jan-feb 2011 faith for all of life

8/8/2019 Jan-Feb 2011 Faith for All of Life

1/36

Publisher & Chalcedon President

Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony

Chalcedon Vice-President

Martin Selbrede

Editor

Martin Selbrede

Managing Editor

Susan Burns

Contributing Editors

Lee Duigon

Kathy Leonard

Chalcedon Founder

Rev. R. J. Rushdoony

(1916-2001)

was the founder of Chalcedon

and a leading theologian, church/

state expert, and author of numer-

ous works on the application of

Biblical Law to society.

Receiving Faith for All of Life: Thismagazine will be sent to those whorequest it. At least once a year we askthat you return a response card if youwish to remain on the mailing list.Contributors are kept on our mailinglist. Suggested Donation: $35 peryear ($45 for all foreign U.S. fundsonly). Tax-deductible contributionsmay be made out to Chalcedon andmailed to P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA95251 USA.

Chalcedon may want to contact its

readers quickly by means of e-mail.If you have an e-mail address, pleasesend an e-mail message includingyour full postal address to our office:[email protected].

For circulation and data

management contact Rebecca

Rouse at (209) 736-4365 ext. 10

or [email protected]

Faith for All of Life

January/February 2011

Faith for All of Life, published bi-monthly by Chalcedon, a tax-exempt Christian foundation, is sent to all who request

it. All editorial correspondence should be sent to the managing editor, P.O. Box 569, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609-0569.Laser-print hard copy and elect ronic disk submissions firmly encouraged. All submissions subject to editorial revi-

sion. Email: [email protected]. The editors are not responsible for the return of unsolicited manuscripts which

become the property of Chalcedon unless other arrangements are made. Opinions expressed in this magazinedo not necessarily reflect the views of Chalcedon. It provides a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active,

historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhat from Chalcedons and from each other.

Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers, and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible. 2011Chalcedon. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint granted on written request only. Editorial Board: Rev. Mark

R. Rushdoony, President/Editor-in-Chief; Martin Selbrede, Editor; Susan Burns, Managing Editor and Executive

Assistant. Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, Telephone Circulation (9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m., Pacific): (209) 736-4365 or Fax (209) 736-0536; email: [email protected]; www.chalcedon.edu; Circulation: Rebecca Rouse.

Editorials

2From the FounderConusion o Faces

Features

4Families in the CrosshairsJerri Lynn Ward

13Basic to Sound Action, is a Sound Faith:The Westminster Herald

Michael J. McVicar

Columns

20Evangelical Politics: A Review o Wayne Grudem,Politics According to the Bible

Roger Schultz

Products

25 Catalog Insert


2/36

2 Faith for All of Life |January/February 2011 www.chalcedon.edu

Daniel 9 recordsa prayer and theanswer to that prayer.Daniel, [i]n the rstyear o Darius the sono Ahasuerus, o the

seed o the Medes, which was madeking over the realm o the Chaldeans(9:1), was in earnest prayer as a resulto his study o Jeremiah, in particular o

Jeremiah 25:11, and 29 (9:2), and alsoo Deuteronomy, as vv. 1115 clearlyindicate. The predicted seventy yearso captivity were virtually ended, anddeliverance accordingly nigh, so that,in terms o the promised restoration,Daniel could have rejoiced. Instead,he conessed his ear and grie or hispeople, acknowledging (vv. 119) thatall Israel, both northern and southernkingdoms, deserved their captivity, but,in spite o it, had learned nothing. Lack-

ing true aith, or most o them adver-sity had begat no healing or redeemingexperience, worked no repentance, sothat, Daniel eared, more captivity andpunishment was their only meriteddestiny. The indications are, indeed, thatPhariseeism was a product o the captiv-ity itsel. The sin o Judah had been,predominantly, syncretism, a persistentattempt to unite aiths in the belie in acommon core o religion in all religions.

The most common orm o syncretismwas and is moralism, and, prior to theall o Jerusalem, many o the earlierand fagrant practices o syncretismwith ertility cults had given way to acult o the temple and o moralism. Incaptivity, the contrast between Hebrewmorality and pagan mores had deepened

Conusion o Faces(Reprinted rom Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation [Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2001], 63-66.)

R. J. Rushdoony

F r o m t h e F o u n d e r

into an isolationist and proud moralism,the earlier obviously syncretistic moral-ism, and Phariseeism was the product.The judgment and all o Jerusalem wasalready unique in history (9:2) as aninstance o Gods retribution to a privi-leged people. In view o their urthercontempt or God, Daniel was earulor their immediate uture, and, as oneo the aithul remnant, prayed earnestly

or grace (9:18). As a true believer andan enemy o moralism, Daniel knewthat his righteousness was not in or ohimsel but entirely o grace: O LORD,righteousness belongeth unto thee, butunto us conusion o aces (9: 7).

The expression conusion o acesis a signicant one. It is the conessiono a godly man, and the beginning ohis power. Moralism is not characterizedby any such recognition, but rather bya confdence o aces, a sel-righteousnesswhich assumes that history is controlledby morality and works o morality.Thus, love is assumed to be capableo regenerating and controlling men,nations, and history. Liberty, raternity,and equalitythe moralism o theFrench Revolution and o subsequenthumanism, politics, and revoltareagain instances o the sel-righteous con-dence that history is subject to mansdominion in and through works o mo-

rality. Communism and democracy areurther instances o this same moralismin the area o politics, even as Thomismand Arminianism give instances o it inthe churches. Virtually all churches todayare monuments to moralism, but the great-est monument is the modern state. JohannGottlieb Fichte, lecturing in Berlin in

18041805, expressed the thesis o stat-ist moralism: A State which constantlyseeks to increase its internal strength, isthus orced to desire the gradual aboli-tion o all Privilege, and the establish-ment o Equal Rights or all men, inorder that it, the State itsel, may enterupon its true Rightto apply the wholesurplus power o all its Citizens, withoutexception, or the urtherance o its own

purposes.1

Only thus, Fichte believed,could the great and righteous goal ohumanity be ullled and the true ordero man be ushered in. Thereore, allpower to the moralistic state.

But righteousness belongs to God,and unto us conusion o aces, or manis by nature a sinner, a covenant-breaker,and, as redeemed man, walks only byaith and grace o God. History is notin his hands, nor can he see one stepahead. To him belongs conusion o

aces. Responsibility is his, but responsi-bility is not the power to execute eternaldecrees but rather accountability to Himwhose sovereign decree undergirds allcreation. Only as man knows himsel tobe man, a creature under God, can heenter into this dominion as vicegerentunder God. Only as he grounds hiswords upon the Word o God, can hespeak with truth and assurance.

Daniel, praying in terms o this

condence in the sure mercies o God(9: 9), was answered by God throughGabriel (9:2127), whom he had previ-ously seen in a vision (8:16). Gabrielsstatement has reerence to Danielsprayer concerning Israel, whose endhad already been indicated, and whosecourse prior to that end is only inci-


3/36

www.chalcedon.edu January/February 2011 |Faith for All of Life 3

Faith or All o Liedentally dealt with now. The primaryreerence is Messianic. Accordingly, as E.W. Hengstenberg points out, The an-nouncement is essentially o a cheeringcharacter. This is true in a certain senseeven o that part o it which relates to

the destruction o the city and temple The siting judgments o God are ablessing to the church Daniel hadnot prayed or the sti-necked and un-godly, but or those who heartily joinedwith him in the penitential conessiono their sins.2

Gabriel spoke o seventy weeks(9:24), or, more accurately, seventysevens or Israel and Jerusalem, anexpression again indicative o the ull-ness o a specied time. The purpose o

the revelation is not a calendar o events,but warning, as well as hope in termso the Messiah. Beore the end o thatperiod, six things will be accomplished,as Young points out:

Negative1. to restrain the transgression2. to complete sin3. to cover iniquity

Positive

1. to bring in everlastingrighteousness

2. to seal vision and prophet3. to anoint a holy o holies3

To restrain the transgression, orapostasy and rebellion, was the work oChrist, who shut up transgression by anact which He perormed, namely, Hisatoning death. This is the only possiblemeaning o the words.4 To make anend o sin has reerence again to the

atonement, to removing sin out o sight.To make reconciliation or iniquitymeans propitiation by the atoning bloodo the Messiah, the subject o the proph-ecy. Thus, the seventy sevens will bethat period wherein God prepares theway or and then accomplishes the worko atonement. Everlasting righteous-

ness will be brought in by the Messiah,the righteousness o God unto salvationand a Kingdom without end. Visionand prophet will be sealed up or ended,the New Testament revelation o Christsumming up and concluding the Scrip-

tures. The anointing o the most Holy,i.e., Messiah Jesus, has reerence to theull assumption o His power and posi-tion with His ascension and the all oJerusalem in conrmation o His Wordand prophecy.

The seventy sevens are dividedinto three periods (9:2527). The rsttwo periods are clearly dated romthe permission to rebuild Jerusalemto Messiah the Prince, and the rstseven sevens covers the time rom theissuance o the permission to the com-pleted work o Ezra and Nehemiah, andthe second, sixty-two sevens, reers tothe long intertestamental times rom therebuilding o Jerusalem to the Messiah.

The third and last period, a singleseven, shall cover the lie and work othe Messiah:

1. The Messiah shall be put todeath.

2. The people o a prince (o theourth monarchy) shall enter intoIsrael to destroy city and sanctuary,in a war that shall be as a foodand the end o it desolations. Thishas reerence to the war o A.D.6670 and Titus Vespasiamus.

