade was decided, the major American Protestant denominations were in a transition process, with the mainline moving steadily out of orthodox Christianity. Their ultimate embrace of abortion wasn’t part of a considered, scriptural decision-making process but rather a product of spiritualized surrender to elite, progressive culture. The PCUSA, UCC, Episcopal Church, and others steadily liberalized — bending to the prevailing intellectual winds. For a time even the Southern Baptist Convention capitulated. Here’s Al Mohler:

Two years before Roe, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for “legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such circumstances as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal abnormality, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

black infantBut while the mainline tacked left and kept tacking left, the SBC moved right, and decisively so. It’s now firmly and unequivocally pro-life. This move was part of a broader desire to follow scripture, as the SBC embraced the Bible, doubled down on orthodox Christianity, and defied the sexual revolution.

What happened? Did the SBC whither away — becoming a church full of blue-haired holdouts, clinging to their guns and old-time religion as the mainline galloped away with the hearts and minds of the next generation?

Hardly. It turns out that Christians generally want to be Christian,gustave courbet not spiritualized political liberals, so the mainline continued its slow-motion collapse while the SBC became bigger than all the major mainline churches combined. The churches that maintained orthodoxy did more than just survive, they thrived — and as one consequence, the pro-life movement has only gained political and cultural strength.

RELATED: Freedom of Association Is Burned at the Stake in Indiana

Given that same-sex marriage has the same level of scriptural support as abortion (none), we’ll see the same phenomenon at work in the contemporary churches. Christians who are already on their way out of orthodoxy will embrace same-sex marriage largely to the same extent that they’ve already embraced porn, abortion, and sex outside of marriage. In fact, churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage are eight times more likely than churchgoing Christians who oppose same-sex marriage to think viewing porn is acceptable, almost four times more likely to believe cohabitation is acceptable, almost six times more likely to think adultery is ok, and almost six times more likely to support abortion rights. The churchgoing supporter of same-sex marriage is much more like the average American than the average churchgoing American.

The cultural and legal forces demanding acceptance of same-sex marriage are every bit as strong as those demanding acceptance of abortion, yet orthodox churches have held firm. In fact, the legal forces supporting abortion have in some ways been much stronger than those demanding acceptance of same-sex marriage. For years, pro-life lawyers have known of the “abortion distortion” in constitutional law, where expressive activity that would be perfectly legal in virtually every other context can be criminally punished when turned against abortion (see, for example Hill v. Colorado). The Left is transparently trying to create the same kinds of legal double standards for same-sex marriage. And while they may temporarily change the law, they won’t change the culture of the church.

[“…certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ… who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterword destroyed those who did not believe…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.”] (Jude v. 4-8)

 EDITORIAL: Don’t ‘Fix’ Indiana’s RFRA?

 Earlier this year, Time carried a story about a Nashville Evangelical “megachurch” that announced its support for same-sex marriage. I’m quite familiar with that church. It’s down the street from my office, and one of my closest friends attended for years. It’s by no measure a “megachurch.” A few hundred people attend, making it tiny by the standards of the enormous churches that sprawl all over the greater Nashville area. And while it’s newsworthy that this church “came out,” Time buried the lede. Here’s what happened next:

GracePointe’s move is not without concrete consequences. January giving usually is about $100,000–so far this month the church has brought in an estimated $52,000. When GracePointe began the listening process in 2012, Sunday attendance averaged 800-1000. The Sunday he preached the inclusion sermon, attendance was 673, and two weeks later, it was down to 482. “It’s a gut punch,” Mitchell says. “I know a year from now, I’m going to feel a whole lot better, but right now it is just hard.”

Yes, it is “hard” to abandon orthodox Christianity while still trying to draw orthodox Christians. And I have little doubt that Evangelical churches that try to go the way of the mainline will largely suffer the same fate. With isolated exceptions (for example, Barack Obama’s church in Chicago), they’ll whither away — losing members, buildings, and property but gaining the love and respect of MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post.

