Socialism in the Church

Ludwig von Mises was an agnostic economist who wrote extensively about the way economics and church interact with each other. It should come as no surprise that he would offer his thoughts on the Christian chruch embracing concepts which would have been heresy at any other time. In his view socialism had crept into the Christian church.

From Mises.org:

Writing in the middle of the twentieth century, Mises observed about Christianity and socialism: "The Christian churches and sects did not fight socialism. Step by step they accepted its essential political and social ideas. Today they are, with but few exceptions, outspoken in rejecting capitalism and advocating either socialism or interventionist policies which must inevitably result in the establishment of socialism."

Recently, I spoke with several pastors (of different denominations) and asked them to read several tenets from a book which I did not reveal. The tenets were those of Karl Marx speaking about the using the government to take from richer people to give to poor people in need. They did not object to the concept and unfortunately when I revealed the author none of them had ever heard of him.

Conservative churchmen today are for the most part interventionist to the core. Their support of government-financed "faith-based" initiatives and moral crusades, their incessant demands for constitutional amendments, and their acceptance of state intervention as long as it is on behalf of their causes are only exceeded by their ignorance of the most basic economic principles.

Mises also recognized the contradictions in our beliefs and our actions:

"The atheists make capitalism responsible for the survival of Christianity. But the papal encyclicals blame capitalism for the spread of irreligion and the sins of our contemporaries, and the Protestant churches and sects are no less vigorous in their indictment of capitalist greed."

Why would a pastor or any Christian need to know recognize economic and political theory? The reality is that they wouldn't, except that they keep commenting on it. That's why you won't find any mention of Christians in the book of Acts seeking to make the world around them more Christian by working through the government system. Instead, they simply proclaimed the gospel and let everything and everyone else sort themselves out. When Constatine offered to bring together church and state to the early Christians, they should have rejected it, but instead we got several inane councils, the Catholic Church, and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, which was arguably neither holy nor Roman. Do you wish to create the same relationship here?

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing...

Mel Gibson is softening the violence in "The Passion of the Christ" just in time for Easter:

Mel Gibson will release a new, low-violence version of his 2004 mega-hit The Passion of the Christ next month, Daily Variety reports.

The star, dubbed Hollywood's most powerful figure since the huge success of the low-budget, graphically gory film, is trimming five to six minutes of violent scenes ahead of the film's March 11 reappearance on United States screens.

I've never been a big fan of the movie and didn't rush out to see it when it came out, but I wouldn't soften it for Easter. It seems to me they are just trying make it one of those staples of the season like "It's a Wonderful Life" or the "Ten Commandments". I say bring on the violence and cut out the slow, sappy stuff!

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

For our brothers and sisters of the East

Who would have thought that the Christians in Iraq would have better off with Saddam, a single secular leader, than with millions of individual Muslims?

Across the street from St. Joseph's, a Christian woman from Baghdad told IPS that her husband, son, and best friend had been kidnapped together in the capital before she fled to northern Iraq. Her son was released after 10 days, she says; but when he returned to his family, it was with the news that both husband and friend had been beheaded.

The woman, who asked that her name be withheld for security reasons, still makes regular trips back to Baghdad to search for her husband's body.

On Nov. 8, 2004, four churches in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul were bombed – leaving 11 dead and dozens more injured. Since the beginning of the occupation by U.S-led forces, thousands of Christians have fled Arab areas of Iraq for northern regions, Syria, and Jordan.

It's a shame that it has come to this, but after studying Revalation I have come to realize that those without the mark will protected from God's wrath, but not the wrath of man. So great will the persecution be that even the souls of the martyrs will cry out for God to avenge them!

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Defining a People

If you've never visited wikipedia, the best way to describe it is as an actual Hitchikers Guide to the Earth. Meaning that anyone with useful information can submit it to the site as information that could possibly be of use to someone.

Here is what it says about a group to which I belong:

Oneness Pentecostal

An offshoot of the Pentecostal branch of Christianity, Oneness Pentecostals believe that there is one God with no essential divisions in His nature (such as a trinity) . He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes, or relationships to man. Furthermore, these are not limited to three. Whereas Trinitarian Christianity teaches that God is existent in three Persons, Oneness doctrine states that there is only one member of the Godhead, namely Jesus. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God. In His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.