3. The Messiah shall conrm orcause to prevail a covenant withmany, and this act shall be theend o the temple with its sacrice

and oblation, both religiously andjudicially, so that the temple willalso be given over to proanationand destruction. It is the Temple,itsel, which is here mentioned as anabomination. Once the true Sacri-ce o Calvary had been oered, theTemple no longer was the Temple o

God but an abominable place.5

By this destruction, judgment ispronounced not only on the moralismso history as institutionalized in thetemple cult, but also on the legitimateunction o the temple as it sought to

perpetuate itsel as the sole vehicle orevelation. The exclusiveness o revela-tion cannot be arrogated by the histori-cal instrument into an arrogance andpride wherein the vessel ascribes to itselthe lie o the potter. God, ever jealouso His honor, will not allow history toeternalize itsel. The history o church,state, university, art, and society hasbeen a lust or eternity that leads to theradical conusion o aces o desolationand judgment, whereas the conusion

o aces o creatureliness and repentancealone leads to the lie o mercies andorgivenesses (9:9) in terms o whichalone man can stand and time havemeaning and become itsel a ground ojoy and victory.

1. William Smith, trans., The Popular Workso Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Vol. II, LectureXIV, Development o the State in ModernEurope (London: Trubner, 1889), 236.

2. E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology o the

Old Testament, Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI:Kregel, 1956), 86.

3. Edward J.Young, The Prophecy o Daniel,A Commentary(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-mans, 1949), 197.

4. Young, Commentary, ad loc.

5. Young, The Messianic Prophecies o Daniel(Delt, Netherlands, 1954), 74.


4/36


The civilgovernmentand its courts inparticularare to bea terror to evildoers.Unortunately, it is

oten the evildoer itsel. Lawlesschild welare agencies and courts areusurping the God-given authority oparents and literally ripping amiliesapart. At an increasingly alarming

rate, children are being separatedrom parents and siblings and orcedinto the homes o stranger osteramilies, group homes, or ResidentialTreatment Centers where they aregiven psychotropic drugs not approvedor use in children.1

Child welare agencies, such asChild Protective Services (CPS) oTexas, are the embodiment o the stat-ist plan o salvation.2 A huge bureau-cracy ueled by government and private

grants seeks to transorm parenting inaccordance with the dictates o the staterather than transorming the regener-ated man and His world through theHoly Spirit.3

CPS cases are not my usual area opractice. I discovered what was hap-pening in the area in 2008 when the415 children o the FundamentalistLatter Day Saints were seized rom theirparents and rom the community o

the Yearning or Zion Ranch in Eldo-rado, Texas. Along with other attorneysunaccustomed to this area o practice,I volunteered to represent the parents.4During my representation, I began toexperience a rising concern over whatI saw as clear perversions o Americanjurisprudence.

Families in the CrosshairsJerri Lynn Ward, Esq.

F e a t u r e A r t i c l e

Ater that experience, I was com-pelled to start helping parents whenand where I could. With each case, myconcerns have grown. It is apparent tome that the state is trying to be as Godand that the judges have developed toocozy a relationship with the agencies.

A Lawless Agency

One o the most troubling aspectso child welare law is that an investiga-

tion can be started on the basis o ananonymous report. Thus, parents otencome under scrutiny because o eudswith neighbors, an angry ex-spouse, ajealous coworker, or a disgruntled em-ployee. I suspect in one o my cases thatCPS workers called in a report them-selves in order to infuence a judge, othe record, in the midst o a hearing.

These anonymous reports maybring a CPS worker to your childsschool where your child will be inter-

viewed. In a recent case in San Marcos,Texas, CPS allegedly conducted a stripsearch o a child because o a dime-sizedbruise on the back o a childs leg. Thechild was also interviewed without theknowledge o her parents.

Reports can also bring the CPSinvestigator to your door. Many par-ents, not knowing their rights, allowthese workers into the home without awarrant or court order. Sometimes, the

workers are accompanied by police. Insome o these cases, the policeman willinsist that the CPS worker does notneed a warrant and will barrel into thehouse past parents or housekeepers.5

Families that homeschool are oparticular interest to CPS, althoughTexas CPS is orbidden rom using ho-

meschooling as a trigger or an investi-gation.6 However, in all o the our casesI have handled, CPS has used the acto homeschooling in court in order tocriticize the parents.

Because homeschooled childrenare not monitored by public schoolteachers or easily available in the publicschools, CPS can be aggressive in itsattempts to get into the home to in-terview the children without a warrant

or court order. Many parents, out oignorance and a misplaced condencethat they will clear things up quickly,make the mistake o allowing CPS intotheir home. One attorney, who otenrepresents homeschooling parents, toldme that one o his amilies allowed aninvestigator into the home. The amilyseight-year-old daughter was washingdishes. On the investigative report, thatsimple act was transormed into eight-year-old girl playing with knives. This

is the kind o spin that CPS investi-gators will put in their investigativereports.

In one case, CPS has criticized amother or homeschooling her ve-year-old immune-compromised child whohad undergone a bone marrow trans-plant within the last year. In another,CPS and the guardian ad litem werecritical o a amily that was homeschool-ing a preteen daughter (who was behind

because o public schooling) in an eortto improve her academic perormance(and to protect her rom the advancesand infuence o an older boy and hisparents who thought that a twelve-year-old girl should have the power tooverride her parents wishes that she notdate). The attitude o one o the guard-


5/36


Faith or All o Lieian ad litems in the casewho is anattorney that works solely in this areawas particularly concerning. She seemedto believe that a twelve- or thirteen-year-old girl should hold veto power over herparents in matters o schooling and loca-

tion o home. (The amily was living inthe country.)

The ve-year-old child above whounderwent the bone marrow transplantwas taken because her mother ollowedthe directions o the hospital socialworker, resulting in easily reversibledehydration. That girls three-year-oldbrother was taken a couple o weekslater or equally appalling reasons:during the time that the mother was

making heroic eorts to nd and und abone marrow transplant or the girl, theyounger boy begin to exhibit problemswith his baby teeth (probably attribut-able to medications he was given whenyoung). The mother, in the midst o adivorce, applied or Medicaid to covertreatments. Her marital status precludedcoverage, and she could only apply onceevery six months. Upon her divorce,her ex-husband was ordered to obtaininsurance coverage, but he ailed to give

her the insurance card upon multiplerequests.

The little boy allegedly exhibitedsome trouble talking, and the motherhad him evaluated by a governmentprogram. His birth date precluded anassessment by that program. Having ex-perience with her daughter, this motherbegan to work with her son in home-school because she did not want to placea three-year-old in public school. She

wanted to gather resources to go to aprivate therapist. But then, the childrenwere taken. Whats more, they weretaken by a judge who proesses to be aChristian, whose own children go to aChristian school, and who were evenhomeschooled when younger. The judgestated that one o the reasons or seizing

the little boy was to get him assessedor speech in order to receive servicesthrough the government schools!

The above mindset was depress-ingly apparent in the hearings or thetwo children previously described. CPS

was both relentless and ridiculous in itspresentation. The mother had wor-ried about and acted upon the childsillness too much, and thats medicalneglect. By ailing to take the son orspeech therapy and dental treatmenton CPSs unknowable time rame, shehad neglected him. By giving moreattention to a sick child than the wellones, she neglected the well ones. Thataccusation endangers every amily with aspecial-needs child. I am sure, under pres-ent conditions, that had my amily beenso scrutinized, I would have been seizedby the state because my baby sister isprooundly retarded and much o theenergy o the entire amily was directedtoward her care.

CPS does not consider the amily asa whole. It atomizes the members andlooks at the pieces to pass judgment.The result is that it demands perectionwithout context, and there is no toler-

ance or what it perceives as shortcom-ings. There can be no surprise then atH. L. Menckens conclusions concerningbureaucracy:

It is the invariable habit o bureaucra-cies, at all times and everywhere, to as-sume that every citizen is a criminal.Their one apparent purpose, pursuedwith a relentless and urious diligence,is to convert the assumption into aact. They hunt endlessly or proos,and, when proos are lacking, or mere

suspicions.7

Worldviews in Conict

It has become apparent to me thatthe position o CPSand the memberso the cottage industry surroundingitis that parents should be constantlymonitored by the government or any

perceived missteps in their dealings withtheir own children. Parents, in theirview, should not have unettered author-ity to make decisions regarding educa-tion, religious training, or inculcationo morality. This arises rom a confict

o worldviews. As Tim Lambert o theTexas Home School Coalition8 told me:

I do believe there is oten a confict oworldviews between CPS casework-ers and Christian amilies. It has beenreported to me on numerous occasionsthat CPS workers believe that Christianamilies who believe in the Bible andspanking are targeted or special ocusas abusers. In addition I have seen suchamilies denied adoption or similarreasons. Many o these caseworkers

are young and unmarried and have anunrealistic view o amily lie.

I also believe that some judges do usurpthe God-given authority o the amilyin CPS cases. This is oten done byallowing CPS caseworkers to intererein a amily with little or no evidenceo abuse or neglect. Judges oten ailto hold CPS accountable to the clearrestraints o the law. I believe there aretwo reasons or this. One is the otenquoted maxim o seeking to protectchildren, even i this means violating in-nocent amilies at some time. The otherreason is that it is politically expedientto give CPS whatever they seek than torule against them and have somethinghappen to the child.