So, no. This fight is not ending anytime soon, and if the Left tries to snatch liberty from tens of millions of Americans, it can expect prolonged and vigorous resistance. In short, the Left has a choice: Respect liberty or fight forever. I suspect they’ll choose the fight.


“Is it not for you to know justice? — you who hate the good and love the evil.” (Micah 3: 1b – 2a)

“Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate…” (Amos 5: 15a)

Read more at:



Posted in Church and State, Law of Christ, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Western Civilization’s Civil War

Society’s Ongoing Civil Waroccupy-4

By Rev. R.J. Rushdoony

 For well over 500 years now, Western civilization has been in a state of civil war, with two aspects thereof in a growing conflict with one another. These two contending forces are humanism and Christianity. Humanism began its rise to power in the medieval era, and its strength was such that it captured the church, much of the academic world, and the state as well.

tax the richThe so-called Renaissance was the victory celebration of the triumphant humanists. While preserving the form of Christendom and the church, the humanists put them to other uses. [Italian humanist] Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) openly turned to antichristian standards as the new yardstick, without bothering to deal with the Bible as a serious source of law. The source of all virtuous action — Lorenzo Valla held — is man’s natural bent to pleasure.keep-it-clean

Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) held that virtue and love were responses to beauty. However much these and other men disagreed as to the true standards for life, they were agreed that God could not be the source of standards, but, that man and man’s reason is the yardstick in terms of which all things must be judged. The standard, it was held, is man, and the moment. Ficino’s inscription in the Florentine Academy concluded thus: “Flee excesses, flee business, and rejoice in the present.”

For these men, the church was to be the instrument for a new kind of salvation, a refined Christianity informed and remade by humanism. As Cronin has pointed out, Botticelli’s painting of the Birth of Venus was an expression of this faith: the symbolism of Venus in this portrayal means that “Natural love, purified, is about to become Christian love, eros to become agape.” (Vincent Cronin: The Florentine Renaissance, p. 2ll. New York: Dutton, 1967.)

The unnatural union between Biblical faith and humanism was shattered by the Reformation. In the regrouping of forces which followed, it gradually became clear that, more basic than the division between Protestant and Catholic, was the division between Christendom and humanism. Both branches of the church were quickly infiltrated by humanism, and, with the French and Russian Revolutions, two things became clear. First, the old attempts at synthesis and union had been discarded. Humanism was now strong enough to stand on its own, to judge and condemn Biblical religion. Second, it was also clear that, however much the facade of synthesis has since been offered to Christendom, the real issue is a war to death.

In the Marxist world, the persecution of Christians (and orthodox Jews) has not diminished with the years. A very considerable number of the people in the slave labor camps are there for religious reasons, and their persecution is savage and intense. The triumph of statist humanism has been very nearly complete, in that virtually every state in the world is either dominated by or under the influence of this alien faith.

At the same time, however, the growing bankruptcy and imminent collapse of humanism has been increasingly in evidence. By replacing God with man as the new ultimate and absolute, humanism has introduced moral anarchy into the world. If every man is his own god and law, then no order is rationally possible. Humanism, having deified rationality, must now use the irrational and coercive power of the socialist state to hold society together.

Moreover, having denied that there is any truth beyond man, humanism has surrendered the world outside of man to total irrationality. There is no meaning, purpose or truth in the world: it is held to be mindless, meaningless, brute factuality. But man, once seen as the principle of reason in the universe, has since Freud been seen as himself irrational and meaningless, so that man no longer can find truth or meaning anywhere. The world and man are essentially pointless and meaningless. The fact that church, school, and state have all been captured by this bankrupt humanism makes the crisis all the greater.

The bankruptcy of humanism makes all the more urgent a return to a consistent and thorough commitment to Biblical faith, to Biblical law, and to a Biblically governed world and life view. It means too that the opportunity for the resurgence of such a faith has never been greater. As the crisis of the 20th century deepened, the opportunity becomes more and more obvious. Men will not long cling to a humanism which cannot provide them with anything to satisfy either their mind or body.

