Revisiting Christian Broadcasters and Unquestioned Loyalty

Ingrid Schlueter of VCY America and Slice Of Laodicea posted a comment here regarding the evangelical/fundamentalist reactions to questioning the current presidential and congressional leadership in power. Her comment deserves its own comment section----in fact probably a book rather than a comment section----but here it is:


Actually, the time I went on the radio last year and questioned the President's foreign policy in Iraq, I got my head taken off. I have never gotten such hate mail in all my life. Christians don't want honest analysis, they want a slogan, a bumper sticker and an American flag. I gave up and gave them what they want to be completely honest. If Ron Paul's people would return phone calls, he'd be welcome on Crosstalk. I oppose the war in Iraq from the first day of the invasion. I predicted disaster because of the history of that nation and the uncanny ability these people have of nursing a grudge for thousands of years. You can't export democracy like cheeseburgers. You have to have an underlying worldview that supports the rights of the individual, etc. Islam will never have anything but a pile of bodies and burned out cars to show for their worldview. You can quote me on that. Just noticed your blog today and had to comment. Regards.

I think Ingrid is correct in her assessment about what Christians want to hear these days----and it is a siren song playing rather than the truth...a slogan, a bumper sticker, and an American flag------the sound of an idiot signifying nothing, as Shakespeare once put it....

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–2

Hate mail from Christians??????? Undying Nazi like devotion to an illusion? This attitude and mindset is far more prevalent and ingrained in the fabric of all of our personalities than we would like to think and broaches all boundaries political/social/religious ....

Fundamentalism is so much like Facism that it is hard to distinguish the two sometimes.....

Ingrid says she has "given up" trying to inform the Christian community regarding the truth...I really understand. So have I.

But---this reality has made me rethink what REAL Christianity is and is not----real Christians will not be the voice of warmed over facism dressed up like evangelical Methodism or otherwise. (I seriously doubt our current President could even tell you what the content of the Methodist Book of Discipline is let alone the content of the Bible or the Constitution.)

I also have to revise my assessment of NASCAR and the NASCAR mentality. The sport is not totally without some value. My comments re the "NASCAR mentality" were directed toward those who are continuous mindless spectators, consumed with self pleasure....much of NASCAR and those who participate in the sport are not mindless---far from it. I simply do not want to make glittering generalities and oversimplified statements any more.....

I used to do that at VCY America when i worked there-----no more. I don't have to worry about donations like some do.....I work for a living. I do not prey on the fears and hopes of people with the intent of prying loose some cash so as to perpetuate my kingdom/organization/broadcasting facility and the lifestyle to which those who do so have become accustomed. Manipulation comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes.

Adhering to my policy regarding glittering generalities: I have personal knowledge of some of the above activities and participated in the hatred, assisted in generating the fear and manipulation. I did believe what i was doing was right----however, my sincerity does not mitigate the gross errors and malevolent intent.

I have news for all who engage in such activity: You are going to die----what will you leave behind? Answer?: Everything.

No Longer a Spin Doctor: The Manipulation of the Religious Right....is the name of my upcoming book. The sad core truth is that fundamentalism/evangelicalism are both the manipulators and manipulatees. (Is that a word?)

And, Ingrid, I understand your predicament----you will work it out. I did. Blessings to ALL of your family---truly----you were once my family too. Just understand that i see the beauty in all of you as well as everything else.....and I never intended harm in any way. In fact, I would, if I could, revisit 2000-2003 as well as 1994-2000 and do things alot differently.

Age and experience have their benefits. I am thankful today for being set free from the sect of the Pharisees.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone----remember what this day is all about.

The Editor

On Enumerated Powers

"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 14, 30 November 1787)

Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 14

The Illusion of Hope and The Painful Truth

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."


-- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Convention, 23 March 1775)

Forget Impeachment: Grab The Tar And Feathers by Chuck Baldwin March 13, 2007

(Chuck Baldwin comes up with yet another controversial opionon re the war in Iraq---I do not agree with Chuck's opinion re the death of Sadaam Hussein, however---I do care that such an atrocity and sham of justice occurred without bringing all of the players---Bush, Cheney, most of the U.S. House and Senate and the private corporate individuals---- into the courtroom with him to face charges of crimes against humanity. All of these folks have committed acts as heinous as he did and continue to commit acts of greater debauchery-----This article should be yet another proof to Christian broadcasting facilities that they should be listening to and making available via their facilities ALL of the Christian opinions out there rather than just regurgitating the spin of the current administration's lies and mistruths.