Because many homeschooling par-ents have become inormed about theirrights with regard to CPS investigations,special interest groups comprised ochildrens rights advocates, adoptionorganizations, and others who monetari-

ly benet rom the seizure o childrenprevailed upon the Texas Legislature in2009 to pass SB 1440.9 SB 1440, anoriginally innocuous bill, was amendedat the last minute to allow CPS entryinto homes without the traditional pro-tections aorded by warrants or courtorders. The addition o the amendment


6/36


Faith or All o Liewas stealthy and deceitul and wascaught only because o the vigilance othe Parent Guidance Center o Texas.10A mammoth campaign was launched toconvince Governor Rick Perry to vetothe bill. Ater receiving 17,000 calls

against SB 1440, he vetoed it.11

Splintering the Family

Oten, ater an investigation begins,CPS will attempt to prevail uponparents to sign what is called a saetyplan. This could be an agreement by theparents to place the child with a relativeor to require one o the parents to moveout o the house. This accomplishes thedividing o the amily without a courtorder. The investigators will oten lie

to parents to convince them to sign thesaety plan. They will claim that theywill take the child and the parents willnever see them again i the parentsreuse. I the parents sign the plan, theycan no longer present a united rontagainst the usurpations against theiramily. Family members who take thechild may be threatened with removal othe child, or their own children, i theydont cooperate. I one parent movesout, that leaves the other to deal with

such threatening behavior alone. Theamily is atomized and oten decapital-ized because o the expense o maintain-ing two households, in addition to legaland other expenses.

Another aspect o reporting concernsthe required reporter. Depending onthe state, those may be licensed healthproviders, teachers, mental health proes-sionals, and law enorcement ocers.12Because ailure to report may have occu-

pational or even criminal consequences,required reporters oten err on the side oreporting. Recently, a hospital was in thenews or reporting a new mother atershe tested positive or drugs. The truthwas that the mother had eaten a poppy-seed-covered bagel and the hospitalstesting protocols were aulty.13

The poppy seed story had a happyending, but many parents who haveexperiences with hospitals dont are sowell. Large hospital systems now employchild abuse teams manned by doc-tors who dont treat children, but act

as orensic specialists who handle thereporting o alleged abuse or neglect.It appears that these teams are increas-ingly being used to punish parents whovigorously advocate or the care o theirchildren by the hospital or who wantsecond opinions.

Johana Scot o the Parent GuidanceCenter, located in Texas, shared with methe ollowing observation regarding herwork with parents:

Now that hospitals are being equippedwith teams o supposed child welareexperts and proessionals, the numbero abused children is going up in ev-ery hospital. Even the ordinary brokenarms and sprained ankles o childhoodare being scrutinized by these teams,which will contribute to the rise oalse accusations o child abuse. ChildAdvocacy Centers (where children areroutinely transported or orensic inter-viewing during child abuse and neglectinvestigations) are starting to buy bone

scanning cameras to equip their clinics.The recurring theme in these types oreerrals is a parent who has been seek-ing treatment or a child but decidesto disagree with a doctor or nurse andeven a dentist. Suddenly, the parent,who has never been seen or suspectedas being abusive or neglectul beorewhen in contact with these medicalproessionals, is now the subject o aCPS investigation. Since the reerral is amedical proessional, the parent stands

little chance against the experts andthey also hold the power over the medi-cal records at this point.

In one o my cases, a huge chil-drens research hospital chose to reporta parent or medical neglect the dayater the parent decided to pull thechild rom a study (the treatment was

completed months prior) because o thehospitals demands that the parent fyrom Texas to New England every otherweek. The report was made six daysater the supposed neglect, the circum-stances o which arose rom the hospitals

travel instructions to the parent.In two other Texas cases, the reportso medical neglect appear to have arisenout o proessional jealousy directedagainst a very successul and dynamicresearcher who was actually helpingthe children she was also studying. InSeattle, Washington, a hospital reportedparents o a premature baby boy withcomplications or requesting a secondopinion about a procedure and wishingto transer the baby to a childrens hos-pital.14 Parents o special-needs childrenare oten targeted. As Johana Scot toldme in my interview with her:

Specically or special needs chil-dren, the number o interactions withmedical proessionals (simply due tothe nature o medical issues and neces-sary procedures) combined with theauthoritarian mentality o hospitals,their overseer Child Protection Teams,and the lack o respect or parentalauthority in medical decisions, [means]we are seeing the medical neglect andmedical child abuse accusations ris-ing at alarming rates. Its as i the CPSsystem has ound the perect way to goater the parents with insurance as wellas continuing to persecute the parentshaving to utilize Medicaid as it hasalways done.

In act, hospitals will even make thisthreat against the guardians and sur-rogates o adults. As I was writing this

article, I was contacted about a hospitalthat discharged an ill and medically un-stable elderly man, telling the surrogatedecision-maker that the man no longermerits continued treatment due to hisquality o lie. The hospital threatenedto call Adult Protective Services to re-move the surrogates guardianship i she


7/36


Faith or All o Liepersisted in her advocacy or the man.

Statist Defnitions: Shiting Sand

In each o the above cases, the am-ily members had gone to great lengthsto advocate and obtain treatment ortheir loved ones. With regard to theabove-mentioned children, CPS chargedthe parents with medical neglect. Inthe case o my client, she was actuallyblamed or ollowing the instructions o thehospital. The child abuse team doctoractually testied that she should haveknown to ignore the social workersinstructions and assurances that thesocial worker had consulted with thedoctor about those instructions! In theother two Texas cases, the attorneys or

CPS and child-abuse team doctors areclaiming that procedures and treat-ments administered to the children wereunnecessary and blamed the parents orthem having occurred, despite objectivetesting and the expertise o the treatingphysicians.

The cases involve accusations othe parents that wildly veer rom theparents are too involved and control-ling o their ill children to the parents

didnt do enough or the children. Theabsurdity o these statements made byCPS and the hospitals is shocking.

Incentives to Split Families

into Pieces

Federal and state law mandates thatCPS make reasonable eorts to keep aamily intact, rather than removing thechild. However, monetary incentivesprovided by ederal unding motivateotherwise.

State Senator Nancy Schaeer,who was also a past President o EagleForum o Georgia, became a stalwartoe o CPS in Georgia ater study othat agency. She lost her seat becauseshe published her ndings.15 She spoketo the issue o monetary incentives ortaking children, rather than reuniying

amilies. In her report, she addressedthe veritable cottage industry that hasgrown up around CPS courts like stateemployees, lawyers, court investigators,court personnel, and judges. There arepsychologists, psychiatrists, counselors,

caseworkers, therapists, oster parents,adoptive parents, and on and on, [who]are looking to the children in statecustody to provide job security. Parentsdo not realize that social workers arethe glue that holds the system togetherthat unds the court, the child attorney,and the multiple other jobs includingDFCSs [Division o Family and Chil-dren Services] attorney.

Further, Senator Schaeer oundthat:

The Adoption and the Sae FamiliesAct, set in motion by President BillClinton, oered cash bonuses to thestates or every child they adopted outo oster care. In order to receive theadoption incentive bonuses local childprotective services need more children.They must have merchandise (children)that sell and you must have plenty othem so the buyer can choose

And:

[T]he incentive or social workers toreturn children to their parents quicklyater taking them has disappeared andwho in protective services will step upto the plate and say, This must end!No one, because they are all in thesystem together and a system with noleader and no clear policies will alwaysail the children.16

(Senator Schaeer was recently killedin what was believed by authorities to be

a murder-suicide.)17

The incentives to take and keepchildren are maniested in the statesattitude toward parents. Although CPSis supposed to provide services orreunication, such services are not uni-versally available. Moreover, some o theservices, like parenting classes, are oten

no more than inormation-collectingsessions on the parents. Every action othe parents is scrutinized and evaluatedor its impact during court hearings andtrials.

One very disturbing aspect o these

services is that they are entirely basedon humanist presuppositions. In ahearing on such services beore theChristian judge whom I mentioned ear-lier, my clients pastor and I argued thatthe individual counseling to which myclient was to be subjected, should be bythat pastor and based upon the Holy Bi-ble. The pastor testied that the greatestransormative power is Jesus Christ.The judge ruled that, although my clientcould have counseling with the pastor,

the state-licensed, secular counselor hadmore education and could deal betterwith my clients problems. It is obviousthat this Christian judge has allen intothe trap o neutrality as described byGary Demar in his bookMyths, Lies &Hal Truths: How Misreading the BibleNeutralizes Christians:18

So then, or a Christian to adopt theneutrality myth is to all into thehumanist trap, to believe that religious

convictions are reserved or the heart,home, and place o worship, while theaairs o this world are best handled byusing reason, experience, and technicalexpertise devoid o religious assump-tions and convictions.19

State Agencies as Inallible Entities

One characteristic o these childwelare agencies is that they will veryrarely admit to mistakes themselves. Inthe name o saving children, these agen-

cies harm children. The separation o thechildren rom their mothers in the FLDScase was described by outraged mentalhealth workers who witnessed it:20

On the awul day that they separatedthe mothers and children the level ocruelty and lack o respect or humanrights was overwhelming. Crying,


8/36


9/36


Faith or All o Lieter to those unamiliar with the childwelare system. It is why so many orga-nizations wrongully say that the major-ity o children return home. Nationally,true biological parent reunicationsare statistically lower than adoptionsin most every state. This is not surpris-

ing given the act that no state makesa dime when children are returnedhome while every state receives perversemonetary incentives or each adoptionthey can consummate. And one maybe surprised to learn that the state doesNOT have to return the bonus moneyi the adoption breaks down later. Thechild can go through the same systemall over again (albeit with a new adop-tive name) and the state could receive abonus again or the same child!