One man, speaking of modern humanistic politics, once told me, “Sure, the system is rotten and senseless, but it still gives me a good living.” There are millions like him, feeding on the relics of humanistic civilization. Every day, however, the emptiness of humanism becomes more apparent; its money is progressively bankrupt, its politics corruption, and its education mindlessness. As a result, since nothing has any meaning, bad taste, vulgarity, profanity, and insanity are enthroned as “art” to express total contempt for all things. As one very popular modern “musician” said recently, “Sometimes I think I’m playing for the lunatic fringe. Luckily, it is widening. In fact, I think it is outdistancing the mainstream.” (“Kinky and Country Music,” LA Times Calendar, p. 68, Sunday, Sept. 30, 1973.) But the cultivation of insanity is the cultivation of irrelevance and death. Such people will not be with us long. The question of importance is, will we stand and move in terms of God’s word and law?


Taken from Chalcedon Report No. 99 (November, 1973).

Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (1916-2001) was the founder of Chalcedon and a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.


Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Normalizing a Pornographic Worldview

Normalizing a Pornographic Worldviewsunset church

Forward to R.J. Rushdoony’s book, ‘Noble Savages.’

By Mark Rushdoony

 “I (Paul) wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people….Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor calamites (those submitting to homosexuals), nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God….Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.” (1Cor.5:9; 6:9; 6:18)

light and darknessPornography is more than images on paper or film. It is also more than an industry whose principal motivation is an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on man’s baser urges. Pornography is a necessary consequence of a specific worldview, a view of man and his relationship to the world, a perspective that guides and shapes his perceptions of his origin and place in the world. Those who peddle pornography for gain may defend their right to do so and perhaps protest that their product is harmless and/or victimless. However, those who believe in the pornographic worldview go much further than its mere defense—they justify it as essential to true freedom and consequently vilify Christian ethics as the actual true evil. The pornographic worldview is central to modern thought, and its philosophy extends beyond the confines of print and

Pornography is more than what you see; it propagates a specific view of man, morality, and life. It is not, at root, about titillation. To approach pornography merely as the impropriety of certain pictures or descriptions is to completely miss the very real ideology behind it, the philosophy of perversion, the worldview of man freed from God and His law. The real horror of pornography is its positive declaration of a new moral ethic. Modern pornographers claim the moral high ground and point an accusing finger at Christian ethics. In this, they are the heirs of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, a conscious revival of the man-centered (humanistic) thought of the ancient world as a rejection of the God-centered (theistic) thought of Christendom. In their particular industry, they follow the thinking of the Marquis de Sade (1740–1814).

When we think of the Marquis de Sade, we too quickly dismiss him as a sexual deviant, one whose name is forever linked to “sadism,” deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from the infliction of pain on or the debasement of others. He was, certainly, a sadist, but why? He was not insane or mentally infirm. De Sade was a logical Enlightenment thinker, who took his humanistic rejection of God to its logical conclusion. De Sade was a thoroughly reprobate man, who refused to consider his perverse ideas and actions as in any way inferior. Rather, he defended them, characterizing them as moral, and he redefined both God and Christian morality to be truly evil. It is necessary to understand de Sade’s thinking in order to understand the primary emphasis of modern thought since the Enlightenment.

De Sade rejected God completely, but in doing so refused to consider himself the offender. Rather, he whipped up moral outrage against God and relished his self-appointed role as His accuser. He rejected even the Enlightenment’s neutered co-opting of Christianity’s God as both unwelcome and unnecessary. De Sade’s thinking was dismissive of any god as a limiting factor on man, thus freeing himself from all moral constraints. Having denied God, de Sade denied the fall and sin. He saw the world in a more consistently man-centered perspective than others of his time and lived his life accordingly. He denied any need for limitations on man and therefore condemned them as illegitimate. He repudiated the idea of crime, regarding it as an illegitimate imposition on man’s freedom. The “criminal” was, to de Sade, the truly free man.