It is undisputed fact that the United States put Sadaam Hussein in power, provided various forms of weapons (including chemical weapons) to him, financed and underwrote his authority and power, while he remained beneficial to the private corporate interests which obviously run our government and its international policy. The list of US erected despots doesn't stop with Sadaam: Manuel Noriega, The Shah, the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and yes, even the CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden.

Why do these nation makers and breakers believe they have the right to engineer the governments of sovereign nations? Only to depose and murder those whom we initially treated as "friends," though I use that term very loosely. And how do these facts get by the American public at large? (I understand how it gets by the Christian community---and I will refrain from going further with that thought as I only have very unkind things to say in that regard.)

I pray that the Christian broadcasters across this country and the broadcasting facilities would stop with the repetition of the mindless mantra in support of an obviously corrupt and malevolent group of people who use religion as a stalking horse for their own political and financial enurement at the cost of our liberties and the lives of our children. --Editor)

In this column last week, I asked the question, Should President George W. Bush be impeached? The specific precursor for that question was the guilty verdict of former White House insider Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In my mind, that trial and subsequent conviction demonstrated that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a thorough investigation into whether President Bush willfully manipulated evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and whether he deliberately lied to the American people in order to justify a pre-determined plan to launch a preemptive attack on that country.

In all the years of writing this column, I cannot recall one that elicited more response, positive and negative. Furthermore, respondents were split evenly down the middle. Half wanted to enshrine my face on Mount Rushmore, while the other half wanted to personally cast me into the lake of fire.

A brief digression regarding the WMD matter is the critically important question as to whether the White House believed Saddam Hussein had WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES. Emphasis is added on purpose, as most of the "Of-course-Iraq-had-WMD" crowd seem to equate Hussein's use of intermediate WMD against the Kurds with the ability to pose a "clear and present danger" to the United States. The two are not remotely related.

Please don't misunderstand me. I could not care less that Saddam Hussein is dead. He died the way most dictators die. He lived by the sword; he died by the sword. Or, by the rope, actually.

However, please remember that Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds because they staged a violent insurrection against his reign. What do you think George Bush would do if a group of people violently tried to oust him from power? I seem to recall a President and Attorney General sending tanks and helicopter gun ships against mostly old men, women, and children outside Waco, Texas, a few years back. And those poor folks had no intention of overthrowing the Texas capital, much less Washington, D.C.

The relevant question is not, Did Iraq have WMD, but did they have WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES? Everyone now knows the answer to that question is, no, it did not. But what we don't know is, When did President Bush know the answer to that question?

If our President knew that Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States, and if he deliberately deceived the American people and sent more than 3,000 of America's finest to their deaths for ulterior motives (whatever they were), the man is certainly guilty of "high crimes" and should be impeached, at the very least.

Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know anyone who does (outside Bush and his inner circle). Therefore, I stand behind my initial statement that we need a thorough investigation to find out the truth. It would seem to me that, regardless of where each of us falls down politically, we would want to know the answer to that question. Unless we are afraid of the truth, of course.

All of that aside, there is one grievance that is sticking like a bone in my throat about this administration: its careless disregard for the security of our national borders. President Bush, along with Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, are in the process of turning America into a third world country. Their attempt to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens and to virtually vanquish our national borders is nothing short of criminal. As President, Mr. Bush has taken it even further than that.

Without congressional oversight or knowledge, President Bush committed the United States to a trilateral union with Mexico and Canada. He put his stamp of approval upon a mammoth NAFTA superhighway. He has given the green light for thousands of Mexican trucks to enter the United States. He has turned his back on American Border Patrol agents who were simply trying to enforce our country's immigration laws. And he has done all this with impunity.

What makes President Bush's policy of open borders even more egregious is the argument that some Bush apologists make by saying that Iraq's limited WMD could be snuck into the United States, and, therefore, we had to invade Iraq. Well, duh! If President Bush really believed that Iraq was going to smuggle WMD into America, why did he not close the borders?

Furthermore, countries that most certainly do have WMD capable of threatening the United States include Russia and China. Does anyone (George W. Bush included) believe we should invade those countries? The fact is, if terrorists from any country have smuggled WMD into the U.S., we can thank President Bush and his fellow travelers in Congress for opening the door.