The Lawless Courts

Long ago, our courts abandoned theact that law comes rom God, attempt-ing to transer His sovereignty to thelaw o man, with disastrous eect. Inhis landmark bookSovereignty, Rush-doony writes:

Beginning with Justice Holmes and onto the present, American justices haveheld that religion and morality havenothing to do with law, which is the

will o the state.24

Statutory law in CPS cases is verysimilar to administrative law, whereincourts give tremendous discretion tothe state in its interpretation o the law(and what constitutes abuse and neglect)and similar discretion in its renditiono the acts. Moreover, in the rststages o one o these cases, should thejudge agree that CPS take custody othe child, near-total discretion is given

to the agency to place the child whereit wishes. Thus, the agencyin theguise o protecting the childis givenree rein to question the child and thento represent to the judge its versions othe acts as gleaned rom the child inorder to retain the child in its custodyuntil trial.

Thereore, other than the main trial,the most important hearings in a CPScase are the Adversary Hearings (in caseswhere children have been removed onan emergency basis) and Removal Hear-ings (where CPS seeks a court order to

remove the child rom the parents). Theparents are given very little notice othese hearings, perhaps only three daysnotice. In some counties, CPS lawyersschedule ex partehearings with judgesor orders o removal, giving the parentsno notice and no opportunityto deendtheir amilies against the removal o thechildren.

Parents rarely have attorneys rep-resenting them at these critical initialhearings. The courts, however, doappoint attorneys or the children, andCPS has itsattorneys present. Parentsare attacked rom all sides without anymeaningul deense.

Even i parents areable to obtainattorneys or these cases, the attorneyshave very little time to prepare. Suchbuilt-in time crunches become a recur-ring impediment against the parentsthroughout the case. Further, low rateso compensation or lawyers practicing

in this areawhether paid by the courtsbecause o appointment or by cash-strapped parentsmake eective repre-sentation dicult i not inaccessible.

In working with attorneys who reg-ularly do this type o work, I discoveredthat they are continually rushing romhearing to hearing and have very littletime to prepare. The aected parentsare usually cash-strapped and typicallypay attorneys very little, while court-

appointed attorneys receive a pittancecompared to what most trial lawyerscan earn. That economic reality meansattorneys or the parents must maintainvery busy dockets to survive nancially.That is a signicant problem, given theintensive nature o these hearings.

In an article written or The Michi-

gan Child Welare Law Journal, VivekSankaran, a clinical assistant proessor olaw in the Child Advocacy Law Clinic atthe University o Michigan Law School,writes:

The disincentives to zealous lawyering

created by the structure are transparent.Attorneys are encouraged to practicerelaxed advocacy, do little work outsideo the courtroom, and push their clientstowards entering into pleas

Presently, the skewed system has a-ected the quality o legal assistance Attorneys maintain caseloads by thehundreds, and in some courthouses,substitution o counsel is retained dueto scheduling conficts

Statistics reveal that relaxed advocacyhas become the norm in the system.Decisions to remove the child rom thehome are rarely challenged, and theoverwhelming majority o child protec-tive cases are resolved with pleas.25

Even when parents have excellentrepresentation at these hearings, I haveobserved sometimes that judges ignorethe law and evidenceand seize the child.As Tim Lambert states in the quoteabove, they are oten earul o return-

ing a child, even i CPS has ailed tomeet its burden. So, to cover themselvespolitically, they will err on the side otaking or keeping a child rom its hometo avoid possible consequences. Thisconduct, o course, is a blatant violationo Gods law regarding evidence and therole o judges.

Its apparent to me that the judiciaryhas developed too cozy a relationshipwith CPS and other parties that are

aligned against the parents. The Lordcommanded that courts not be respect-ers o persons. Our civil governmentlawlessly commands otherwise. The cur-rent body o statutes is completely basedon the best interests o the child. Thechild is considered a separate party romits parents. The amily is considered


10/36


Faith or All o Liethe enemy by CPS and the attorneyad litem and guardian ad litem or thechild.

As applied in CPS cases, in the bestinterest o the child appears to meanthat time-honored and tested rules o

evidence should be discarded in courtproceedings. Hearsay and opinionswithout the laying o oundations (suchas personal knowledge or expertise) areroutinely admitted into evidence.

States have created so-called clustercourts solely to hear CPS cases. Thejudges in these courts are AssociateJudges. In Texas, that means that theyhave not been elected in conormancewith the Texas Constitution. Ive yet tobe personally in a cluster court, but at-torneys who have inorm me that thesecourts preside over what attorneys callrocket dockets. This means that thejudges severely limit the duration o thehearings. Given that CPS presents rst,the parents are given short shrit in put-ting on their cases.

None Dare Call It Collusion

While working on the FLDS case,I made a disturbing discovery aboutthe relationship between the judiciaryand CPS. In 2007, the Texas SupremeCourt created the Permanent JudicialCommission or Children, Youth andFamilies.26 The Texas Supreme Courtdirected the Commission to:

developastrategicplanforstrengthening courts and courtpractice in the child-protectionsystem;

identifyandassesscurrentanduture needs or the courts to

be more eective in achievingchild-welare outcomes o saety,permanency, well-being, airnessand due process;

promotebestpracticesandprograms that are data-driven,evidence-based, and outcome-ocused;

improvecollaborationandcom-munication among courts, theDepartment, attorneys, andpartners in the child-protectioncommunity;

endeavortoincreaseresources

and unding needed or improve-ment, and maximize the wise andecient use o available resources;

promoteadequateandappropri -ate training or all participants inthe child-protection system;

institutionalizeacollaborativemodel that will continue systemicimprovement beyond the tenureo individual Commission mem-bers;

overseetheadministrationofdesignated unds, including theCourt Improvement Program(CIP) grants; and

provideanannualprogressreportto the Court.27

Notice that the directives mentionnothingabout justice. A review o thematerials created by this commissionlauds the collaboration o judges withCPS and other stakeholders. Once perquarter, a Supreme Court Justice, amily

law judges, CPS, and CASA (CourtAppointed Special Advocates who serveas guardian ad litems) meet with eachother, and other stakeholders, tocollaborate. Note that CPS and CASAare parties to the suits that these judgeshave been tasked to hear. There are noparents whove been wronged by CPSon this commission.

I stumbled upon this because I sawreerences to this commission prepar-

ing a training session or those lawyersappointed as attorney ad litems or theFLDS children. I examined the trainingmaterial and ound that the contentswere virulently critical o the FLDSreligion and practices. I also ound that,ater the children had been taken, aPowerPoint presentation was shown to

the commission members at one o itsmeetings. Many o the judges presentat that meeting went on to preside overhearings concerning those children.

I have attended a ew o the com-missions meetings, and the worldview

being ostered there is disturbing. Dur-ing a meeting held in August 2009, oneo the judges asked that the commissioncome up with ideas to support the rati-cation o the United Nations Declara-tion o the Rights o the Child.

At that same meeting, the commis-sion was discussing a database it hasset up that will be available to judges.CPS would input data, which has notbeen admitted into evidence, and judgeshearing cases would have access to it.This appears to me to be a violation othe Sixth Amendment right to conrontwitnesses. One attorney, who sometimesrepresents parents, stood up and statedas much and expressed shock that thejudges and attorneys in the room hadnot considered this. Crickets chirped.

This commission is consideringways to accelerate putting childreninto permanent placement. This wouldinfuence courts to run roughshod over

parents in order to ulll this edict com-ing rom the top. In act, the commis-sion seems to be determined to reachinto local courts in order to control howthese cases are heard. I am certain thatthere are local courts that areinecientand ail to run their dockets in conor-mance with what this commission con-siders best practices, but the allibilityo men doesnt justiy building such aTower o Babel.

Follow the MoneyPrior to the orming o this com-

mission, proponents admitted that somemight see this collaboration as under-mining the impartiality and indepen-dence o the judiciary. Even the propo-nentso the commission acknowledgedthat it may raise concerns.28


11/36


12/36


13/36


In the last issue oFaith or All o Lie,I oered a summary o the lies worko Rousas John Rushdoony, the oundero the Chalcedon Foundation. TheLord Will Perect That Which Con-cerneth Me: The Work o Rousas JohnRushdoony1 served as a brie overviewo Rushdoonys project o ChristianReconstruction and how that project

related to the labor o the movementsounder and driving orce. Many readerso the article contacted me to commenton their proound appreciation orRushdoonys stunning and prodigiouslabor as a Christian scholar, activist, andwriter. As a researcher who spent yearsstudying Rushdoony, the eedback Ireceived was ediying because it pointedto the deep interest in both Rushdoonysscholarship and his liethat is, readersare not only moved by the content ohis ideas but also inspired by his biog-raphy.

With this in mind, Martin Selbrede,the editor oFFAOL, has asked me toexplore the lie and work o R. J. Rush-doony in more detail. Over the courseo three articles (tentatively scheduledto appear throughout the 2011 issuesoFFAOL) I will explore some acetso Rushdoonys lie and work in greaterdetail. This, the rst article in that series,

deals with one o Rushdoonys greatestailuresan attempt to start a newspa-per called the Westminster Herald, whichhe hoped would appeal to theologicallyand politically conservative Presbyteri-ans. Although the project never took o,the ailure o the Heraldis signicantbecause it helped lay the institutional

Basic to Sound Action, Is a Sound Faith:

The Westminster HeraldMichael J. McVicar, Ph.D.