In a purely naturalistic world, de Sade saw everything natural as normative. What Christianity termed fallen and depraved, he proclaimed ideal. What man imagined or desired was seen as natural and hence permissible. The exception, of course, was Christianity, which he felt should be outlawed. In this, also, de Sade was a forerunner of all those who seek total freedom for everything except Christianity, a policy now well-entrenched in schools, courts, legislatures, city halls, and statehouses alike.

De Sade was not the source of modern thought: he was its forerunner. He spent much of his time in prison and did not directly influence many. His lasting impact stems from the clarity of his expression and his consistency. De Sade understood the implications of humanistic thought and dared to go beyond merely developing its implications theoretically: he acted upon them.

Modern humanists are just now arriving at the more consistent worldview of de Sade and proactively imprinting it upon our culture. Increasingly, this is not an activity limited to brothels, sleazy magazines, “adult” websites, and movies. It is now even a part of our educational system, our laws, our courts, and the arts.

Pornography cannot be dealt with in isolation from its concomitant worldview, one that seeks not simply to excuse rebellion from God, but to defend it as true freedom. To reject theistic thought is to reject theistic ethics. The Enlightenment thinkers emphasized the supremacy of human reason and saw nature as the source of law, thus allowing themselves the luxury of subjectively picking and choosing what elements of the Christian tradition were reasonable and reflective of the laws of nature.

Charles Darwin, however, destroyed the possibility of nature as a source of law. He revived the ancient pagan idea of chaos as regenerative. In seeking a naturalistic mechanism for biological evolution, Darwin enthroned randomness as the operational basis of nature. A nature ruled by chance could not be a source of law. As evolutionary thought stretched Darwin’s thousands of years into millions, modern thought also lost faith in reason. Given the new presuppositions about man in evolutionary anthropology, reason came to be seen as a latecomer on the human scene. Darwinism had cast down the two pillars with which modern man had sought to legitimatize his humanism. Both reason and natural law were increasingly regarded as artificial constructs borrowed from theistic thought. Others waited until after Charles Darwin to expel God from His universe. De Sade had anticipated the drift of Western thought two generations previously. By the latter half of the nineteenth century, Western thought had boomeranged back to de Sade’s presuppositions: man comes from chaos and so chaos is legitimate; all is permissible except Christianity. By the end of the twentieth century, such thinking became endemic, extending well beyond intellectual circles.

The theory of biological evolution was a necessary development of humanistic thought. This is why Darwin’s The Origin of Species was an immediate success and why the theory remains entrenched, despite the continued long-term discrediting of its best “proofs.” The facts were wrong; backpedaling on actual evidence was rife. But the theory remained and shall remain because men in rebellion against God, who claim a strictly naturalistic basis for reality, need a scientific rationale for the elimination of God, even as a first cause. Contrary to its own view of man and culture, evolutionary thought drags man down in its continual attempt to view him and his society in terms of the primitive, even animalistic, urges of its mythological early man. Evolutionary thought, which controls most areas of human action, pulls man downward, or, as Cornelius Van Til described it, toward “integration into the void.”

My father, R.J. Rushdoony, has shown that the backward look of evolutionary thought has been apparent in various areas since the Enlightenment and Darwin. The myth of the “noble savage” continues to control anthropology. The Romantic movement idealized the rebel as the true progressive. The ancient pagan idea of chaos as regenerative gave rise to a Western faith in the cathartic nature of revolutions. In our day, environmentalism sees untouched nature as inviolable, often to the point of pantheism. Additionally, modern art sees the chaotic as meaningful and the primitive as pure. Psychoanalysis looks to man’s assumed primeval past for its framework. In a purely naturalistic world ruled by chaos, the natural law and reason of the Enlightenment has given way to the primitivism evolutionary thought prescribed.