The largest Oneness (also known as Apostolic) denomination is the United Pentecostal Church, though many smaller groups exist in the United States including:

* The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
* The Bible Way Churches of Our Lord Jesus Christ World Wide
* The Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, external link (http://www.ALJC.org)
* The Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
* The Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God

Oneness Pentecostal groups with headquarters in other countries include The United Pentecostal Church of Colombia, an indigenous church and the largest non-Catholic church in the country; The Apostolic Church of the Faith in Christ Jesus, with headquarters in Mexico; the Oneness Pentecostal movement in the former U.S.S.R.; and the True Jesus Church, an indigenous church founded by Chinese believers on the mainland but whose headquarters is now in Taiwan. There are many smaller organizations (approximately 130 worldwide), independent churches, and charismatic fellowships that are Oneness Pentecostal in doctrine.

The Oneness movement dates back to the early 20th century, in the waning days of the Azusa Street Revival.

Not bad. I'm always amazed at how much of a prescence there are of oneness believers in other countries. Even if the movement burned out in the America, there would still be a people who believed like I do somewhere in the world. In the pictures I've seen of the revivals in Ethiopia or people, rows and rows stretching out past the view of the camera, praying and worshipping.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Christian Libertarian Accession

Vox Day, an evangelical libertarian writer, has an old article about the congruity between Christianity and libertarianism in his archives. He breaks it down and makes it easy to understand for the most part. He also points out how libertarianism is not "inherently godless" and is actually closer to the principles of Christianity and Judaism than any other ideology or party.

Check it out

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

A little skepticism would be nice

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I like a good look at reality from time to time, so I was surprised when I decided to do a little experiment. You can do it too.

Before I begin let me just say that I don't know why they wrote it and I'm not going to be the one to speculate.

Take a dollar bill out of your wallet or purse and go to his site - Latin Dictionary

Now one at a time enter the words: Novus, ordo, seclorum. Make a note of their definitions. As you can see, these are the words on the banner under the pyramid on the dollar bill.

Next, enter in the words annuit and coeptis. Also, make a note of the definitions. These words are located by the top of the pyramid.

Fine, you lazy bum I'll do it for ya!
Novus:

nov.us ADJ 1 1 NOM S M POS
novus, nova -um, novior -or -us, novissimus -a -um ADJ
new, fresh, young; unusual, extraordinary; (novae res, f. pl. = revolution);

Ordo

ordo N 3 1 NOM S M
ordo, ordinis N M
row, order/rank; succession; series; class; bank (oars); order (of monks)

Seclorum

Word mod cl/cul
An internal 'cl' might be rendered by 'cul'
secul.orum N 2 2 GEN P N
seculum, seculi N N Later
the world/universe; secular/temporal/earthly/worldly affairs/cares/temptation;

Annuit

annu.it V 3 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 3 S
annu.it V 3 1 PERF ACTIVE IND 3 S
annuo, annuere, annui, annutus V
designate w/nod, nod assent; indicate, declare; favor/smile on; agree to, gran

Coeptis

coept.is VPAR 3 1 DAT P X PERF PASSIVE PPL
coept.is VPAR 3 1 ABL P X PERF PASSIVE PPL
coepio, coepere, coepi, coeptus V
begin, commence, initiate; set foot on; (usu. PERF, PASS w/PASS INF; PRES earl
coept.is ADJ 1 1 DAT P X POS
coept.is ADJ 1 1 ABL P X POS
coeptus, coepta, coeptum ADJ
begun, started, commenced; undertaken;
coept.is N 2 2 DAT P N
coept.is N 2 2 ABL P N
coeptum, coepti N N
undertaking (usu.pl.), enterprise, scheme; work begun/started/taken in hand;

So, you might come up with:
Declared/Favorable undertaking/enterprise
New World Order (of the Ages?)

When in danger or in doubt, run in cirlces, scream and shout. Or just look it up from an alternate source.

I've never studied Latin so I wasn't entirely sure my translation would be accurate.
This guy puts the wording as such:

The words "Annuit Coeptis" (thirteen letters) mean "God has favored our undertakings," or "enterprise." At the bottom are the words "Novus Ordo Seclorum," meaning the "New Order of the Ages." At the base of the pyramid is the Roman inscription of "1776," the year our country was founded.

The motto has been traced to Virgil, the renowned Roman poet who lived in the first century B.C. – to a line in his Eclogue IV, the pastoral poem that expresses the longing of the world for a new era of peace and happiness.

"Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo."

Virgil's line has been translated in different ways, including:
The great series of ages begins anew.
The ages' mighty march begins anew.
A mighty order of ages is born anew.
The majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew.

"Novus" means: new, young, fresh, novel.

"Ordo" means: series, row, order.