F e at u r e A r t i c l e

basis or the Chalcedon Foundation andwas in many ways a precursor to the

Chalcedon Reportand FFAOL.The ollow-up articles will examine

Rushdoonys successes. They will ocuson Rushdoonys long-time partnershipwith Presbyterian and Reormed Press,

and Rushdoonys collaboration andriendship with Cornelius Van Til, the

ather o presuppositional apologeticsand theologian at Westminster Theo-logical Seminary in Philadelphia.

* * *For readers unamiliar with my

previous contributions to this journal,I have previously documented multipleaspects o Rushdoonys early lie andministry. Aside rom the article citedabove, I have also dealt with Rush-

doonys missionary work on an isolated

Indian reservation in Nevada and docu-mented his decades-long battle with theeditors o Billy Grahams ChristianityToday.2 This current article comple-ments those two previous articles in thatit is chronologically and thematicallysituated between Rushdoonys stint asa reservation missionary and his transi-

tion to becoming a ull-time researcher,lecturer, and Christian social activistassociated with Christian Reconstruc-

tion. For those who nd inspiration inRushdoonys Christian labor, the story

o the Westminster Heraldshould proveinteresting or the ways that it illustratesRushdoonys deep desire to reorm theChristian church, serve God, and keepHis laws. These commitments oten set

Rushdoony at odds with those around

him, putting him in the unenviableposition o an outsider and a critic. Thestory o the Heraldis a microcosm othis general tendency in Rushdoonysministry, but it also serves as a lessono the value o principled persistence.While the Heraldailed, readers will seethat the values that motivated Rush-doony to undertake the project also

motivated him to ound the Chalce-don Foundation and its long-runningpublication the Chalcedon Report. Inshort, this essay presents the Heraldas a precursor to both the ReportandFaith or All o Lieand suggests thattheir successes grew out o the lessonsRushdoony learned rom the ailure othe Herald.

Blessed is the Name

o the Government

In 1950, R. J. Rushdoony was inOwyhee, Nevada, serving as a Presby-terian missionary on the Duck ValleyIndian Reservation. Owyhee, locatedin northeastern Nevada just south othe Idaho border, is a tiny communityin the Rockies. During Rushdoonysservice, poor inrastructure coupled withsevere weather to make winters long andhard. In spite o the diculties o themission, Rushdoony took his station

in stride. We are beautiully situatedhere, he wrote to a riend, surroundedby high mountains and cradled in asmall high valley.3 He shed, hunted,and spent the long winter hours study-ing books that he ordered rom all overthe United States. Rushdoonys day-to-day activities revolved around his


14/36


Faith or All o Liemissionary work. He spent much o histime developing his mission by reachingout to the Paiute and Shoshone Indiansliving on the reservation.

At this point in his lie Rushdoonywas already a disciple o Cornelius Van

Tils presuppositional approach to hu-man knowledge. As a result, Rushdoonybelieved that the non-Christian religiousorientation o many o the Paiutesand Shoshones on the reservation hadimportant implications or the way theyorganized their lives. He blamed thedeplorable conditions o the reservationsresidents on the non-Christian religiousorientation o many o the Indiansand the ailure o the United Statesgovernment to minister to the Indiansspiritual and physical needs. AmericanIndians, he wrote in an early article,holding loosely to the tattered remnanto their old culture and oten with scantrespect or it, show a marked disinter-est in Christian missions, and mostchurches, he argued, show little interestin the proper Christian education othe Indians.4 In Rushdoonys view, thetwin ailures o indigenous culture andChristian culture let the Indians with

only one savior: the state.In act, in Rushdoonys assessment,

the ailure o native and Christiancultures was so complete that the statewas now a transcendent, almost god-like orce in the lives o the reservationsresidents: [The state] is the giver o allthings, the source o power, o land, and(having built a reservoir or irrigationhere) even o water The governmenthospital delivers the children, and the

government army taketh them away,and blessed is the name o the govern-ment each Memorial Day and Fourtho July.5 I the ederal state stood as thegiver and taker o lie, then it was usurp-ing the sovereignty o Christ, yet thenon-Christian perspective o the reserva-tions inhabitants let them unable to

properly understand the religious natureo their problem. The state, in govern-ing men, denied them the reedom togovern themselves as Christians accord-ing to the laws o God. In short, NativeAmericans remained at the mercy o the

United States government because theydid not have a viable Christian answerto the social and ethical problems posedby reservation lie.

Rushdoonys engagement withthe Paiutes and Shoshones o Owyheeopened his eyes to the ailure o theChristian church to speak to the con-cerns o contemporary Americans. Spe-cically, he worried that the church hadlost its ability to instruct Christians onhow they should understand contem-porary cultural and political problemsin terms o the gospel. This concernprompted Rushdoony to turn awayrom missionary work and ocus hisattention on reorming the church itsel.While he never abandoned evangelism,his primary audience eventually becameconverted Christians, not potential con-verts. He worked tirelessly to popularizeVan Tils presuppositional method andsought to empower Christian educators

and thinkers because he believed sucheducation would ultimately underminea secular political system that endan-gered Christianity.

This led to Rushdoonys earliestattempts to merge political libertarian-ism with Van Tilian epistemology. Hebelieved that i Christ is the King oall things, then the state cannot haveabsolute authority in the lives o menonly King Jesus has absolute power. In

the remainder o this essay, I show howRushdoony attempted to synthesizethese broader political concerns into areligious publication aimed at educat-ing Presbyterians and other ReormedChristians on the social and politicalimplications o their aith. While thispublication, the Westminster Herald,

ultimately ailed, it was an importantstepping-stone in Rushdoonys minis-try, as the experience taught him howto communicate his religious concernsto political conservatives and how topersuade religious conservatives into

conservative political action.A Tendency Toward Rigidity

While in Owyhee, Rushdoonyreceived a small religious journal, Faithand Freedom.6Faith and Freedom wasthe publication o Mobilization orSpiritual Ideals. More popularly knownas Spiritual Mobilization, Rev. JamesField, a Congregationalist minister, ledthe organization and ocused his atten-tion on spreading ree market ideals to

nearly ty thousand pastors and minis-ters.7 Although it didnt operate on thebasis o a dues-paying membership, theorganization eventually claimed nearly17,000 clerical representatives whodistributed Faith and Freedom and usedit in sermons and in public outreach.8Faith and Freedom published the writ-ings o such libertarian luminaries as theCongregationalist minister Edmund A.Opitz, the Austrian economist Ludwigvon Mises, and the anarcho-libertarian

Murray Rothbard. Although many othe authors oten avoided religion intheir articles, the periodicals provocativejournalism nonetheless moved manyclergymen to embrace Spiritual Mobi-lizations anti-tax, noninterventionist,anti-statist economic model. Faith andFreedom encouraged clergymen suchas Rushdoony to see government as aproblem, not a solution. Even thoughRushdoony didnt agree with the orga-

nizations theological eclecticism, he didagree with its diagnosis o the problemand suggested treatment: Christiansneeded a robust theology capable oresisting the state and its attempts tousurp the sovereignty o Christ in thelives o Christians.

In the spring o 1950, Faith and


15/36


Faith or All o LieFreedomseditor, William Johnson,wrote Rushdoony in search o eedbackabout how he and other clergymenwere using the publication. Rushdoonyresponded with an eusive note. Hecited his predisposition toward any

publication which takes the stand yoursdoes, specically noting its support oprivate property and ree enterprise ashis principal points o agreement.9 Inhis letter, Rushdoony noted that manyclergy he had spoken with regardingFaith and Freedom rarely attackedits merits, but instead denounced itstendency toward rigidity in its socialand political positions.10

Rushdoony had little critical to sayo the publication except to note that

it, in act, did not go ar enough onmany issues. Specically, he argued thatFaith and Freedom needed to attack theChristian church as a whole, and Rush-doony argued that the publication wasnot Calvinist enough. On the ormerissue, Rushdoony lamented Faith andFreedomstimidity in directly accusingvarious denominations o hypocrisyon economic matters, warning that thechie danger to conservatives is the lack

o an independent church press, whichhas crippled the cause o reedom.11On the latter issue o Calvinism,Rushdoony argued that the Americanrepublic was the product o two streamso thought, classical liberalism andCalvinism.12Faith and Freedom ablyembodies the rst stream o thought,Rushdoony claimed, but the Calvinistobjection [to collectivism and statism]needs stating also.13

Rushdoonys laudatory but nonethe-less candid comments caught someonesattention because in July SpiritualMobilization invited him to attend a

conerence at Carleton College in Min-nesota to discuss Faith and Freedom andlibertarian politics. With great personalsatisaction, James Field, the presi-

dent o Spiritual Mobilization, wrote,it is my privilege to invite you to joinwith leading ministers in a conerencededicated to the exploration and studyo individual liberty and its relationshipto the Christian aith.14 Field sweet-

ened the invitation by stating that all oRushdoonys travel expenses would becovered by the generous grant o twonon-prot oundations.15 Although Fi-eld never named the two oundations,one o them was most certainly theWilliam Volker Fund. The Volker Fundtended to support such small conerenc-es under conditions o strict anonymity,but would send auditors to observe theproceedings in order to assess the valueo its contribution. During the Carle-

ton conerence a Volker staer, HerbertCornuelle, attended the meeting andsubsequently opened a correspondencewith Rushdoony.16

The conerence marked a majorturning point in Rushdoonys ministrybecause it brought him into contactwith some o the leading libertarianactivists and organizers o the 1950s. AtCarleton, Rushdoony not only met theVolker Funds Herb Cornuelle, but he

also met the Foundation or EconomicEducations F. A. Baldy Harper.17Cornuelle and Harper immediatelysensed an anity with Rushdoony andan extended correspondence blossomedthat ultimately brought Rushdoony outo the Presbyterian Church and into thewider world o American conservatism.The Carleton meeting served as a criti-cal catalyst or Rushdoonys career: as hebegan to correspond with and deepen

his ties with thinkers and activists out-side o the church, Rushdoony devel-oped a theological system that negoti-ated between his Calvinist convictions

and the anti-communist, anti-statistcommitments o his new riends. Evenas he strengthened his ties with politicalactivists outside o the church, however,

Rushdoony attempted to use his newnetwork to change the church rom theinside out.