In the naturalistic worldview, man’s exercise of freedom justifies the depersonalization and abuse of others. The compulsory disintegration of man’s dignity as a creature of God is itself a form of hostility. This degradation of man and society is a road to barbarism, and many films portray such a future for the world. We cannot arrest this trend without acknowledging its root cause in the Enlightenment view of man and Darwin’s subsequent abuse of science as a means of promoting that philosophy.

The pornographic worldview of de Sade justified man’s total “freedom of expression.” God was denied as the source of order. In the naturalistic worldview, in fact, the Biblical God was an imposition on man’s total freedom. Thus, de Sade took pleasure in corrupting the good, the godly, and the innocent. He reveled in evil precisely because Christianity called it evil.

Pornography is not the problem of our day; it is a symptom, a particular manifestation of the humanistic, evolutionary worldview. It is one aspect of a worldview that sees power as coming from below. In the case of pornography, it sees the vital aspect of sex as its aggression and exploitation. Violence is thus closely associated with sex in the modern mind because evolution’s primitivism carries with it a sympathetic rationale for man’s baser urges. My father pointed-out that medieval man’s aspirations were heavenward, whereas modern man’s are sexual. Sex ostensibly puts the experience of primal power within man’s reach. While the Enlightenment criticized Christianity as the opiate of the masses, we’re far more justified today in regarding sex as the opiate of modern man. Increasingly taxed and regulated, modern man sees sexual license as his essential freedom.

Based as it is on the naturalistic view of man, the worldview of de Sade and his followers goes beyond “consenting adults.” People are used as objects, but exploitation and manipulation prove insufficiently satisfying. Primal urges even justify violence. Violence is a purer exercise of raw power. Hence, pornography in the twentieth century degenerated from smiling pinups to images of the violent and the vulgar. Sadism itself is more than a sexual urge; it is a fulfillment of humanistic man’s spiritual quest to “be as gods” (Gen. 3:5) over others. Even the arrogant justification of these urges is a means of ‘feeling superior’ to others. Without God, there can be no crime. The truly free man will then not only commit crimes, he will defend them as true morality and destroy all order and law that seeks to preclude them. This, of course, includes Christianity.

The modern justification of pornography follows de Sade in its consistent humanism. Once God is denied, His law and ethic must also be denied. De Sade self-consciously knew what he believed and why he believed it. He was neither sick nor insane; he was evil. He saw nature not as a realm of law and reason, but of violence and the rule of raw power. Seeing nature in this way made him reject the supernaturalism of Christianity and its God as “unnatural” impositions. Thus, morality and law were rejected. De Sade’s pornographic mind was less about lust than it was about living out his world and life view. The post-Christian West has, with great rapidity, been catching up with de Sade.

Western culture since the Enlightenment has been recreating itself with each generation’s image of man. As that humanistic image is clarified, man becomes less and less the caretaker of culture and more its destroyer. Man’s image of himself has created a desire for pleasure and gratification. Pornography is one expression of man’s desire to live in terms of his every urge. De Sade was a forerunner of such thinking, but not its direct source. My father, R.J. Rushdoony, further developed the outworking of Enlightenment thought and the Marquis de Sade in his posthumously published follow-up: To Be as God: A Study of Modern Thought since the Marquis de Sade (Ross House Books, 2003).

Not only is pornography more than simple pictures, it is more than actual sexuality. It involves what my father calls “paper sexuality,” wherein people desire to voyeuristically observe more than they are capable of practicing. Modern man loves fiction and has a hard time dealing with reality, as witness the explosion of psychoanalysis in the past century.

Pornography is part of this view of “life as fiction.” It prefers the inner world of the imagination. Pornographic images and stories are thus never constrained by a felt need to be realistic, for they are intended to satisfy the inner world of the imagination, a fantasy world where people can be manipulated and violated without consequences.