"Seclorum, a shortened form of seculorum (sæculorum), is the plural of seculum (sæculum), means: generations, centuries, ages.

NOTE: "Novus ordo seclorum" was not intended to mean (nor does it correctly translate into) "new world order." Seclorum is plural (new worlds order?). And Thomson said the motto refers to the beginning of a new age – an American era beginning in 1776. The pyramid's rising rows of construction help illustrate this new series of generations.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Mardi Gras

Living right outside of New Orleans for most of my life I decided to go to Mardi Gras on Bourbon street. I will admit that I wasn't there to witness (having never heard whether there by any such thing as the Holy Ghost), but to partake of the wild hedonism of the moment. Believe me, if someone had been there trying to witness to me or my friends, we probably would have done something sinister.

Every year during Mardi Gras some group of people, usually a family with kids as young as ten, would make their way to my college to yell at students that "going to college is a sin" and hold up signs saying what bad people we were. Even Christians students who tried to talked to them were yelled at harshly. They were on their way to Mardi Gras, but I guess they wanted to stop and get some more practice in before the big night. Most of the students ignored them, but things started to turn ugly when some of the students began throwing stuff at the already yelling parents(thankfully not the kids whom everyone felt sorry for). Luckily, security intervened and saved the students or maybe the yellers, to my knowledge both needed some saving.

Anyway, there were some really good Christians there who had started a year before the incidents a special week called "Jesus Week" where they really made an effort to evangelize. It was well received by almost everyone...until the people with the signs showed up. Everything went downhill from there.

I've heard stories of those who go down to Bourbon Street to witness, only to get yelled at or beat up. The stories of these people are great, enough to make you want to almost do it yourself. Still, I can't think of single time when Jesus, Peter, Paul or anyone preaching the gospel went to a then Sodom to evangelize.

The fact is that people who are at Mardi Gras are not looking for God, salvation, or Bible studies. They understand perfectly well why they are there. The thing about sin, however, is that there are always after effects and in those moments is where Christians should be.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Bite the hand that doesn't feed you

I was always taught that women were the civilizing force in civilization, but things like this just make me wonder.

From CNN

A Huntsville, Alabama, woman charged with capital murder in the deaths of her three children told investigators she "deliberately starved her children to death," a police spokesman said Saturday.

One women drowns her children in a bathtub, another drives them into a lake, another allows them to be molested. It might be time to re-evaluate some of our old beliefs about women.

If women ruled the world, would there still be war? One only has to look at the history of Sparta to see that theory in action. Can women kill in combat? Just take a look at our current armed forces. I'd say that technology has made them equally good at killing as men have been.

Of course, men invented the A-Bomb, H-Bomb, biological warfare, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, and a million other evils, but perhaps it's time re-think whether women are capable of the same gruesome feats.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Command of the Word

My goal in regards to reading the Bible is to understand, not to memorize. This is a different approach than most are used to. Understanding is never quite as impressive as being able to quote the Bible extensively, but is just as important. Bible quizzing is I'm sure very fun and fundamentally important, but without regards to historical context being able to quote an entire chapter from Numbers is useless.

Delve into the Hebrew and Greek. Is "Lucifer" truly the name of the Satan or an epithet for a fallen king? How did "Son of the Morning Star" get translated into Lucifer? History will prove your answer.

In fact, it's easy to realize just how much you don't understand about reading the Bible unless you've spoken with or read from a true historian. Without an understanding one might argue that Moses did write the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, but Moses would have to been able to know when and where he died as well as some other things that happened long after he passed away. As a student of the great history books of Egypt in the great library of Alexandria, Moses would have been able to study and write most of the Old Testament, but it is nearly impossible to argue that he wrote the whole thing.

If you understand the history and context of the Bible the scriptures will open up for you. Debating a certain scripture? Let your opponent quote to his hearts desire, then reveal the context of what they are quoting. Chances are that they are mearly quoting, not understanding and their argument won't stand the barrage of simple logic.

Don't get bogged down with memorizing. Study the verses, study the history, and you will come away with a better understanding than mere memorization will ever give you.

I know what you're thinking. What happens if bad men wipe the Bible off the face of the Earth? Here's what happens: those who memorized will rack their brains trying to piece together everything they can remember, but those who understand will have built their own minds on what they had learned and will write new books, just as Paul did. If at the end of the day, the meaning is lost, such as it has become with Shakespeare and Marlow, then all you have left is the idea. I am one of the few people I know who can quote even a little of Shakespeare, but ask anyone what Romeo and Juliet was about and they will tell you without hesitation. They remember the idea, the story, and will teach others.