Westminster Herald

At Carleton College, Rushdoonycirculated an idea or an independentnewspaper aimed at conservative Presby-terian laymen and pastors. The projectgrew out o his criticisms oFaith andFreedom and his missionary work atOwyhee. As he had indicated in hisanalysis o the importance o Fieldsperiodical, Rushdoony believed that thelack o critical journalism within all ma-jor Protestant denominations imperiledthe church. Further, as he explained tothe participants at Carleton, his time

as a missionary had convinced himthat clergy could no longer eectivelylink the proound theological realitieso Christianity with the lived realityo laymen. Inspired by both Faith andFreedom and the Carleton conerence,Rushdoony hoped to launch an ambi-tious project to attack mainline theo-logical liberalism through the organiza-tion o a new publication, WestminsterHerald.

From the outset, the project was

burdened by Rushdoonys struggle tosynthesize his religious concerns with hisnewound aspirations to reorm Ameri-can culture and politics on an explicitlyChristian oundation. First, Rushdoonysought support or his religious journalrom political activists who shared someo his basic presuppositions, but didntbelieve those presuppositions meritedan expensive new publication. Second,Rushdoony dreamed that the Herald

would reght battles long settled intheological circles: he longed to deeattheological liberals who embracedDarwinian evolutionary theory and thehistorical criticism o the Bible, usingthe tools o Van Tilian presuppositionalapologetics. In many ways, his desireto join political and theological conser-


16/36


Faith or All o Lievatism was years ahead o its time. De-cades later he did the same thing withthe Chalcedon Reportand ound steadysupport and an ever-larger readership. Inthe 1950s there was no preexisting theo-logical or political oundation or such a

publication, and as a result, his goals orthe Heraldconused and alienated hispotential supporters.

In summarizing the nature o theperiodical, Rushdoony explained that itwould serve as an unapologetic deendero Presbyterian economic and politicaltheory by providing the devotionalChristian reading the laity demandsand needs.18 His point was not, heexplained, to make more Christians,because Christianity is at its greateststrength in American history, [but] itexhibits the least Christian infuence,because it is basically a body o senti-mentally held and conficting ideas.It is naive syncretism.19 Instead, hehoped the periodical would support thechurch when sensible and attack it whennecessary. Clearly echoing Van Til, heargued that the point is to educate thosewho are already Christians on the nerpoints o theological orthodoxy. Basic

to sound action, he concluded, is asound aith.20

When Rushdoony pitched his newjournalistic project to the Carleton

College conerence participants, he didso to a unique rogues gallery o secularlibertarians and religious mavericks.Oddly, or the theologically conservativeRushdoony, he seemed unconcernedwith the irony o his proposal. Whenhe approached potential backers at the

conerence, his most vocal support-ers were Herb Cornuelle and SpiritualMobilizations James C. Ingebretsen.Cornuelles religious belies remainunclear in his correspondence withRushdoony. At best, Cornuelle didntmind Rushdoonys theological con-servatism, explaining in a letter, I am

much intrigued by the idea outlined[at Carleton] regarding a publicationor ministers and laymen in the Pres-byterian Church.21 While Cornuellehardly oered a ringing endorsemento Reormed Christianity, he did open

avenues or support rom other libertar-ians associated with the Volker Fundand FEE, including Baldy Harper. LikeCornuelle, Harper stopped ar short ooering nancial support or the proj-ect. Instead, he oered a stark warning,cautioning, Your church hierarchywill be grossly unpleased, in the main,with your project.22

With little hope o secure und-ing rom the Volker Fund, Rushdoonypressed James C. Ingebretsen at Spiri-

tual Mobilization. Like Cornuelle andHarper, Ingebretsen shared a genericallyChristian persuasion, but identiedhimsel as a religious agnostic.23 Inge-bretsen made a halhearted eort to stirup support or the Heraldby pitching itto several o Spiritual Mobilizations ma-jor nancial backers, but he ultimatelyrecognized that public support or theHeraldwould prove a distraction romhis duties at Spiritual Mobilization.

When it comes to raising money, hewrote apologetically, my primary obli-gation and interest is in the direction oproviding more resources or SpiritualMobilization.24 All o this added upto a conusing and rather unsatisyingeort at networking or Rushdoonyas he awkwardly tried to negotiate thebelies o men who shared some o hisanti-statist ree market ideals, but noneo whom shared his underlying religiousconvictions.25

Starting a Dogfght

in Our Denomination

Undeterred, Rushdoony pushedon with the Herald, going so ar asto assemble an introductory issue tocirculate among Presbyterian clergy andlaymen. The response was swit and

underwhelming. Letter ater letter camein response. Most armed the impor-tance o the project. Some oered tosubscribe. Few oered sizeable nancial

support. Most promptly demurred.Rushdoony did nd some support

or his periodical among young clergy-men and laymen rom predominantlyrural areas. One nineteen-year-old stu-dent at Southern Presbyterian Collegewrote a long, excited note to Rushdoonyregarding the Herald:

I have been investigating the possibili-ties o organizing the aithul in ourChurch in order to present a unitedwitness or the Faith and combat thespiritual wickedness. I elt that the mosturgent need was a militantly conserva-tive journal, or only ater the laymenare inormed will there be any hopeo restoring a believing leadership andpure clergy in our beloved Church.26

Summarizing the sentiment o thisletter and others like it, Rushdoonynoted the interest is mainly among theyoung men27 who live in the town andcountry areas, where Presbyterian think-ing and tradition are strongest.28 Notonly did these rural supporters prove

capable o resisting the siren song otheological modernism, they also weremore isolated rom the pull o that otherurban horror, communism: Commu-nists, Rushdoony reasoned, are prod-

ucts o our rootless urban culture, [and]are rarely ound in the rural areas.29As a result, Rushdoonys rural support-ers were inoculated against the twinthreats o theological liberalism and thedangers o messianic statism, but they

were neither particularly wealthy norintellectually sophisticated. This was acruel catch-22 or the aspiring religiousjournalist and editor.

Even with this degree o supportrom young, rural clergy and laymen,

Rushdoony ound ew supporters inthe churchs hierarchy. In act, many


17/36


Faith or All o Lieconservatives in the Presbyterian

Church amiliar with the project tried todissuade Rushdoony rom moving or-

ward with it. Warning o the disastrous

consequences to both his ministry andhis wallet, they argued that Rushdoony

was picking a ght against a rmly es-tablished liberal hierarchy that could notbe dislodged by a small publication like

the one he proposed. In response to one

such letter that registered support orRushdoonys ideas but urged him to end

the project, Rushdoony replied,

I thoroughly share your eeling aboutstarting a dog ght in our denomina-tion. I am by nature averse to suchthings, and it was only ater long andprayerul consideration that I was readyto make this present step The ghtis already being waged against us, andthere is no evading that point. I do notwant to respond in kind, but I do eelthat our undamental principles needre-asserting, that we need to put up ourown candidates, and take up patient,Christian action.30

At every turn, much like his

non-Presbyterian, secular associates,

Rushdoonys Presbyterian supporters

urged him to understand the awkwardposition into which he was attempting

to pull them and warned him o thepersonal consequences o his actions.

As a case in point, Dr. Samuel G.

Craig, the theologically conservative

president o the Presbyterian andReormed Publishing Company, living

in Princeton, New Jersey,31 oered

Rushdoony everything short o hisdirect support. I am disposed to think,

Craig wrote, that it would be betteror me to at least keep well into thebackground in the early period o the

publication.32 That such support

did Rushdoony little good was not loston the aspiring editor. As Rushdoony

later observed in a orlorn note to

Ingebretsen,

[T]he more prominent ministers, likesenators, will play sae until they eelthat open support is politically expedi-ent. I have received very enthusiasticletters rom a number, written imme-diately on receipt o the WestminsterHerald, promising help, but, as the days

go by, they seem embarrassed by theiroutburst and nd themselves too busyto do much.33

Most prominent men in the churchrecognized that Rushdoony was hanker-ing or a dogght whether he knew it ornot. As a result, they gave their supportprivately and kept their wallets andmouths rmly closed.

On a more personal note, one o themost blunt and telling responses to the

Heraldcame rom John M. Paxton othe Board o National Missions o thePresbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Pax-ton, like so many others amiliar withRushdoony and his ideas, registered hissupport but encouraged him to aban-don the project.