The reason that Congress is unwilling to stop President Bush on the open borders issue is because Democrats and Republicans alike are on the take. Democrats are appeasing their radical, multiculturalist cronies and Republicans are appeasing their Chamber of Commerce sugar daddies. Neither the Jackasses nor the Pachyderms give a flip about what is best for middle-class America or whether what they are doing will eventually destroy the sovereignty and independence of our country.

With or without Iraq, President Bush is a disaster. And Congress (with either party in charge) is no better. If we lived in the old days, we would not be talking about impeachment, we would be grabbing the tar and feathers.

© Chuck Baldwin

Support of the Troops...but not the War in Iraq

Today one of the larger Christian radio networks (VCY America) produced a broadcast with a guest who states that you cannot support the troops in Iraq without supporting their mission there.....the question that remains in my mind is: what is our mission there? Let me quote the blurb from VCY America's web site:

"Major Eric Egland is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. His experience includes working to defeat terrorism, narcotics trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Major Egland believes you can't divide support for the troops and support for the mission. He feels we need to succeed in Iraq and to play games with the funding undermines the success of our mission there."

I have not listened to the broadcast yet, however, even allowing such a person on the air really gives me the idea that his position is the one the producers of Crosstalk wish us to take, believe and endorse.

I have in the past counted on the discernment of the producers of Crosstalk, (VCY's nationally syndicated radio talk show), to see past the smoke and mirrors on most issues. (Not all, but most.) It would appear that on this one, the producers of Crosstalk have missed the mark in the face of the overwhelming mountain of mistruths and mistatements of fact by the Bush administration re weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the entire basis for our invasion of a sovereign nation. This current middle east conflict appears very much to be based on a fabrication much as the first Gulf War was based on fabrication and in reality, based on the personal interests of the Commander in Chief at that time---and this time as well.

I really hope that VCY, in the interest of equal time on the issue, would have Congressman Ron Paul on to discuss the war in Iraq. It seems to me that a member of the foreign intelligence committee in Congress might have some salient and cogent remarks on the issue...speaking of which, read the following speech made by Congressman Paul:

"HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started. We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now? "

It is a shame that VCY would participate in such one sidedness-----particularly giving air time to such propaganda as voiced by Major Eric England. Dissent is the very basis of the fabric of which this country was formed---especially dissent in the face of the likes of George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and their kind: puppets and puppet masters.

Surely VCY America, a Christian broadcasting facility, is better than this...we will see. I humbly suggest that if VCY America is interested in promoting a Christian world view they might listen to Congressman Paul and at least have the moral courage to give equal time to patriotic dissent instead of being the voice piece of the NASCAR mentality.

Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul? by Chuck Baldwin February 27, 2007

Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.

The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

For example, Jerry Falwell's widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled "Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates." A total of ten Republicans made the Journal's list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell's list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?

Ron Paul received his Bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman's true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.
For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?

The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.

Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.

Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, "Gov. Romney . . . shares our values." Of Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."

However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.

Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.

As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush "one of us," they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.

© Chuck Baldwin

The Pursuit of God - Chapter 1

Following hard after God

My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me.Ps. 63:8

Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. `No man can come to me,' said our Lord, `except the Father which hath sent me draw him,' and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for he act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: `Thy right hand upholdeth me.' In this divine `upholding' and human `following' there is no contradiction. All is of God, for as von Hugel teaches, God is always previous.

In practice, however, (that is, where God's previous working meets man's present response) man must pursue God. On our part there must be positive reciprocation if this secret drawing of God is to eventuate in identifiable experience of the Divine. In the warm language of personal feeling this is stated in the Forty-second Psalm: `As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?' This is deep calling unto deep, and the longing heart will understand it.

The doctrine of justification by faith--a Biblical truth, and a blessed relief from sterile legalism and unavailing self-effort--has in our time fallen into evil company and been interpreted by many in such manner as actually to bar men from the knowledge of God. The whole transaction of religious conversion has been made mechanical and spiritless. Faith may now be exercised without a jar to the moral life and without embarrassment to the Adamic ego. Christ may be `received' without creating any special love for Him in the soul of the receiver. The man is `saved,' but he is not hungry nor thirsty after God. In fact he is specifically taught to be satisfied and encouraged to be content with little.

The modern scientist has lost God amid the wonders of His world; we Christians are in real danger of losing God amid the wonders of His Word. We have almost forgotten that God is a Person and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can. It is inherent in personality to be able to know other personalities, but full knowledge of one personality by another cannot be achieved in one encounter. It is only after long and loving mental intercourse that the full possibilities of both can be explored.