The modern mind resists all attempts to control evil, particularly evils that it piously characterizes as “self expression.” It is ready to oppose all “censorship” as a matter of principle and defend such opposition to standards as a moral stand in itself. This, however, was exactly the position of the Marquis de Sade, who believed that freedom must be total and that whatever the mind of man conceived, was good. Pornography today is likewise defended as an exploration of the human consciousness, one which, we must remember, is supposedly rooted in a pre-human mind and experience. Any naturalistic argument against perversity (“It is unnatural”) will self-implode, for what is unnatural in a supernatural, Christian, theistic worldview may well be entirely normative in the naturalistic evolutionary worldview of modern humanism. If it is not, the structures of society can be blamed, and the prodding of our modern arts and entertainment industry (with the help of some liberal judges) may soon make it normal. Once something exists, naturalistic reasoning can defend it.

The Christian worldview is based on a supernatural perspective and cannot be defended by naturalistic argument. Truth and ethics must be grounded on God’s revealed Word, not on man’s perception of what is normative.

Neither can we oppose evil by tradition or community standards, which are no better than what the Apostle Paul called “the commandments and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22. The Victorian era could not stem the tide of immorality by erecting standards of behavior. It failed to rein in the emerging secular worldview by the subjective, personalized moral code of Pietism. The Victorian faith was not in God but in goodness. It did not seek to submit to the Word of God, but to “be good like Jesus.” We stop immorality not by manners or conventions but by godly morality, which must begin with the regenerate heart of a new creature in Christ. To be moral, man requires the grace of God, by means of which he learns to progressively abandon his sinful tendencies and live more and more unto righteousness. The humanistic worldview, when stripped of its borrowings from Christian ethics, leads downward “into the void” of the pornographic worldview. The former is the progenitor of the latter and can never be successfully used to oppose it. The only alternative is the Biblical worldview.

In contrast to de Sade and modern man’s view of power from below, Biblical faith sees power and order from above and looks to God’s grace for a part therein. The failure of the churches to present a Biblical morality ultimately allowed the humanistic worldview to thoroughly control social debate. The humanistic worldview of de Sade and Darwin cannot be challenged by a church that denies that Biblical law is the objective and authoritative Word of God, a church that enthrones man’s subjective feelings and glibly labels the results as the leading of God’s Spirit. The primary leading of God’s Spirit is always in greater faithfulness to His revealed Word.

We cannot stop the pornographic worldview merely by opposing it. Neither can we stop pornography by removing it from the internet, newsstands, cable, or satellite networks. The worldview that justifies evil and demands the right to debase and pollute must be opposed by its sole antithesis, the Biblical worldview. The modern faith in man and the ultimacy of his urges must be countered with the claims of God as the Sovereign dispenser of law and grace.

Man must approach God in faith and respond to Him in faithful obedience. The theistic worldview created Western civilization. The naturalistic worldview is consistently suicidal and pulls down men and women, marriages, social institutions, and, ultimately, culture itself. The gospel of Jesus Christ opens up a supernatural worldview that offers meaning, hope, and purpose. The choice for both man and his culture is life or death, the Kingdom of God and His Christ or the kingdom of man.


Article excerpt from




Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Law of Christ, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Black Churches Break Ties with PCUSA over Gay Marriage

EmilyCarr-Indian-Church-192934,000 Black Churches break ties with Presbyterian Church USA over ‘Gay Marriage’

 Anthony Evans and Anugrah Kumar

More than 34,000 churches are leaving the Texas PCUSA over ‘gay marriage.’

The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African-Americans, has broken its fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) following its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage.AAA

The Presbyterian General Assembly, the top legislative body of the PCUSA, voted last June to revise the constitutional language defining marriage. This arbitrary change of Holy Scripture is a flagrantly pretentious and illegitimate maneuver by a body that has no authority whatsoever to alter holy text.

This is not the first time that PCUSA has hit the headlines on its move toward greater acceptance of homosexuality within the church.

In 2010, the PCUSA General Assembly approved a measure that allowed for presbyteries to approve the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals – after which more than 150 congregations voted to disaffiliate from the mainline denomination.

Last year, PCUSA approved a vote on an amendment to change their official definition of marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two people, traditionally a man and a woman.” And earlier this month (March 2015), the proposed change to PCUSA’s Book of Order got the necessary number of presbytery votes.