I am much interested in your venturein journalism I am not, however,nancially able to assist in the project.It is quite beyond my present ability

to undertake, nor could I in good con-scious incourage [sic] you to proceedin the nancial indebtedness, which Iam sure will incur in such a project I am not unaware o the sacrice youhave made but I am loath to see youinfict upon yoursel and your lovedones more o the same, and o course,you must know it will mean ostracismi not more. I speak to you in perectrankness as a riend.34

Unbowed, Rushdoony largely ig-

nored such advice no matter how practi-cal or heartelt. He longed to participatein the larger theological and ecclesiasti-cal debates taking place within orthodoxPresbyterianism, but short o supportrom small, rural clergy and laymen,he ound little denominational interestin a journalistic project that addressed

long-settled issues. This nominal sup-port or the Heraldsucceeded in makingRushdoony a controversial regionalgure among Presbyterian clergy on theWest Coast and made his lie dicultwhen he decided to leave the reserva-

tion in Owyhee or a pastorate in SantaCruz, Caliornia.

Conclusion

The isolation o Owyhee and thetransition back to the city took its tollon Rushdoonys long-term goals oreorming the Christian church. Dur-ing his time in Owyhee it had becomeclear to Rushdoony that the reservationwas not an environment conducive orachieving his newly ormulated goals

o using education to revitalize boththe church and American culture. Inresponse to this realization, Rushdoonysought out a pastorate that would allowhim to advance his ministry. Ater somesearching, Rushdoony accepted a callto the pastorate o Trinity PresbyterianChurch in Santa Cruz, Caliornia.

The new church called Rushdoonyto its pastorate, and Rushdoony letOwyhee in May 1952.35 The 300-mem-ber church was aliated with the main-

line Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).36Although Rushdoony had strong sup-port rom some in the church, many inthe congregation immediately attackedhis theological and political conserva-tism. They were particularly angeredwhen Rushdoony solicited support orhis struggling Westminster Heraldprojectand voiced his unwavering support oVan Tils presuppositional apologeticmethod.37 Several in the congrega-

tion, however, remained ercely loyalto Rushdoony and they petitioned toseparate rom Trinity and the Presbyte-rian Church (U.S.A.). At least sixty-sixmembers split rom Trinity and joinedthe Orthodox Presbyterian Church,a secessionist church ounded by J.Gresham Machen.


18/36


Faith or All o LieWith a signicant portion o his

own denomination against him anddeep divisions in his rst pastorate,Rushdoony continued to cultivatethe connections he made at CarletonCollege to build support or his ideas

outside o the boundaries o traditionalPresbyterianism. While it seems clearrom his correspondence and activitiesthat Rushdoony loved his work as a mis-sionary and preacher, it seems equallyclear that Rushdoony elt at home withthe political activists he met through hisassociation with Spiritual Mobilization,FEE, and the Volker Fund. In act, itsreasonable to suggest that Rushdoonysaw no tension between his associationswith these political activists and hisduties as a Presbyterian missionary andpastor.

The activists stang SpiritualMobilization, FEE, the Volker Fund,and any number o other fedglingconservative or libertarian organiza-tions were at the oreront o a broaderand growing movement to attack ederalmanagement o the economy, criticizeU.S. oreign policy, and roll back thesocial welare advances o the New

Deal. For secular libertarians such asIngebretsen, Harper, and Cornuelle,their political and economic agenda hada quasi-religious orce behind it that

remained unarticulated and ambigu-ous. For others, however, resistance toa centralized ederal government wasnot simply a matter o liberation andspiritual well being: it was a religiousobligation rooted in the deepest tradi-tions o Western Christianity.

In this essay I have attempted tooutline how Rushdoonys time on theDuck Valley reservation led him to thislatter position. His time on the DuckValley Indian Reservation convincedhim that modern Christianity hadabdicated its responsibility to addressthe very problems o political theology

that it had bequeathed to the modernworld. On the reservation, Rushdoonybelieved that he had seen two peoples: arace that had lost aith in its own historyand in the religion o the culture thathad conquered it, and another that was

eager to reject its God-given Christianliberty or government managemento its peoples lives. Rushdoonylonged to carry these insights to otherChristians through a publication likethe Westminster Herald. Over the nexttwo decades, Rushdoony rened hismessage and approach. He eventuallylearned how to persuasively presenthis message to political and religiousconservatives with the concept oChristian Reconstruction, a project thatremains alive and well to this day.

Michael J. McVicar recently completeda dissertation exploring the relationshipbetween the ministry o R. J. Rushdoonyand the American conservative movement.He lectures at several universities in Ohio.McVicar is not a Reconstructionist. He canbe reached with questions and comments [email protected].

1. Michael J. McVicar, The Lord Will Per-ect That Which Concerneth Me: The Work

o Rousas John Rushdoony, Faith or All oLie(November/December 2010): 611, 24.

2. See Michael J. McVicar, First Owyhee,and then the World: The Early Ministryo R. J. Rushdoony, Faith or All o Lie(November/December 2008): 1822, 33;and Michael J. McVicar, Working withPygmies: R. J. Rushdoony, ChristianityToday, and the Making o an AmericanTheologian, Faith or All o Lie(July/Au-gust 2008): 1418, 32.

3. R. J. Rushdoony to Kantorowicz, March

22, 1945, R. J. Rushdoony Library, Chal-cedon Foundation, Vallecito, CA (hereatercited as the RJR Library).

4. Rousas John Rushdoony, ChristianMissions and Indian Culture, WestminsterTheological Journal12, no. 1 (May 1949): 1.

5. R. J. Rushdoony to Orval Clay, February24, 1945, RJR Library.

6. Readers interested in Faith and Free-dom can nd an online archive o thepublication at http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=source&source=Faith%20and%20Freedom. For an excellent historyo the publication, see Eckard V. Toy, Faithand Freedom, 19491960, in The Conser-

vative Press in Twentieth-Century America,eds. Ronald Lora and William HenryLongton, Historical Guides to the WorldsPeriodicals and Newspapers (Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 1999), 153161.

7. I have outlined Rushdoonys relationshipwith Spiritual Mobilization in Michael J.McVicar, The Libertarian Theocrats: TheLong, Strange History o R. J. Rushdoonyand Christian Reconstructionism, ThePublic Eye, Fall 2007, available online athttp://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v22n3/

libertarian.html. For a more complete his-tory o Spiritual Mobilization, see EckardV. Toy, Spiritual Mobilization: The Failureo an Ultraconservative Ideal in the 1950s,Pacifc Northwest Quarterly61 (April 1970):7786.

8. Ralph Lord Roy, Apostles o Discord: AStudy o Organized Bigotry and Disruption onthe Fringes o Protestantism (Boston: BeaconPress, 1953), 286.

9. R. J. Rushdoony to William Johnson,March 14, 1950, RJR Library.

10. Ibid.11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. James W. Field, Jr., to R. J. Rushdoony,July 1, 1950, RJR Library.

15. Ibid.

16. Herbert C. Cornuelle to R. J. Rush-doony, August 30, 1950, RJR Library.

17. Rushdoony had been correspond-ing with Harper, then at FEE, or severalmonths prior to the conerence but had notyet met him in person. Although it is notclear how Rushdoony began correspondingwith Harper, it appears that Rushdoony wasoperating as an author or researcher or FEEby early 1950. See R. J. Rushdoony to F. A.Harper, April 26, 1950, RJR Library, and F.A. Harper to R. J. Rushdoony, August 31,1950, RJR Library.


19/36


Faith or All o Lie

Get 24 Years worth of Rushdoonys research

and writing on numerous topics for only $20!TheRoots of Reconstruction by R.J. Rushdoony is one of the mostimportant reference works youll ever purchase. If you are committed tothe comprehensive worldview espoused by Rushdoony then this volume is amust for your personal, church, or school library.

This giant book of 1124 pages contains all of Rushdoonys ChalcedonReportarticles from the ministrys beginning in 1965 to the middle of 1989.Youll discover world-changing insights on a number of topics such as:

TheologyThe State

PhilosophyWealth

PrayerThe FamilyEschatologyTaxationPolitics

False ReligionsRevolution

Gods LawWorld HistoryAmerican History

EducationEthical PhilosophyCultureDominion

WorkThe Church

HeresiesHumanism

SecularismAbortionCovenantReformed FaithMuch more

$20.00Hardback, 1124 pagesShipping added to allorders

Save on the price ofthis book. Add this

book to a larger order

and pay less! See thecatalog insert in the

back of this issue.

18. R. J. Rushdoony to Herbert C. Cornu-elle, October 10, 1950, RJR Library.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Herbert Cornuelle to R. J. Rushdoony,August 30, 1950, RJR Library.

22. F. A. Harper to R. J. Rushdoony,October 18, 1950, RJR Library. Ultimately,the Volker Fund, citing its long-standingnon-denominational policy, rejected o-ering any assistance to the Herald(HerbertC. Cornuelle to R. J. Rushdoony, May 20,1952, RJR Library).

23. For Ingebretsens religious convictions,see James C. Ingebretsen, Apprentice to theDawn: A Spiritual Memoir(Los Angeles:Philosophical Research Society, 2003).

24. James C. Ingebretsen to R. J. Rush-doony, April 10, 1952, Special Collectionsand University Archives, University o Or-egon Libraries, collection 147, box 9, older32 (hereater UO Libraries).

25. Further, Field, the spiritual enginebehind Spiritual Mobilization is not,

September 20, 1950, RJR Library.