Ok, having someone able to quote from the Bible is wonderful if you don't have one, but I find that memorization comes from repitition and it's much easier to memorize when you understand context. Getting bogged down memorizing every "thee" and "the" will make it easier to forget the big idea.

On a similar note: in the movie The Day After Tomorrow the librarian is holding a Bible and when questioned why he simply states that he wants to hold on to one of the last great books of Western Civilization. Correct me, but isn't the Bible a product of Eastern Civilization, not Western?

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

View from afar

My mom put a tape of Malcolm in the Middle one day while I was waiting to play basketball. I had never seen the show before so I took it with a grain of salt when she said it was really funny. Malcolm, a young teenager finds himself really liking a girl in one his classes. The only problem is that he's smart and she's a ditz. Everytime he talks to her, she doesn't understand half the words he uses easily. So he decides to enlist the help of his not-so-smart brother.

His brother shows him essentially how to turn his brain off and feeds him lines from behind a locker door. (Allow me to badly paraphrase)

(Malcolm's brother wispers something from behind the locker)
Malcolm: "What! That makes no sense! She's not going to like that!"
Malcolm's brother: "Just try it..."
Malcolm: "Ok, whatever. If we gave all the poor people in the world one million dollars, then they wouldn't be poor anymore!"
Girl: "Wow! That's such a great idea! You're so smart Malcolm. Want to go out with me this weekend?"

Later, Malcolm realizes that he must be himself, which is more important than a pretty face.

The first date I had with my wife I decided to come out guns blazing with the craziest thoughts I've ever had role through my head. She listened and never once made fun of me, which often happens when someone doesn't understand what I'm saying. That was the moment I knew that this girl was for me.

Of course, she couldn't help but like me. :)

War, the reuniter

If you ever speak about the validity of the Civil War there are two main arguments which could be made. One, that slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished and two, that we could not allow the country to divide.

If slavery is taken into account then all we should need to mention is that no other country experienced civil war in order to rid themselves of slavery. Read that again, all other countries at the time ended slavery relatively peacefully without civil war anywhere near the scale we experienced. Also, many northern states at war against the south were still allowing slavery. Unless you're reading from a eight grade textbook you wouldn't make the argument that the Civil War was about slavery at all.

However, my argument is not over slavery, a horror still practiced elsewhere, but the total cost of the war, its justification, and its implications.

I've had this discussion with lots of people and after you point out that it wasn't about slavery and aside from money they always turn to the justification that we had to preserve the union of state. At first this may seem like a good thing regardless of whether the states had the right to sucede or not, but the problem is with that ideas implications. The the standpoint of unification any number of atrocities in other parts of the globe could be rationalized.

The total casualties of the armies of the Civil War was around 500,000 not to mention casualties of those who fell within its path which would probably bring the list of dead closer to 750,000. Add in the number of wounded and it would have been hard to find anyone unaffected by the whole thing.

So, if the argument is the preservation of the Union then we have a real problem. If we justify that the war was needed in order to preserve the United States then we must make exception for other countries as well. We have essentially rationalized ourselves into a corner and can now justify unification by force.

China needs to unify with Taiwan in order to maintain its solidarity. Hitler needed to reunify Germany. Russia needs to reunify with its former states, namely Chechnya. South Korea needs to be unified with North Korea. In each case, were we to question their motives and use of force we would again faced with our own rationale.

Just how many lives would it be worth to keep every state today. Would you be willing to give your life for the Union? Or to give your child? "United we stand, divided we fall" is hardly applicable when you take into account that it will cost a million lives or just your own.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Posh Description

It seems I've been tagged with "Current events with a Christian Libertarian". Oh well, I suppose "Christian Libertarian anarcho-capitalist aristocrat" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well. :)

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Chosen nation or chosen people?

We Americans like to think of ourselves of having been founded, by God, as a chosen nation created by the Almighty to bring peace and prosperity to the world. Another has it that we are blessed by the freedom gained by those who came before us and established the capitalist system we had until the 1920s. It's interesting that whenever people are free to build and to gain, they prosper. We would not consider China to be chosen, yet having removed much of the forces that kept people from being free they are now experiencing mighty prosperity. The same argument could be made for India and formerly Chile. If prosperity isn't a sure sign blessing from the Creator than what is?