All social intercourse between human beings is a response of personality to personality, grading upward from the most casual brush between man and man to the fullest, most intimate communion of which the human soul is capable. Religion, so far as it is genuine, is in essence the response of created personalities to the Creating Personality, God. `This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' (John 17:3)

God is a Person, and in the deep of His mighty nature He thinks, wills, enjoys feels, loves, desires and suffers as any other person may. In making Himself known to us He stays by the familiar pattern of personality. He communicates with us through the avenues of our minds, our wills and our emotions. The continuous and unembarrassed interchange of love and thought between God and the soul of the redeemed man is the throbbing heart of New Testament religion.

This intercourse between God and the soul is known to us in conscious personal awareness. It is personal: that is, it does not come through the body of believers, as such, but is known to the individual, and to the body through the individuals which compose it. And it is conscious: that is, it does not stay below the threshold of consciousness and work there unknown to the soul (as, for instance, infant baptism is thought by some to do), but comes within the field of awareness where the man can `know' it as he knows any other fact of experience.

You and I are in little (our sins excepted) what God is in large. Being made in His image we have within us the capacity to know Him. In our sins we lack only the power. The moment the Spirit has quickened us to life in regeneration our whole being senses its kinship to God and leaps up in joyous recognition. That is the heavenly birth without which we cannot see the Kingdom of God. It is, however, not an end but an inception, for now begins the glorious pursuit, the heart's happy exploration of the infinite riches of the Godhead. That is where we begin, I say, but where we stop no man has yet discovered, for there is in the awful and mysterious depths of the Triune God neither limit nor end.

Shoreless Ocean, who can sound Thee?
Thine own eternity is round Thee,
Majesty divine!

To have found God and still to pursue Him is the soul's paradox of love, scorned indeed by the too-easily- satisfied religionist, but justified in happy experience by the children of the burning heart. St. Bernard stated this holy paradox in a musical quatrain that will be instantly understood by every worshipping soul:

We taste Thee, O Thou Living Bread,
And long to feast upon Thee still:
We drink of Thee, the Fountainhead
And thirst our souls from Thee to fill.

Come near to the holy men and women of the past and you will soon feel the heat of their desire after God. They mourned for Him, they prayed and wrestled and sought for Him day and night, in season and out, and when they had found Him the finding was all the sweeter for the long seeking. Moses used the fact that he knew God as an argument for knowing Him better. `Now, therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight'; and from there he rose to make the daring request, `I beseech thee, show me thy glory.' God was frankly pleased by this display of ardour, and the next day called Moses into the mount, and there in solemn procession made all His glory pass before him.

David's life was a torrent of spiritual desire, and his psalms ring with the cry of the seeker and the glad shout oft he finder. Paul confessed the mainspring of his life to be his burning desire after Christ. `That I may know Him,' was the goal of his heart, and to this he sacrificed everything. `Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may win Christ' (Phil 3:8).

Hymnody is sweet with the longing after God, the God whom, while the singer seeks, he knows he has already found. `His track I see and I'll pursue,' sang our fathers only a short generation ago, but that song is heard no more in the great congregation. How tragic that we in this dark day have had our seeking done for us by our teachers. Everything is made to center upon the initial act of `accepting' Christ (a term, incidentally, which is not found in the Bible) and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him we need no more seek Him. This is set before us as the last word in orthodoxy, and it is taken for granted that no Bible-taught Christian ever believed otherwise. Thus the whole testimony of the worshipping, seeking, singing Church on that subject is crisply set aside. The experiential heart- theology of a grand army of fragrant saints is rejected in favor of a smug interpretation of Scripture which would certainly have sounded strange to an Augustine, a Rutherford or a Branierd.

In the midst of this great chill there are some, I rejoice to acknowledge, who will not be content with shallow logic. They will admit the force of the argument, and then turn away with tears to hunt some lonely place and pray, `O God, show me thy glory.' They want to taste, to touch with their hearts, to see with their inner eyes the wonder that is God.

I want deliberately to encourage this mighty longing after God. The lack of it has brought us to our present low estate. The stiff and wooden quality about our religious lives is a result of our lack of holy desire. Complacency is a deadly foe of all spiritual growth. Acute desire must be present or there will be no manifestation of Christ to His people. He waits to be wanted. Too bad that with many of us He waits so long, so very long, in vain.

Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and the servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.