33. R. J. Rushdoony to James C. Ingebre-tsen, April 15, 1952, UO Libraries.

34. John M. Paxton to R. J. Rushdoony,June 11, 1952, RJR Library.

35. Santa Cruz Church Formed, The

Presbyterian Guardian, July 15, 1958.36. David Watson, Theonomy: A Historyo the Movement and an Evaluation o itsPrimary Text, (masters thesis, Calvin Col-lege, 1985).

37. Two Churches Organized in Calior-nia, The Presbyterian Guardian, June 15,1958.

Ingebretsen relayed, particularly sympa-thetic to your theological position, but helikes what you are trying to do and has beengiving the magazine some publicity (JamesC. Ingebretsen to R. J. Rushdoony, June 10,1952, UO Libraries). Despite his theologi-cal disagreements with Rushdoony, Field

spoke avorably o the Heraldduring hisradio program.

26. Robert Glover Shoemaker to R. J. Rush-doony, October 5, 1950, RJR Library.

27. R. J. Rushdoony to Samuel G. Craig,October 11, 1950, RJR Library.

28. R. J. Rushdoony to James C. Ingebre-tsen, April 15, 1952, UO Libraries.

29. Ibid.

30. R. J. Rushdoony to C. Ralston Smith,May 10, 1952.

31. Partly as a result o Craigs sympathy orconservative theology, Rushdoony eventu-ally would go on to have a long and highlyproductive relationship with the Presbyte-rian and Reormed Publishing Company.

32. Samuel G. Craig to R. J. Rushdoony,


20/36


Wayne Gru-dems Politics According to the Bible(Zondervan, 2010) is a600-page tome, cover-ing sixty specic issues,

and purports to be a comprehensiveresource or understanding modernpolitical issues in light o scripture.The book is relevant and engaging; theperspective is conservative and Bibli-cal. I wrote this book, Grudem says,because I was convinced that Godintended the Bible to give guidance toevery area o lieincluding how gov-ernments should unction! (p. 13).

Grudems Politicshas weaknessesin methodology, research, and conclu-sions. Sometimes it says more aboutconservative evangelicalism than it doesabout Biblical ethics. But the book

is worth reading, and it should be a plat-orm or engaging Christians who wanta more consistent Biblical perspective ongovernment, politics, and law.

Grudem is a proessor o theologyand Biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary.A graduate o Harvard, Westminster,and Cambridge, he has impeccable aca-demic credentials. He taught or manyyears at Trinity Evangelical DivinitySchool, where nearly thirty years ago my

wie was one o his admiring students.Politicsis not written by a political activ-ist, but by a highly respected theologianand leading evangelical academic.

Grudem is pleasant and nonthreat-ening, and his book has a polite andgracious style. He is no thunderingdemagogue like the cranky leaders o the

Evangelical Politics: A Review o Wayne Grudem,

Politics According to the BibleRoger Schultz

B o o k R e v i e w

Old Christian Right. I asked my wiewhy she liked him so much. Well, shesaid thoughtully, he was so nice! AndMr. Nice hopes to promote an irenicevangelical engagement on politicalissues. Grudem writes: [S]ignicantinfuence does not mean angry, belliger-ent, intolerant, judgmental, red-aced,and hate-lled infuence, but ratherwinsome, kind, thoughtul, loving, per-suasive infuence that is suitable to eachcircumstance and protects the otherpersons right to disagree, but that is alsouncompromising about the truthulnessand moral goodness o the teachings oGods Word (p. 55). In short, Gru-dem longs or kinder, gentler Christianapologists and activists, ones who areully committed to Biblical standardsbut who are also nicer.

Grudem appears connected to

conservative politics and groups. Hewas motivated to write by riends at twoconservative organizations, the AllianceDeense Fund and the Center or Arizo-na Policy. His perspective is consistentlyand admittedly conservative. While hedoes not intend to be partisan, he notesthat his conclusions and positions arelargely those o the Republican Party.Grudem explains that Republicans tendto avor smaller government, lower

taxes, strong deense, traditional moralstandards regarding abortion and mar-riage, the promotion o democracy andthe promotion o ree market econom-ics. And these principles are consistentwith Biblical ethics, Biblical teachingson government, and an overarching Bib-lical worldview (pp. 6, 13, 573).

Politicsis organized by dierentthemes or clusters o issues: protectiono lie, marriage, amily, economics,environment, national deense, oreignpolicy, reedom o speech, and ree-dom o religion. Though hampered bymethodological weaknesses, it providesa basic Biblical worldview approach tocontemporary political issues.

Grudems methodological and ana-lytical ramework is clearly stated. Someo his analysis rests upon the straightor-ward teaching o Scripture, where it isclear, direct and decisive. Other por-tions rest upon broader biblical prin-ciples. Still other arguments dependupon an appeal to acts in the world(pp. 1819). This pragmatic and eclecticapproach is problematic. Liberals havelong touted the broader principles oScripture to justiy multiple humanistic

initiatives. Appeals to the relevant actsin the world today (emphasis his) canlead almost anywhere. These actualacts in the world presumably allowthe Christian apologist to make com-mon cause with non-Christians on thebasis o natural law or neutral data. AsGrudem explains, It would be impos-sible to write about political issues todaywithout appealing to a large number oacts in the world (p. 19). Grudems

repeated reerences to these acts,relevant acts, and actual acts soundsilly. Id eel more comortable with asimple, steadast commitment to thesuciency o Scripture.

Grudem argues that there are sixbasic Christian attitudes toward govern-ment. (The categories are somewhat


21/36


Faith or All o Liereminiscent o H. Richard Niebuhrsclassic work, Christ and Culture.1) Fiveapproaches to government are misguid-edthat government should compelreligion; that government shouldexclude religion; that all government

is evil and demonic; that the churchshould do evangelism, not politics; andthat the church should do politics, notevangelism. But or Grudem, a sixthoption is bestthat there should bea signicant Christian infuence ongovernment. There is much to like inhis thesis statement: Christians shouldseek to infuence civil governmentaccording to Gods moral standardsand Gods purposes or government asrevealed in the Bible (when rightly un-derstood). His oundational statementon scriptural authority is also clear-cutand commendable: [T]he whole Biblecomes with the authority o God andthe authority o Jesus Christ, and ourposition on government should be basedon the teaching o the whole Bible (pp.55, 38).

He is especially interested inconronting those on the evangelicallet, such as Jim Wallis. (Long associ-

ated with Sojourners, Wallis has becomea darling o religious progressives andDemocratic operatives who hope toerode evangelical support or the Repub-lican Party. Wallis has received majorunding rom George Soros, the spookybillionaire globalist.) Grudem does agood job pointing out the worldviewfaws and inconsistencies o pacists,socialists, and statists on the let wing oevangelicalism.

They say it is easier to smell a badegg than to lay a good one. WhileGrudem knows where the statists arewrong, he has more trouble articulatinga Christian alternative. He struggles,or instance, to explain his supportor Mitt Romney in the Republicanpresidential primary campaign o

2007. Christians are not required tosupport ellow Christians alone orpublic oce, Grudem insists, its acandidates Biblical and moral positionsthat are o paramount importance. Thatmay be true, but Grudems scriptural

support is bewildering. [N]othing inthe Bible says that people have to beborn-again Christians beore they canbe governmental authorities who areused by God to advance his purposes.God used Pharaoh, King o Egypt, toraise Joseph to a position o authorityover the whole country (p. 67).Grudem apparently doesnt recognizethe dierence between the prerogativeso a Sovereign God and the prescribedand normative conduct or Christians.(Even i God used tyrants and pagansto accomplish His purposes in the past,it doesnt mean Christians should startvoting or tyrants and pagans.)

The more Grudem explains himsel,the worse it gets. He supported candi-date Romney, a Mormon, because hepreerred Romneys policies in 2007 tothose o Mike Huckabee, a SouthernBaptist candidate. But ater urtherrefection, Grudem concluded that a

Mormon would never carry the evan-gelical vote, particularly in the South,and thereore Romney had little chanceo winning the Republican nomination.Grudem, thereore, demonstrates thathis real criterion or candidate selectionis not a Biblically principled stance onthe issues, but political expediencytheability to win. Grudem then admits thathe was overly optimistic about Romneyand probably didnt do his homework

beore giving the endorsement. Thehealth care system that Romney success-ully advocated in Massachusetts costsar more than was predicted and haslost much o its initial appeal. There-ore, I do not know i I would supportRomney or some other candidate in theuture.

Everyone makes mistakes, but wemight expect more rom evangelical-isms expert on politics and the Bible.Nonetheless, Grudem concludes, [T]heprinciple remains: I think that Christiansshould support the candidate who best

represents moral and political values con-sistent with biblical teaching, no matterwhat his or her religious backgroundor convictions (p. 68). This assumes,o course, that there is no divergencebetween religious principle, on the onehand, and political or moral principle,on the other.

And too much religious principlewould be a bad thing. Grudem disagreeswith the position that governmentshould compel religion. He identies asmall, ringe movement called Chris-tian Reconstructionism that advocatesgovernment enorcement o Old Testa-ment laws today.2 But Grudem haslittle to say about this position. He is armore interested in conronting the Letand has scant time or opponents on theRightexcept or Ron Paul.

Since Grudem advocates a vigorousapplication o the whole Bible to thepolitical issues o the day, this matter

is worth exploration. Grudem knowsthat the civil magistrate must enorcesome Old Testament laws, and he hasno argument with laws against murder(Thou shalt not kill), thet (Thoushalt not steal), and perjury (Thous

jan-feb 2011 faith for all of life

Documents