From Kirk W. Tofte on "Myths America Lives By"

Perhaps the best example of what Hughes writes about is his description of the myth of "America as the Chosen Nation." This was a story that flowed out of the experiences of the first Pilgrim settlers in Massachusetts. Their endeavors seemed to them to be much like those of the Jewish people in ancient times who escaped their oppressor, Pharaoh, miraculously crossed a sea and then established a new nation in the land of Canaan. The Pilgrims, too, had escaped an oppressor (the Church of England), had crossed not a sea but a vast ocean and found their own Promised Land in America.

Hughes describes wonderfully how the myth of America as the Chosen Nation became central to the story Americans tell themselves about their country’s founding, meaning and purpose. The fundamental reason this story has won such wide acceptance over so many decades is that "the Puritans told a focused, compelling and convincing story that no other immigrant group could match. Yet, it was a story with which many immigrant groups could identify. In numerous books, treatises, and sermons, the Puritans told how God led them from oppression into a promised land. Immigrants from all over Europe – and from many other parts of the world – found this story immensely compelling and adopted it as if were their very own." They did so, in no small part, because the story was their own whether they were landless Northern Europeans, the starving Irish, persecuted Jews or whomever.

I don't disagree that great events happened which even the staunchest athiest might agree were "unbelievable coincidences", but could these same ideas lead us in the wrong direction?

If Christianity is righteous and America is a Christian Nation, the United States is by definition a righteous nation. Thus, the myth of Christian Nation becomes a fairy tale that says whatever behavior our country engages in on this planet, it must be behaving righteously because America is the seat of righteousness in the world.

The belief that the United States could help usher in an age of freedom that would eventually bless all the people of the world has been held by Americans since the first successes of the early national period that began with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This belief is at the foundation of the myth of Millennial Nation. But this myth has always led to misery when America has tried to coerce by force of arms others to be "free."

Let us rather say that economic freedom and spiritual freedom has allowed Christians to propogate the gospel across the world in a way unprecedented historically. We are and can be blessed, but not with prosperity, which in early Christianity was better seen as a detriment rather than approval.

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat 5:7 Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mat 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

On their way out

From Bruce Shortt, author of "The Harsh Truth about Public Schools"

"Unfortunately, Christian parents allow an aggressively anti-Christian institution to form the minds of their children, and the fruit of that choice is bitter. The overwhelming majority of children from evangelical families leave the church within two years after they graduate from high school; only 9 percent of evangelical teens believe that there is any such thing as absolute moral truth; and, our children are being forcibly indoctrinated to believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable."
...
In the book, Shortt documents the pitfalls of public schools, saying the anti-Christian thrust of the governmental school system produces inevitable results: "moral relativism (no fixed standards), academic dumbing down, far-left programs, near absence of discipline and the persistent but pitiable rationalizations offered by government education professionals."

Shortt also urges pastors to read the book so they might "understand why the church can no longer abdicate its historic role in the education of our children."

I noticed this too, when I first got in church - wasn't born into it, had to be dragged :) - that many kids seemed to leave church after leaving high school. When I asked why, no one could answer, they just shrugged and said that they hoped for the best.

If you don't believe me and you think that the children and young teens in your church know enough to get them through those first few years after high school, then ask each one why they believe by giving verse and explanation. You will probably get Acts 2:38 and maybe John 3:16, but be surprised. I doubt most could last 2 minutes with someone hard pressing them in debate.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com

Teach your children well

From Vox Day by way of WND.com:

One argument often heard in defense of the public schools is that education is better left to those trained to teach, to the "professionals." Most teachers, after all, are required to have a college degree in education, and in many states they are forced to take tests purported to prove that they are not drooling idiots. Although one has to wonder what exactly is on those tests considering that after 59 percent of prospective teachers failed to pass the Massachusetts Teachers' Test in 1999, the test was assailed by FairTest, a teacher-run organization that opposes tests for teachers, in the following manner:

The MTT included many bizarre questions unlike those on any other state's teacher licensing exams. On one, candidates were asked to transcribe a portion of 'The Federalist Papers' as dictated from a low quality tape-recorder. Other items asked for dictionary definitions of words with questions such as "What is a preposition?" and "What is an adjective?"

Clearly, it is outrageous to expect public school teachers to know elementary grammar or be able to perform tasks that entry-level secretaries with two-year vo-tech degrees handle with ease.

Really, I'd like to laugh if it wasn't so depressing.

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Really, really depressing.
Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking if we, as parents, are qualified, maybe we should be asking if anyone else is truly qualified to teach our children.

E-mail Sean at 99blogger@ninetyandnine.com