If we would find God amid all the religious externals we must first determine to find Him, and then proceed in the way of simplicity. Now as always God discovers Himself to `babes' and hides Himself in thick darkness from the wise and the prudent. We must simplify our approach to Him. We must strip down to essentials (and they will be found to be blessedly few). We must put away all effort to impress, and come with the guileless candor of childhood. If we do this, without doubt God will quickly respond.

When religion has said its last word, there is little that we need other than God Himself. The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the `and' lies our great woe. If we omit the `and', we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing.

We need not fear that in seeking God only we may narrow our lives or restrict the motions of our expanding hearts. The opposite is true. We can well afford to make God our All, to concentrate, to sacrifice the many for the One.

The author of the quaint old English classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, teaches us how to do this. `Lift up thine heart unto God with a meek stirring of love; and mean Himself, and none of His goods. And thereto, look thee loath to think on aught but God Himself. So that nought work in thy wit, nor in thy will, but only God Himself. This is the work of the soul that most pleaseth God.'

Again, he recommends that in prayer we practice a further stripping down of everything, even of our theology. `For it sufficeth enough, a naked intent direct unto God without any other cause than Himself.' Yet underneath all his thinking lay the broad foundation of New Testament truth, for he explains that by `Himself' he means `God that made thee, and bought thee, and that graciously called thee to thy degree.' And he is all for simplicity: If we would have religion `lapped and folden in one word, for that thou shouldst have better hold thereupon, take thee but a little word of one syllable: for so it is better than of two, for even the shorter it is the better it accordeth with the work of the Spirit. And such a word is this word God or this word love.'

When the Lord divided Canaan among the tribes of Israel, Levi received no share of the land. God said to him simply, `I am thy part and thine inheritance,' and by those words made him richer than all his brethren, richer than all the kings and rajas who have ever lived in the world. And there is a spiritual principle here, a principle still valid for every priest of the Most High God.

The man who has God for his treasure has all things in One. Many ordinary treasures may be denied him, or if he is allowed to have them, the enjoyment of them will be so tempered that they will never be necessary to his happiness. Or if he must see them go, one after one, he will scarcely feel a sense of loss, for having the Source of all things he has in One all satisfaction, all pleasure, all delight. Whatever he may lose he has actually lost nothing, for he now has it all in One, and he has it purely, legitimately and forever.

O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am painfully conscious of my need of further grace. I am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still. Show me Thy glory, I pray Thee, that so I may know Thee indeed. Begin in mercy a new work of love within me. Say to my soul, `Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.' Then give me grace to rise and follow Thee up from this misty lowland where I have wandered so long. In Jesus' name, Amen.

The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer

Preface

In this hour of all-but-universal darkness one cheering gleam appears: within the fold of conservative Christianity there are to be found increasing numbers of persons whose religious lives are marked by a growing hunger after God Himself. They are eager for spiritual realities and will not be put off with words, nor will they be content with correct `interpretations' of truth. They are athirst for God, and they will not be satisfied till they have drunk deep at the Fountain of Living Water. This is the only real harbinger of revival which I have been able to detect anywhere on the religious horizon. It may be the cloud the size of a man's hand for which a few saints here and there have been looking. It can result in a resurrection of life for many souls and a recapture of that radiant wonder which should accompany faith in Christ, that wonder which has all but fled the Church of God in our day. But this hunger must be recognized by our religious leaders.

Current evangelicalism has (to change the figure) laid the altar and divided the sacrifice into parts, but now seems satisfied to count the stones and rearrange the pieces with never a care that there is not a sign of fire upon the top of lofty Carmel. [See 1 Kings 18 for the allusions.-ccp] But God be thanked that there are a few who care. They are those who, while they love the altar and delight in the sacrifice, are yet unable to reconcile themselves to the continued absence of fire. They desire God above all. They are athirst to taste for themselves the `piercing sweetness' of the love of Christ about Whom all the holy prophets did write and the psalmists did sing.

There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem satisfied to teach the fundamentals oft he faith year after year, strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives. They minister constantly to believers who feel within their breasts a longing which their teaching simply does not satisfy. I trust I speak in charity, but the lack in our pulpits is real. Milton's terrible sentence applies to our day as accurately as it did to his: `The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed.'

It is a solemn thing, and no small scandal in the Kingdom, to see God's children starving while actually seated at the Father's table. The truth of Wesley's words is established before our eyes: `Orthodoxy, or right opinion, is, at best, a very slender part of religion. Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinions,yet right opinions may subsist without right tempers. There may be a right opinion of God without either love or one right temper toward Him.