“A proposed amendment to change the constitution to include same-gender marriages in the church’s constitution passed the General Assembly but must be ratified by a majority of the church’s 172 regional presbyteries,” explained PCUSA in a FAQ document. “Presbyteries have one year to vote on the proposed amendment. If a majority ratifies the amendment, it would take effect June 21.”

Rev. Anthony Evans, NBCI President noted:

“NBCI and its membership base are simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ. We urge our brothers and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship.”

“PCUSA’s manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members. With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act.

Apostle Paul warns us about this when he declared in Galatians 1:8 that there are those who will preach another gospel:

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. … For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

No church has the right to change the Word of God. By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ’s saving grace. There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture.”

“In this case, PCUSA deliberately voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of holy marriage between one man and one woman. This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.”


 From March 2015



Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Racism

The New RacismUniversity1

 Chalcedon Position Paper No. 14

By R. J. Rushdoony

Racism is a relatively new fact on the world scene. In earlier eras, not race but religion was the basis of discrimination. Although religious history has been marred by ugly violence against other religious groups, and the history of the Christian church is no exception to this, there is a notable fact which is often forgotten. Missionary faiths, and supremely Christianity, normally seek to win other groups, not oppress them, and this missionary impulse has also provided, in many eras, a favorable cause for a friendly approach.

University5In the modern era, as Christianity’s influence receded and science began to govern together with humanism; biology came to predominate over theology. The differences between men were seen increasingly as biological and racial rather than religious. The earlier physical anthropologists made very precise and detailed physical studies of all peoples in order to establish the physical differences between races.biology

The theory of evolution fueled this developing scientific racism and added still another important factor. Many theories began to hold to a multiple origin for the human race. Whereas in Scripture all men are descendants of Adam, in evolutionary thought, all men are possibly descendants of very differing evolutionary sources. Common descent in Adam meant a common creation, nature, and responsibility under God. The idea of multiple origins proved divisive. The human race was no longer the human race! It was a collection of possibly human races, a very different doctrine.

It is important to recognize that racism was in origin a scientific doctrine. Whenever a scientific doctrine is discarded, as witness the idea of the acquired inheritance of environmental influences, the old scientific doctrine, as it lingers on in popular thought, is blamed on religion or popular superstition! The origins of racism are in very highly respectable scientific theorists. The fact that men like Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), a British admiral’s son and son-in-law of Richard Wagner, took this scientific literature to develop what became the foundation of Nazi thought does not eliminate its scientific origins.

The defeat of the Nazis did not end racism. Instead, it has again become respectable and widespread. We must remember that studies of Hitler’s Germany indicate that his support came from liberals, democrats, socialists, and the intellectual community. Scholars like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have ably exposed the myth of a conservative or rightist origin for Hitler’s support. The fact of Hitler’s antipathy to Christianity helped enlist support for him.

The new racism is widespread and common to many peoples and to every continent. It has now become a part also of the religious vocabulary of many churchmen. Thus, in almost every seminary today, pompous professors rail against a missions program which would export “the white mentality” and European modes of thought. What is the white mentality, and what is the European mode of thought, as against the human, common to all men? If it is specifically white and European, it must be common to the pre-Christian European as a racial factor. The pre-Christian Saxons, for example, practiced human sacrifice, and more. Much more could be said about pre-Christian Europeans, but I have no desire to be flooded with angry letters. No race born of Adam has a good history: this is the biblical fact, and the historical fact.

The Western mind, common to Europe and the Americas, is a product, not of race, but of culture, religious culture. Elements of it, none too good, go back to the barbarian peoples of Europe. Other aspects are from Greek philosophy, again none too good. (The Greeks described all non-Greeks as barbarians on cultural, not racist, grounds. They gave brilliant and inventive slaves a Greek name and status.) The Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of biblical religion. It is a religious, not a racial, product.