Satan is proof of this.'Thanks to our splendid Bible societies and to other effective agencies for the dissemination of the Word, there are today many millions of people who hold `right opinions,' probably more than ever before in the history of the Church.Yet I wonder if there was ever a time when true spiritual worship was ever a time when true spiritual worship was at a lower ebb. To great sections of the Church the art of worship has been lost entirely, and in its place has come that strange and foreign thing called the `program.' This word has been borrowed from the stage and applied with sad wisdom to the type of public service which now passes for worship among us.

Sound Bible exposition is an imperative must in the Church of the living God. Without it no church can be a New Testament church in any strict meaning of that term. But exposition may be carried on in such way as to leave the hearers devoid of any true spiritual nourishment whatever. For it is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself, and unless and until the hearers find God in personal experience, they are not the better for having heard the truth. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts.

This book is a modest attempt to aid God's hungry children so to find Him. Nothing here is new except in the sense that it is a discovery which my own heart has made of spiritual realities most delightful and wonderful to me. Others before me have gone much farther into these holy mysteries than I have done, but if my fire is not large it is yet real, and there may be those who can light their candle at its flame.

A. W. Tozer Chicago, Ill. June 16, 1948.

The Cult of Self Esteem

“You can tell a lot about an educational system by its vocabulary. When Calvinistic terms like grace and works are replaced by educantisms like self-esteem, you know the system’s in trouble. Or is even to think on grace and works now considered a violation of the separation of church and state? The mere mention of a religious idea in public has been known to make some of our more advanced thinkers break out in hives and litigation. As for those of us inclined to sneak a biblical allusion into our prose now and then, we need not fear; our ‘educated’ classes may no longer recognize it. The theory behind the Cult of Self-Esteem is simple: First get the cart, then put it before the horse. Just feel good about yourself and achievement will follow automatically. It would be too much to call this approach instant gratification; it’s really more like pre-gratification... Want to build real self-esteem, the kind that is the fruit of self-respect and not just an inadequate substitute for it? Expect, even insist on, competence. Don’t pretend it’s there when it isn’t. If that sounds too hard, that’s the catch with self-respect—it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it’s worth just what you pay for it.” —Paul Greenberg

On Rights vs. Privileges

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

-- John Adams (Rights of the Colonists, 1772)

Jurisdiction of Government

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 33, 3 January 1788)

Reinstitution of the Draft: Why?

It should be no surprise to anyone who discerns the purpose for the United States' presence in Iraq that we are about to have the draft reinstituted by Congress. Do you think the President will veto it?

Charles Rangel (D-NY 15th District) introduced the Bill on January 10, 2007. (Did the media cover this?) If you ever had any doubt about the character of most of the members of both parties or you thought the Democrats would save us---be advised: there is no difference between the Dems and the Republicans.

Why would Charles Rangel want to be able to draft 18-42 (yes---read the link above) year olds for mandatory 2 year service in the armed forces? What do they know that they are not telling us folks? What is the plan?

Obviously, there is coming soon a need for bolstered numbers of cannon fodder---er----the armed forces and probably you know where they will be shipped to "serve" the interests of the United States: Hmmmmmm...let me think.....Palm Springs?

In my opinion, Charles Rangel ought to be ashamed of himself. Apparently, he is not the antagonist of the Republican party everyone thinks he is----and apparently has an interest to protect with presenting such legislation. Wonder what that could be?

Maybe Al Sharpton will protest outside Congressman Rangel's office----ya think? Better yet: Jesse Jackson.

You really begin to see that the pundits and politicians are all in this together at our expense and the expense of the lives of our children.

When will we say, "Enough is enough?"

FREEDOM DURING TIMES OF WAR: SECURITY, NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SECURED LIBERTIES

By Timothy N. Baldwin

Please read this paper done by Chuck Baldwin's son while in Law School. I am still puzzled that everyone believes we are "at war" with terrorists in the Middle East or Iraq or now Iran. When did Congress declare war? I don't recall this act of Congress which is the only act which authorizes the Executive Branch to act in such a manner.

Would to God more attorneys and judges had this understanding of the subject of safety v. civil liberties. Read and enjoy a refreshing research paper contrary to the Republican and Democrat positions on the issue.

I often wonder if my efforts here are but a waste of time as there seems to be very little informed opinion on the issue especially in the Christian community. We just do not seem to be up to the task these days. Opinions please.