A generation ago, a pope with humane intentions said, “Spiritually, we are all Semites.” Despite his humane intentions, he was wrong. Arabs are Semites, and we are not Arabic in our faith and culture. He would have been equally wrong had he said Hebrews or Jews. The culture of the West is not the property of any race or people in its origin. It is biblical. True, much sin is present in Western culture. True, such sin needs to be condemned. But the mind of the West bears the imprint of the Bible. It is not understandable on any other terms.

Today, however, men speak of the white mentality, the Asiatic soul, and the African mind. Some educators are insistent on the need to recognize and give status in the schools to what they call “black English.”

Implicit in all of this is a racist view of man. Races are seen as the sources of varying kinds of logic and reason. To deny the validity of the concept of a white mind, an African mind, or an Asiatic mind is seen as reactionary, imperialistic, and evil.

The mentality of a people, however, is not a product of race but of religion, and the culture of that religion. The key factor is always religion. There is a hidden but insane pride among those who oppose exporting the white mentality. Although such men would never dare say it explicitly, or even think it, what they are saying implicitly is that other races are not up to comprehending the white mentality. All talk of differing mentalities has a patronizing perspective; it also says that race, not sin, is the problem of other peoples and their cultures.

Because of the new racism, we now have a growing body of religious literature, aimed at the seminary student, pastor, and missionary, which talks about contextualization. Supposedly, the only way to communicate the gospel to other races is by giving priority to the context over biblical faith and confessional statements. The impetus for contextualization has come from the Theological Education Fund, set up in 1957 by the Rockefeller Foundation. Contextualization calls also for an emphasis on the struggle for justice in terms of “liberation theology” (a form of Marxism) and existentialistic responses to the historical moment in the Third World. Contextualization places a heavy emphasis on human need rather than God’s infallible word. Its mission is thus contemporary and social, not theological and supernatural. Contextualists of all theological stripes shift their language from that of Scripture to the jargon spawned by the Theological Education Fund.

Closely related to this in the area of Bible translations is the dynamic equivalence theory, now common to most Bible societies and translation groups. This doctrine, of which Eugene A. Nida is an exponent, “translates” the Bible into a culture and its ideas. This can mean giving an historical account a psychoanalytic or mythological meaning. Instead of reshaping the culture, the Bible is “translated” into the culture. (Such a doctrine makes the culture in effect the unerring word, not the Bible. The culture thus corrects or amends the Bible — not the Bible affecting culture.) As Jakob van Bruggen, in The Future of the Bible, points out, “the dynamic equivalence translation theory owes its influence and effect to the blending of modern theological prejudices regarding the Bible with data borrowed from communication theory, cultural anthropology, and modern sociology rather than to insights from linguistics” (Thomas Nelson Inc., 1978, p. 151).

The implications of this new racism are far-reaching. Instead of working to change a people, we have a static and racist view of a people and their culture. It is the Bible and the mission which must change, not the people! We must teach a “black English” if any at all, and a black, brown, or yellow Christianity, if any at all. It takes only a brief excursion into “liberation theology,” contextualization, and like doctrines to realize that it is not Christianity at all which is taught, but a counterfeit. Relevance is sought, not to the Lord and His word, but to fallen man and his racial heritage. Such is not the Gospel; it is the new racism.

The new racism passes, however, for vital, relevant Christianity. It is widely promoted by seminaries and missionary organizations. It encourages races, like individuals, to trumpet the existentialist (and hippie) slogan, “I want to be me!” The historical goal is racial realization! Providentially, the early missionaries to Europe, coming from North Africa, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean world generally, had no such regard for the European mind. They regarded it as unregenerate and in need of being broken and redeemed. All the plagues and evils of “the European mind” are products of the fallen man and the relics of barbarian cultures, not of Christ and His word. All that is good in “the European mind” is a result of Christian culture, not of race.

The words of Paul are a sharp rebuke to all who want men to glory in their blood, race, or history: “For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7).


Article from The American Vision.

To see more from Rev. Rushdoony see:


Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment