From the Bunker

Q&A Fridays! Issue #30

Welcome to Issue #26 of Q&A Friday for Friday the 21st of September, 2007. I want to thank you all for your great emails and questions. I want to remind everyone of the rules by which I will be playing:

Not all questions will be answered, and not all those that are submitted can be fitted into one issue. Those that did not make this issue (for length reasons) might be included in a future one. Questions might not be answered or included in the Q&A for the following reasons:

The scope may be too broad, or it may involve a topic on which I have taught at length... ex: “Can you explain the whole Creation?”

The question might need to be asked more specifically, or with fewer presuppositions that I would have to handle before actually getting to the question (I do reserve the right to rewrite questions to make them more clear and understandable or to make them more amenable to the format here). Answering the question might drag me off of “message” or into an area on which I am currently teaching, but haven’t gotten to yet. If the question is answered in an upcoming teaching, or would involve getting into a topic I have planned for the future, then I will likely choose not to answer it yet.

The question might be considered rhetorical, or might involve me bearing witness against myself... such as “Do you make this stuff up?”

As always, send your questions to Q&A Fridays: editor@lazarusunbound.com.

Michael,

You seem to read a lot of secular books. I do too. How do I defend the fact that I read secular books to people who say that a Christian should not do so?

Thank you for your question. Of course the immediate reply would be – why should you not read secular books? The burden of proof is on the accuser, so can they tell you why you should not?

Now, I have been around this tree many times, so I can tell you what they will say. They will say that if they are not “christian” books, then they can only clutter your mind, and they will say that God cannot be honored in the reading of them, or they will say that you are not “setting your mind on heavenly things”, etc.

Hogwash.

Like I said, the burden is on them, but let me lay down some irrefutable arguments against such foolishness.

1. The idea that something has to be painted in overtly religious painting in order for God to be glorified in it, is both ridiculous and unbiblical:

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1Co 10:31)

It is patently ridiculous to claim that something must be overtly “christian” in order for us to utilize it to the glory of God. I mean, is there a “christian” food? Is there a “christian” drink? If we can eat or drink to the glory of God, can we not read or improve our mind to the glory of God? We will agree that reading trash will clutter your mind, and we will agree that reading filth will dirty your mind. But just because something is not overtly “christian”, or not written by a Christian author, does not make it not valuable – any more than saying a chair or a table cannot be useful unless it was made by a Christian and unless it is decorated with so-called “christian” symbols. If I can’t read and be improved by secular books, then neither can I eat with secular utensils or work with secular tools.

2. The ministers of the early Church were well versed in the secular and even pagan classics. Paul himself was so well versed in pagan literature that he quoted from Epimenides in Acts 17:28 and in Titus 1:12. Epimenides was a Greek seer, prophet, and poet. He was hardly a “Christian”. The often quoted “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” from Acts 17 was originally written by Epimenides about Zeus. The ability to communicate properly in a culture requires a cultural literacy and historical literacy that goes beyond the lightweight spiritual gobbledygook found in most modern religious literature. You will find that Pilgrim’s Progress was often quoted by secular writers who considered it a great work of art, just as you will find that Bunyan was quite often attacked for using a style and form (fantasy fictional allegory) that was, in his time, quite unacceptable for religious works. The irony is that the greatest Christian written works were written by Christian men who were well versed in secular classics, the Latin works, and the works of antichrist Jews and pagans. So if we limited ourselves to books that are overtly “Christian” in authorship, we would have to eliminate all the best works because, after all, they are tainted by authors who read, studied, and mastered the classics. We would be left, then, with books written by stupid authors, heretics, and fools. Why read at all?

3. Does it take a Christian to say something that is true? Does God ever speak through anyone or anything other than professing Christians? Throughout scripture we find God speaking to and through sinners (Saul), false prophets (Balaam), and even Balaam’s ass. God speaks throughout His creation. He speaks in the wind, and in the trees, and in the sunlight. He speaks to us in multitudes of ways, and while we confess that all truth must be confirmed and represented in God’s written word, we reject the idea that truth can only be found in the written words of religious men.

Now, the point is answered but I want to finish by telling everyone that you do have to be careful what you put into your head. Reading trash and filth is not good for you spiritually or physically. You should have a purpose in your reading, and mere mental stimulation, carnal satisfaction, or spiritual escapism are not reasons to read. My concern is that most people fit into one of two categories. Either they read junk and wonder why they have no true spirituality, or they do not read at all. Read. Read good books. Become educated in the classics so that you have some type of cultural literacy and historical knowledge. You can learn a lot by reading classics from earlier generations – because there are mountains of lost wisdom hidden plainly in books.

Michael,

You’ve spoken of, and on, “spiritual entropy” in the past. I’m hoping you might expand on it....is there any measurable way to compare the entropy of these times to how conditions were hundreds of years ago? Is it also an entropy of knowledge, and just plain ole spiritual hard work? I mean, just as an example, I look at the works of a Matthew Henry, who died at age 52, and I can only imagine he spent practically every waking hour studying, praying, meditating, writing etc. Were there a huge percentage more of his type back in those days than exist in our day? Is the sense of “entitlement” that exists in our day, of material things, leisure etc. a prime cause in so many shirking many hours of possible spiritual pursuits? Can your thoughts on this be quantified in any way? Sorry to be so long winded and rambling. Thanks.

Actually it is a great question. In science, entropy is a word that describes how things increasingly tend to “even out”, or degrade over time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics expresses this universal law of entropy. If you place boiling water in a pot on a table, it will increasingly lose its property of “boilingness” until it is room temperature. Things naturally degrade over time. If you go and straighten up your garage, then you lock it tight for 20 years, you will not find it in better condition after 20 years of time. The nice, neat garage will be filthy and degraded if further energy is not applied to maintain it. Ice melting is a good symbol of the increasing nature of entropy through time.

Many years ago I was teaching in a homegroup and I mentioned that I believed that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, if it truly was a law, must apply to everything including intelligence and the ability to understand spiritual things. A man sitting at the table with us said, “Ah, spiritual entropy”. A phrase was coined that I have used ever since in my teaching. I believe in both mental and spiritual entropy, but I need to explain both so people don’t misunderstand what I am saying. Spiritual entropy does not assume any loss in the power, efficacy, graces, etc. of the Spirit of God. There is no entropy in God. When I say “spiritual entropy” I am speaking of the capacity of man to conceive of and understand spiritual things. As time passes, our ability to receive spiritual things decreases (not individually, but corporately – as man). Mankind is degrading and “waxing worse and worse”, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13). Jesus taught that if man did not repent and sin no more, a “worse thing would come upon” him. This concept is taught throughout scripture.

Mental entropy is more easily understood. Mental entropy is the decreasing ability for each subsequent generation to understand and communicate complicated thoughts, ideas, languages, etc. In short, man is getting dumber and dumber. This seems counterintuitive because of the ubiquitousness of complicated inventions, etc., but this is a great deception. Man “seems” smarter today because of the increasing ability to store and access the compounded intelligence of previous generations. We benefit by being able to store and quickly access the information which was understood by previous generations without the aid of such storage devices. Doctors today do not know more than doctors 200 years ago. They just have access to 200 more years of trial, error, and testing. They also benefit from books and computers, which were rare and difficult to access 200 years ago. Likewise, the average man with a Masters Degree today would have the equivalent education of a high school graduate less than 100 years ago. He likely would not have been admitted into college at all 200 years ago. James Madison entered the College of New Jersey (later to become Princeton) at the age of 18 and graduated in just 2 years. In order to be accepted into the college, he had to be well acquainted with all the written classics of his day – to the point that he could be requited to recite from any of them, even in Latin or Hebrew, without the aid of notes. Thomas Jefferson learned Latin, Greek, and French at the age of 9. At 17 he had memorized Tacitus and Homer, and was well versed in the violin. He studied more than 15 hours a day. The point is that, though these were extraordinary men, they were not that extraordinary. The average yeoman farmer in the 18th and 19th century had better than twice the vocabulary of a modern college graduate, and an immeasurably better knowledge of basic science, physics, metallurgy, horticulture, etc. All it requires for someone to see and understand this fact is that they be honest. Here are some ways to quantify it.

First, examine yourself. Consider yourself in context with your times. Are you considered intelligent in comparison with those around you? Well educated? Well rounded? Etc.? Write down where you would fall amongst the average person in your station. For example, I would be considered moderately formally educated. I graduated high school and finished some college. I am usually considered highly intelligent in my day, mainly because comparatively I am considered well read with a large vocabulary. Now, it is time to use the library or the Internet. Go out and find a book from 5 preceding centuries. It is really not that hard now that there are so many books online. Right now I am reading Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad which was first published in 1899, so we will consider it a 20th century book. For the 19th century we can use A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, or Moby Dick by Herman Melville. Robinson Crusoe was published in 1719, so we will put it as our 18th century book. For a 17th century book you can use Paradise Lost by John Milton, Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, or the Holy Bible., all of which were written to be read and understood by small children of the day. For a more complicated adult read, we can use Areopagitica also by John Milton. For the 16th century you might try Utopia by Thomas More, or The Prince by Machiavelli. Now, find these books online and give them a read. Read at least a chapter or two of each, and note what you can about the mental intelligence, vocabulary and acuity necessary to comprehend them. I think you will find my point is made.

The next step is to contact a college student. Any college student will do. Do not give them time to search out answers online, or to study. Just make a list of questions that any thinking person ought to know about history... example “Who fought in the Civil War”, “What is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?”, “How many of each type of animal did Moses put in the ark?” (trick question). Just test them and see what they know. You will find that they do not know anything. Worse, they are not really capable of understanding some basic concepts that only 50 years ago were understood by even small children. Mental entropy is a real thing, and, ironically, it is only by knowing and understanding that it exists and that we suffer from it, are we able to properly humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord. We are literally the dumbest people ever to walk the face of the earth. And it is with entropied brains that we are required to operate. Arminians are fond of decrying “unfairness” in God’s treatment of the world, and they don’t even realize that they are 100 times (or more) dumber than Arminius was! He was damned with more information, more intelligence, and more access to right theology!

Interesting, right?

As to the last portion of your question. A sense of entitlement, mental and spiritual laziness, and a general lack of moral uprightness are both the products of spiritual and mental entropy which is itself a product of sin. It is a downhill slide (thus the concept of INCREASING entropy). The more entropy affects each generation the more dumb and lazy that generation is. The more dumb and lazy, the more the entropic principle applies. Laziness is generally a product of covetousness and moral weakness, which is itself both a cause and effect of spiritual entropy. Each of us must realize that we are subject to such entropy, and that we are doubly cursed because we must realize it with an entropied mind. We are more in need of grace than any previous generation that claimed the name of Christ because we are more likely to be satisfied with (and in) ourselves with little or no reason. We are more likely, when examining ourselves, to accept ourselves without reason because we compare ourselves with a highly spiritually and mentally entropied generation:

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. (2Co 10:12)

We dare not compare ourselves among ourselves because our generation is so overwhelmingly stupid and wicked. Though we might appear intelligent and spiritual in a wicked generation, we must realize that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If we compare ourselves with previous generations we have a better ruler by which to measure, and if we measure ourselves by the perfect rule (the scripture) we end up with a true measure of ourselves. This is the only true measure.

I hope this answers your questions,

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Greetings, It is looking like we should have a great showing for Ranchfest. Right now we are looking at upwards of 24 people coming out, although we are used to massive cancellations at the last minute. This year, however, even if the folks who have committed all show up (Lord Willing), we should have a good showing and a great time. Mini Q&A:

What is the deal with Ranchfest?

Hmmm.... Well, it started back in 2003 when Danielle was pregnant with Sarah. 5 of us were living in a 80 x 16 mobile home (palatial compared to our current cabin), and I was "officing" in our 8x8 kitchen. We put out the word that we absolutely had to have an addition put on the house for an office and living area. Now, things were different back then. We had a much larger audience. Actually it was half of what it was back in 2001 when I started preaching on the Doctrines of Grace, but I had yet to start teaching against worldliness and for separatism and agrarianism. So, in short, although there were some brethren on our list (some who are still around!), we had a good number of religious worldlings hanging around back then. But those religious worldlings were maybe a bit more open to being moved by the Holy Spirit, I don't know. Anyway, back then if I sent out an email saying "Hey, we've had an emergency, we need XXX", we usually had what we need in less than a week. So we sent out an email saying we had to have this addition to the house, and that we were going to start building it that spring. Some ladies on the list had an idea for some kind of "Bunkapalooza" or "Habitat for Bunkmanity" where folks could come out and meet one another and help with the building. I assumed we would do well to get the money to pour the slab ($1800), and if we got enough to start framing, then all the better. The online folks put together the dates and times for what they called "Bunkfest" and we started making plans. Some folks from Colorado decided to come down early and help us pour and float the slab. I had never done this before and doubted we would have the money ready to pay the concrete man, but they came down anyway. We leveled out the ground, dug out the footers, etc. and talked about whether we should call the concrete man. I didn't have the money yet, but the fella from Colorado said we should just go ahead and call the concrete guy, and if the money was not in in time he would cover it temporarily with a credit card. I didn't like that idea, but he prevailed on me to do it. So the concrete guys came out and started the pour. Halfway through the pour I went inside to check email and saw that we had received enough to pay for the slab! So I was able to write a check to the concrete guys. Money was trickling in, so we went in and bought all the framing materials, and as Bunkfest went on, the money kept coming in. We ended up building the whole addition (including carpeting and shelves) in 8 days. We raised $18,000 in all for the project. Now, a lot of that was in two large donations of $4000 and $5000, but still it was very gratifying to see folks step up to the needs.

The next spring we decided to do an old-fashioned barn-raising. Again, we put together a plan and quite a few folks came out. We ended up raising $15,000 to build a pretty nice barn. In 2005 the sky fell in because the Lord prevailed on me to start really pushing separatism and Agrarianism, and at the same time we found out we were going to need to leave our home in West Texas if we were at all to be consistent with what I was preaching. We hated to move, but it was inevitable and we had no other choice. All this time I was campaigning to change the name of "Bunkfest" to something better and we ended up settling on "Ranchfest". The overall principle was to give folks out there who were affiliated with and who benefited from the Ministry a way to "communicate" or come alongside the ministry in a big way and help. We wanted to show that the ministry was not about money, but about living the live we say others should live, and we wanted to focus on friendship, fellowship, Agrarianism, and obedience to the commandments of God. 2005 Ranchfests didn't amount to much because of the aforementioned factors. The preaching was alienating even our friends, and we knew we were moving down here to Central Texas.

In spring 2006 we had "Ranchfest" down here on the land, and though we didn't have any money to speak of, we had some good attendance and, frankly, with the people that were here, it was one of the best and most rewarding fellowship times I have ever had. We did put a porch on the front of the cabin, and we might have done another project but I can't remember.

Fall Ranchfest in 2006 was lightly attended. Again we didn't have any money and most of the folks who planned on being here could not make it. It started out great, but a few days into it our good friend Doug Howey was killed in a car wreck (and his wife was injured) down in Fredericksburg. The rest of Ranchfest was really dealing with that tragedy. We were able to raise quite a bit of money (still only 1/3 of what we raised for the first Ranchfest) to help pay some of Doug's burial expenses and to give a gift to his wife.

Spring 2007 almost no one could make it. By this time quite a few folks had moved down to the land, so attendance was good, but it was mainly folks who already lived here now.

So, you can see the pattern. As we've grown closer to the Lord and have been more direct in our preaching and teaching, as expected, things have become more and more tight monetarily. This is the way things go. One wacknut charismatic Northern agrarian blogger has taken some swipes at us for daring to raise money. This is the kind of pompous blowhard who writes a sometime check to his apostate arminian false-church and feels like he is doing God service. It is no coincidence that this is the most pompous and arrogant "agrarian" voice online. Dumb people really like him because he pontificates on things in an "old-timey" good-ol-boy way - but they rarely read between the lines that every blog he posts actually says "I am better than you". This guy doesn't give a flip about you. He just wants you to shut up and buy his beef and admit that you aren't half the man he is. Enough of that.

Anyway, the point of Ranchfest was to give people the opportunity to help the mission and the ministry in a big way. What we are doing out here is not so we can pontificate online about how nobody knows anything but ol' yankee farmers. We are trying to teach people what we believe the Bible teaches, and why, and HOW to do the things (with little or no money) that we should be doing to be obedient to God's way of life and living. It's that simple. We actually help people, and if you've been around long enough you know that.

So far the attendance for Ranchfest looks good. (GREAT)
So far the donations for Ranchfest... not so good.

That's all about that.

Michael

Q&A Fridays! Issue #27
Welcome to Issue #27 of Q&A Friday for Friday the 3rd of August, 2007. I want to thank you all for your great emails and questions. I want to remind everyone of the rules by which I will be playing:

Not all questions will be answered, and not all those that are submitted can be fitted into one issue. Those that did not make this issue (for length reasons) might be included in a future one. Questions might not be answered or included in the Q&A for the following reasons:

The scope may be too broad, or it may involve a topic on which I have taught at length... ex: “Can you explain the whole Creation?”

The question might need to be asked more specifically, or with fewer presuppositions that I would have to handle before actually getting to the question (I do reserve the right to rewrite questions to make them more clear and understandable or to make them more amenable to the format here). Answering the question might drag me off of “message” or into an area on which I am currently teaching, but haven't gotten to yet. If the question is answered in an upcoming teaching, or would involve getting into a topic I have planned for the future, then I will likely choose not to answer it yet.

The question might be considered rhetorical, or might involve me bearing witness against myself... such as “Do you make this stuff up?”

As always, send your questions to Q&A Fridays: editor@lazarusunbound.com.

Michael,

I read your recent treatise on off-grid living (from the last Q&A) and I am interested in hearing more about it. This is the type of thing I would like to read more of on BA. You state that most Christians right now are able to afford to move off-grid. Can you give examples? How would this be done?

Thank you.

We discussed this at great length at one time on another forum we had about homesteading. On that forum I laid out a proposed bottom-dollar homesteading plan which involved building a cabin on 5 acres of land. In this response, I will discuss another option that I think virtually any Christian in any situation can afford (with few exceptions). This plan is not in any way complete, but will have to suffice for this Q&A arena, but is based on two more years of experience in homesteading and off-grid living.

In this plan, the procurement of land will not be discussed (that is the topic for another question in another Q&A perhaps). For our purposes, we will assume that between 2-5 acres have been procured at a cost of $1500 an acre, which is entirely possible in some areas, and is more per acre than we paid for the land we currently occupy. Some might think that 2-5 acres is preposterously small for a homestead, and in some ways that might be true – but there are many, many people homesteading this amount of acreage, and several of their accounts on the Internet show them profitably marketing crops and other items from this amount of acreage. It is unarguable that a family of virtually any size can produce more than enough food and sustenance for themselves to prosper on 2-5 acres of farm land if it is wisely used. According to this plan, then, somewhere between $3000 - $7000 has been spent on land. Once again, for the naysayer who immediately responds (HA! I don't have $3000 - $7000 for land; first... YES YOU DO, and second... I said that issue is for another Q&A).

This plan is one I have recommended for several different people in several different situations, but, as of yet, not one person has taken my advice. Too bad. I am currently taking my own medicine, as I propose to use this plan in building my “office” on the back of the land. This plan also takes heed of the wisdom found in Proverbs:

Pro 24:27 Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house.

Which is not to say that it is not permitted to prepare a place to live first, only that it is wise that we create a temporary dwelling place (a tent, small cabin, camper, etc.) while we prepare our fields and farm, and THEN we should build our permanent home. This is so that if a disaster were to come, or if some social or political unrest should make life difficult, our farm will already be in food production which will sustain us if the Lord wills.

Ok, in this plan we are going to acquire a camper (trailer, RV, etc.) of some sort and size, according to our needs. One of the men that lived here at one time purchased an old Winnebago RV for 800 dollars. It still ran well enough to get it here. It would sleep two very comfortably, and possibly a married couple with a child. Another family here purchased a large used RV for $3000 that easily housed their family of 5. I have seen campers and trailers for $1500 that would do well for my family of 6, though we would certainly live in tight quarters for some time. That “closeness” is good for a family at some level, and the bad elements of it can be alleviated by further parts of the plan.

Also, please note that this plan is conceived from Central Texas, where we have our own unique challenges to overcome (heat, drought, bugs, etc.). Your own area will have its own concerns that you will want to identify before you begin.

We are using a camper or RV because it is already a self-contained homestead. Most campers (even old ones) already have most of the things you might want as “amenities”, such as a multi-source refrigerator (propane, 12V, and 110), propane stove, hot water heater, sink, shower or tub, etc. In most of these used campers, these items are more valuable than the cost of the entire camper. In fact, I recommend homesteaders look into RV or camper bargains merely for salvage value. One of the campers we have found has a working 4,000 watt Diesel generator. The RV I bartered for my office has a generator, a large propane refrigerator, and a propane stove.

The camper is pulled onto an ideal area of the land (ideal for its purpose, but preferably NOT where you are ideally going to build your permanent house or other structures. This camper can be used (in the future, after a house is built) as a guest house or office. An outhouse can be dug in most regions in a day. In our case, due to the abundance of rock about 4 feet down, a backhoe was used to dig the outhouse hole. You do not want to build your outhouse too close to your future garden, or within 100 feet of any source of water. We built our outhouse of used and spare lumber, but a very nice outhouse can be built for only a few hundred dollars. Do not neglect to use the outhouse roof as a catchwater by installing guttering and having it flow into some type of barrel or other catchwater system. One of the single men in our community has survived very well on catchwater coming from his camper and his outhouse for several months.

Next you will want to build a “shed roof” over the camper. A shed roof is simply a single sloping roof line that slopes from the front to the back. Basically you are going to build a roof over the camper which slopes to the rear (not as if you were driving or pulling the camper, but the rear being the side opposite the front door). This shed roof will cover the entire camper, extending 8-10 feet to the front, and a foot or more to the rear. The roof should also extend several feet (or more if desired) to either side of the camper. Think of it as building a carport under which you will park your camper. You will want the carport roof to be big enough to keep the summer sun off of the camper for most of the day. You will also want it to be high enough to allow the heat to blow away that permeates the roof line... so maybe 10 inches to a foot of space minimum above the camper. I would use steel roofing on the shed roof (or corrugated steel) because you are going to be utilizing the catchwater as a primary source of water.

Next you will screen in the area of the shed roof, effectively screening in the camper. If you ever plan on moving the camper again, one wall of the screened porch can be made into a hinged, screened door that can be opened and the camper pulled out. We screened in our front porch using a large roll of screening and 2x4 boards. We split the 2x4's (making 2x2's), which worked great. The screening is rolled out and stapled to the boards, and then the stapled areas are covered with trim material (we used old salvaged wood fencing slats). Now you have a screened room (hopefully quite a bit larger, maybe twice as large, as the camper) that can be used to spread out a bit, and to stay cooler in the summertime. Bring in a picnic table for outdoor food preparation and for eating and now you have a summer kitchen. Skirt in the area under the camper (this keeps out cold winter winds, and gives you an area for storage), and, if needed, build a small storage shed in one corner of the screened in area. Attach guttering and build a catchwater system. If you are thinking ahead, you can run your catchwater into a small elevated tank with a pipe or hose running into your camper water system (an external water filter system can be used before the water enters the camper). The elevated tank can be rigged with an overflow which sends excess water into a larger, ground level tank (or a cistern) where large amounts of water can be stored for future use. The small elevated tank will give you water pressure enough to have the water flow into the camper. Most campers have a 12 volt water pump that is operated off of the battery.

As I said, most RV's and campers have a built in 12V power system. This system is ideal for homesteading use. The batteries can be charged using a solar panel, or a small generator. A single 110 watt solar panel can be purchased for less than $600, and a generator can be purchased for anywhere from $250 - $700. The solar panel does not require gasoline though. If the camper came with a generator, you might use that until you can purchase a solar panel to charge batteries. The 12V system in most campers can be used to power the lights, the refrigerator, and the outlets for short periods of time. If you want more power, a battery bank system can be put together using several batteries with far greater storage capacity. It is preferable to use propane to run the refrigerator and the stove. Better yet, don't use these things at all. Get to work on a root cellar, and procure a wood burning stove which can be installed outside in the screened area for cooking.

Get your garden prepared for planting, and begin to procure animals as well. You are officially an Agrarian homesteader.

Here you have land, shelter, water, heat, etc. and you are ready to begin to produce food. All of this can be done for as little as $6500 (not counting the land), and if you want to do the solar panel system with a battery bank – closer to $9000. There will be incidental expenses, most of which are included in that amount, but all of this does not have to be done at once. It can be done incrementally over a (hopefully short) period of time. If barter and trade are used, and used and salvaged materials can be gotten, then this can be done for far, far less than the amount I have mentioned.

What are you waiting for?

Michael,

Can you talk a bit about the Magi of the Bible - who they were, where they came
from, what was their agenda? Thanks.
Thank you for your question. The Magi, or “wise men”, found in Matthew, Chapter 2, have been the center of much speculation and consternation throughout Christian history. Unhappily, much of the speculation has turned into fanciful extrapolation, declarations made from illogical and unconnected inferences, and outright mythologizing. If we were to heed the wise commentator Matthew Poole and only answer from what the Bible says, we would merely answer:

They were wise men (we know not how many)
They came from the east (we know not where)
They came to worship Christ (Matthew 2:2).

The myth builders in modern “christianity” have gone a long way in destroying proper interpretation skills by their incessant reference to spurious works, made up myths, Romanist fantasies, etc. Particularly this is true of FUTURISTS, and more particularly (in the case of the Magi) you will find a perfect example of this interpretive style in the articles by Chuck Missler. Missler is famous for being a really smart guy who likes to build arguments that follow this pattern:

1. We know this... (followed by what he says we should know, even if we do not know it)

2. It is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that... (followed by any supposition that, although not entirely out of the realm of possibility, is straining at the border to get out)

3. Also, XXX may have happened at the same time... (XXX being some event that could have happened, but also could not have happened. In some of Missler's more in-depth writing, XXX might have been previously proven via the “it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility” theory.

Solution. Since 1, 2, and 3 are true – we can conclude 4. Of course, 1, 2, and 3 have never been proved true, only asserted that in some alternate universe of mad reckoning they MIGHT be true. He now assumes that all of his previous fantasies were true, and they lead him to the assertion 4 – which generally involves space ships, virtual reality, or Project BlueRay. In the case of the Magi, Missler asserts that:

1.The Magi were Persian dream interpreters (which is likely true) that advised and actually chose and anointed kings.
2.The Prophet Daniel was the Chief of the Magi at one time (which is technically true, though Daniel was anointed “master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers” Daniel 5:11 not because he was a magician, astrologer, Chaldean, or soothsayer – but because as a prophet of God, he was wiser than all of these. There is no historical or Biblical indication that Daniel consorted with these men at all.)
3.Since Daniel was the Master of the Magi, Missler states, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that Daniel secretly created a separate and private sect of special Magi, to whom he entrusted special and private information and prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah (He also might have told them how to make things like astroturf, velcro, and flan).
4.Therefore, we can conclude that the Magi were Persian dream interpreters who chose kings and who came to Jerusalem according to the secret prophecies of Daniel in order to anoint Jesus as King of the Jews, to the horror of Herod and the apostate Jews of Jerusalem.
5.I don't know... I couldn't read any more Missler after that. Maybe he says Jesus was a hologram and that the real Jesus was miles away in a secret Area 51 prayer locker.

So there are two extremes in interpretation. Poole's, which is safer, is to take the Bible text for what it says and to not look any further than we ought. Missler's, which is ridiculous and unsafe, is to flail about grabbing any string at all (and if you can't find one, make it up) until you create a story that fits what you already think might have happened.

Some good commentators take a middle ground, trying to use actual and trusted histories, events, etc. to make logical inferences that might be helpful in our understanding.

If we do need more information, it is wise to seek a “multitude of counselors”, so in our case I would recommend John Gill – who sought a multitude of counselors on every subject (in fact he usually sought out every available written discussion on the topic in every language) before rendering an opinion.

This morning, based on your question, I read 5 or 6 of the best commentators on the subject – and here are the things upon which they mostly agree:

1.The “magi” or “magoi” were the priestly cast of dream interpreters and astrologers from Persia who spent their time reading religious books and trying to discern prophecies by the stars and other astrological events.
2.They were not “kings” as the Papists insist (this is a fanciful concoction that had gained attention by the 6th century), and there were probably not 3 of them (although there could have been). It is likely that there was a large company, which would have included servants and soldiers.
3.The “star” was not a normal star like we think of when we think of the heavenly bodies. Attempts at deriving some interpretation from studies of star groupings, movements, etc. have created far more confusion than they have alleviated. It is likely that this was a manifestation, quite low in the sky, much like the manifestation of God in the whirlwind, or in the cloud by day and the fire by night. The Magi likely spotted the manifestation while they were in the East (Persia) – which means that they were looking west. They consulted the books and found the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament (see Num. 24:17). Some say that there were numerous prophecies of the Jews (in the Zohar and elsewhere) that specifically called for a star to be the sign of the coming of the Messiah. Upon consulting their books, they determined rightly that the prophesied Messiah of the Jews (the King of Israel) had been born, and they went forth to find him and to worship Him according to their religious practice. They followed the star until it disappeared. They asked about in Jerusalem and were eventually sent by Herod (his purpose was to find and eventually kill Jesus) to Bethlehem where the young Christ child was found. When they drew near unto Bethlehem, the “star” reappeared to them and directed them to the very dwelling where Mary and Jesus were staying.
4.While they were traveling to Bethlehem, they stopped for the night and in a dream, were warned to not return to Herod. Interpreting and believing dreams is entirely within their field of study, so they determined to heed the dream and did not return to Herod.
5.They brought gifts of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. These were items that were plentiful and useful in the east, but which were rare and valuable in the west. It is likely that the Magi had no reason for choosing these particular gifts, but were motivated by the providence of God to provide those things which would have prophetic and practical significance to the story being told. The three gifts represent the offices of King, Priest, and of the Prophet. The Myrrh was a burial spice, and was often representative of Christ's suffering and death. It is likely that the gold was used to purchase that which was needful for Christ and his family to pass into Egypt to hide from the wrath of Herod.
6.The “wise men” represented the Gentiles who identified and came to worship Christ, while when Christ “came to His own”, He was rejected of them. Jerusalem was filled with their own types of Magi (conjurers, prophecy teachers, interpreters, Bible students, teachers of the law, priests, prophets, etc.), but none of these religious Jewish wise men expected or heralded the coming of Christ. There were a few pious laymen (like Simeon in Luke 2:25) who expected Christ and looked forward to His day, but for the most part, the religious Jews missed it completely. This is a type, and it has its fulfillment today, when the modern religious “christians”, operating like Missler and his ilk, are creating fantasies and mythologies about the coming of Christ – and thus they miss the most important element of the prophecies. That He comes to us in our salvation, according to election, for His own glorious purposes; and that He comes to us at our death, to receive the elect unto Himself and into His glory.

So, it is an interesting story, and very typical (full of prophetic types). It is interesting to note that the Magi of history were (or became) Zoroastrians. Depending on which expert you listen to, it is very likely the Magi were Zoroastrians at the time when Christ was born (though Missler strenuously objects, with no foundation). Zoroaster was the philosopher who developed the concept of “Free Will” that was later received into apostate Christianity. It is interesting to me that the followers of Zoroaster were caused (against their will, or by the movement of their will by our God) to find out Jesus Christ and to prostrate themselves in worship before Him. Makes sense to me.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
1251 CR 132
Santa Anna, Texas 76878
editor@lazarusunbound.com
www.biblicalagrarianism.com

These posts are from the BiblicalAgrarianism.com forum.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:40 am As most of you know, the huge Mississippi River bridge collapse in Minnesota was the second lethal bridge collapse in about 7-10 days (the other was in Sacramento). Republican Minnesota Gov. (and handpicked Dick Cheney psychophant) Tim Pawlenty declared the bridge collapse a structural failure and NOT an act of terrorism, when first arriving at the scene, a remarkable and amazing feat of deduction and forensic detection with no evidence to support it at all.

Some of you who are more of a "conspiratorial bent" (which means you see things as they are, without the rose-colored glasses... I myself am not a coincidence theorist, so I naturally and logically recognize that conspiracies happen all the time) was elected Governor in 2002 after a former Democrat decided to run in the General Election as an "independence party" candidate (Jesse Ventura's party), effectively splitting the Democrat vote and giving the election to Pawlenty. This is the same election where the popular Senator Paul Wellstone of Minn. was killed in an airplane crash 11 days before the election and only about 10 days after very famously voting against authorizing the War in Iraq. Wellstone would have kept the Republicans from winning the Senate in 2002. The man who ended up winning that election in 2002 was Norm Coleman, who was handpicked to run against Wellstone by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

In the same news article where Pawlenty declares the bridge collapse to be a "structural failure", all the experts refute him:

From WCCO.com

"Obviously, this is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "And right now we are focused on making sure that we are doing everything to respond to the needs of those individuals that may have been harmed in this incident."

Pawlenty said the collapse was likely structural in nature and said it was not an act of terrorism.

The bridge was undergoing repair work when it collapsed. Of the eight lanes on the roadway, four were closed for repair to the 40-year-old bridge's deck, joints, guardrails and lights.

"None of it would be related to the structure," said Bob McFarlin, assistant to Minnesota Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau.

Tom Sloan, head of the bridge division for Progressive Contractors Inc. said his company had 18 workers on the bridge at the time of the collapse and one was unaccounted for on Wednesday night. Three were hospitalized, while several others were treated for minor injuries, he said.

Pawlenty said the bridge was inspected by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2005 and 2006 and that no structural problems were noted. "There were some minor things that needed attention," he said.

U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman said federal transportation officials said the bridge was last inspected in 2004. Members of a National Transportation and Safety Board highway investigation team are heading to Minneapolis.

The bridge was scheduled for inspection this fall.

Civil engineer Richard Stehly said bridges are checked every three years, at minimum. He said investigators will look at the position of the debris and will take samples of the steel and concrete to try to find the cause of the collapse.

Stehly added the concrete work that was being done on the bridge would not have disrupted the structure of the bridge.

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said there is video of the bridge collapse. That will be reviewed by emergency personnel and investigators.

-------------------

Michael Bunker
_____

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:39 am MBunker wrote:

"Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said there is video of the bridge collapse. That will be reviewed by emergency personnel and investigators."

From Truthseeker: The edited version to be shown at a later date? Wink

If this IS a case of terrorism, it obviously doesn't fit into the current needs/plans/wants of the neocons, and/or didn't have enough of the dramatic immediate heart pounding psychological effect ala 911.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:15 am
From MB: Psyops often seem very convoluted or counter-intuitive at first blush. The powers that be have grown adept at "False Flag" attacks, like those on 911 - however, the same bunch perpetrated the TWA 800 shootdown, which was was witnessed by thousands of people, yet denied by the government. The purpose in such reverse psyops is to undermine the publics trust and reliance on public transportation, and to encourage a dependence on government for travel solutions.

Also remember that this bridge was a major point of ingress/egress in the urban Minneapolis area. Some of you will remember that in the year before Y2K the federal government gave the green light to hundreds of massive urban construction projects in every major city in America. This was a plan by Federico Pena as an insurance policy against possible Y2K disruptions and urban meltdown. If there was a social collapse, the government had already closed down to one lane the ingress/egress into all the major urban areas. It would have taken only minutes to throw up Checkpoint Charlie and to lock down the cities if necessary. I would suspect that something similar is up here. I can think of at least a dozen ways where this type of event benefits the PTB. Now, you should also remember that the "neocons" are only one face of the same coin. The last time this type of thing was going on Clinton was in office... after all, these are all Yale - Skull 'n Bones people. They are all the same. Republican Norm Coleman, who "defeated" the conveniently deceased ultra-liberal Paul Wellstone to become Senator from Minnesota, was handpicked by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. What they never mention is that Coleman was a DEMOCRAT in 1996 (and throughout the Clinton years) and chaired Wellstone's Senate campaign that year! Coleman was a radical liberal war protester during Vietnam. Wellstone changed parties when instructed to by the Bushies in 2000.

Man... I feel a lesson on psyops coming on! I better sign off before I flip over into radical conspiracist mode.

M

Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:59 am MBunker wrote:

'Man... I feel a lesson on psyops coming on! I better sign off before I flip over into radical conspiracist mode."

M

Flip MB, flip!

Bill

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:52 am

From MB:
A friend on the list sent me this:

Quote:
Interesting info:
The offices of www.ImpeachforPeace.org learned this morning that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)(first Muslim elected to Congress...my note) (seen in photo with IFP members prior to May Day Parade) has cosigned House Resolution 333 as authored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) calling for impeachment hearings to commence against Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

And the bridge collapses, yeah right.

From MB: Ellison is the man who called Cheney a dictator and a totalitarian, comparing him to Hitler and called 9/11 a "Reichstag Fire". Ellison's district is all of Minneapolis. Payback is a bitch.

Michael

Location: The Republic of Texas

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:57 am

From MB:
The White House has gone into spin control....

The White house has turned early reports that the Mississippi River bridge had been successfully inspected several times over the last few years... now claiming that there were "deficiencies" in the bridge:

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=261180

Wow. Black is white, y'all. TWA 800 all over again. And why is the White House releasing this info?

M
_____
...if you will not be silent, you can not be safe...

Q&A Fridays! Issue #26

Welcome to Issue #26 of Q&A Friday for Friday the 27th of July, 2007. I want to thank you all for your great emails and questions. I want to remind everyone of the rules by which I will be playing:

Not all questions will be answered, and not all those that are submitted can be fitted into one issue. Those that did not make this issue (for length reasons) might be included in a future one. Questions might not be answered or included in the Q&A for the following reasons:

The scope may be too broad, or it may involve a topic on which I have taught at length... ex: “Can you explain the whole Creation?”

The question might need to be asked more specifically, or with fewer presuppositions that I would have to handle before actually getting to the question (I do reserve the right to rewrite questions to make them more clear and understandable or to make them more amenable to the format here). Answering the question might drag me off of “message” or into an area on which I am currently teaching, but haven't gotten to yet. If the question is answered in an upcoming teaching, or would involve getting into a topic I have planned for the future, then I will likely choose not to answer it yet. The question might be considered rhetorical, or might involve me bearing witness against myself... such as “Will you stop it?”

As always, send your questions to Q&A Fridays: editor@lazarusunbound.com.

Michael,

We would love to live off-grid, and people like you make it sound very enticing. But we cannot afford it right now. I don't know if we will ever be able to afford it.

Thank you for your question...er.... statement. I do not generally accept the notion that someone cannot afford to move towards an Agrarian life – even an off-grid Agrarian life. My position, which I believe I can prove in virtually any individual case, is that people who say they cannot live “off-grid”, or that they cannot afford it:

1. Are already spending more money each month than it would take to move off-grid pretty immediately.

2. Have amplified the consequences and hindrances to moving out of the system, while they have ignored or rejected the solutions.

3. Are generally (not in every case, but in almost every case) still too in love with the world and the things of the world to let them go – thus they choose their first love, or that thing that they love more, and then rationalize that choice with excuses or “reasons”.

In fact, most people (not all, but almost all) who ask this question have a failsafe, lock-solid, loop error in their thinking, that inevitably determines for them that they cannot do what they claim they want to do. First, we have to explain what we mean about “off-grid”. When most new folks say, “We would like to live off-grid, but we cannot afford it”, what they actually mean is “we would like to life off-grid IN THE SAME MANNER WE LIVE NOW, with the same conveniences and the same lifestyle, according to the same rudiments, and with the same comforts – but we cannot afford it”. Well, duh. Only about 1-3% of the population can afford to live an industrial/consumer lifestyle completely off-grid. Check out Home-Power magazine, which caters to those who desire to “save the planet” while living a comfortable, western, industrial, consumer lifestyle. I don't know anyone who can fork over $25,000 for a solar power system, and another $25,000 for other off-grid “necessities” (composting toilets, large propane freezers and refrigerators, etc.). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan and build a modern energy-efficient home with all the comforts and doo-dads of modern living. When I explain to them that this whole concept is completely foreign to the culture and lifestyle we propose, and that it is their THINKING and lusts that they cannot afford, they usually kind of dismiss my objections as an extreme example, and assure me that they weren't considering that kind of life. Well... I can't afford half of that lifestyle either. Or ¼ of it. So, I ask, how much of that stuff do you need? How much do you want to live “off-grid”? Define it for me, and I'll tell you that if you define the Biblical Agrarian life properly, and according to the standards of Biblical communities and cultures in history, that you probably can afford it right now. Now the tough question. If I could prove that you could do it, and that you could do it with much, much, much less expense then you possibly can imagine, WOULD YOU DO IT? That is the question to answer. Our website BiblicalAgrarianism.com is about these solutions. There are cheap ways to procure land, to build dwellings, to begin farming, to husband animals. These things have been done for hundreds and thousands of years. It is the modern colonized mind that doesn't conceive of it, not because it cannot, but because it will not. Meaning that it is not a problem of ability, it is a problem of desire. It is easy to say “I want to go back in time and live like my ancestors – with less dependence on the world, and more dependence on God”. It is easy to say, “I want to separate from ungodliness and separate to a more Biblical way of living”. Those things are easy to say, but they are hard to WILL to do. You can easily separate from some comforts and some of the old lifestyle, but the most difficult thing in the world to separate from is yourself and your sins. Sinful dependence on the world, lustful desire for unlawful things, concupiscence, sloth, and idolatry are all sins that are coupled with the carnal man. For man to separate from those things, he must begin to kill the carnal man. That old man must die daily – meaning steadily and increasingly. It is easy to live with 40 acres and a mule (or even 5 acres and some chickens), but it is very difficult to live with these things AND hair dryers, blenders, and air-conditioners.

The most difficult lies to detect are the lies we tell ourselves. Some of you really don't want to live an Agrarian life, or if you do, you want to hybridize it with the stuff you love in the world. Hey, we all love some of that stuff. Some of us have a love/hate relationship with those things. They are tempting, but they ultimately kill us. Last year we ran our air-conditioner in the cabin. It was brutally hot for 6 months, and for those 6 months we spent well over $300 a month on gasoline for the generator. This year I gave the air-conditioner away. Don't want it. God has been gracious, and we have had a preposterously cool summer this year. All the while, I am planning and working to not ever use air-conditioning at home again. The first large-scale electrical air-conditioning was used in 1902, meaning that we have only had it available for a little over a hundred years. Most of our grandparents never had air-conditioning until the 50's, meaning that in our own heritage air-conditioning is only about 60 years old. Somehow, for almost 2000 years, most people lived without electrical air-conditioning. It is only the slave mind that requires it, and we ought not be victims of a slave mind.

We have learned, in trying to live this life, that many “hybrids” are not good at all. They are sinful man's way of trying to do better than God. We are raising non-hybridized pure Longhorn cattle, because we want the best homesteading cow we can get. Mixing the pure with the profane does not make the pure thing better, it only eventually ruins it for what it is truly for. Trying to hybridize Agrarianism with the modern industrial/consumer life will not work. You are right... If that is what you want, you cannot afford it. However, if you want to separate from the world, and live an increasingly Agrarian life as your mind is retrained by God and His way of doing things, then you have to move that direction by faith. Like the Gospel, Agrarianism can be agreed with and pandered to, it can be easy on the lips and sweet on the tongue; but if you really, really believe it, then you can afford it – or God is a liar. And God is not a liar.

I suppose there was a way to get ice back in the old days, and I remember seeing movies where ice was delivered and kept in iceboxes. Where did they get ice in the south, and how did they store it?

One of my favorite movies is the Coen Brothers classic O' Brother Where Art Thou? In the beginning of the movie, which is set down in south Mississippi, you see two young black boys carrying a block of ice between them from a store. In the 2005 movie Kingdom of Heaven, Saladin, the leader of the Islamic hordes offers his “christian” captives a cup of ice after they are defeated and captured in battle in the desert. Both of these instances may make the modern industrialized man scratch his head... well, actually, the modern industrial man probably never even asked the question “where did they get the ice?”, since most modern men can't even conceive of a world where ice was not a regular and easily attainable commodity.

The truth is that ice has been regularly stored and readily available in warm weather climes for many hundreds of years. The Persian kings perfected the original concept of the “ice house” or the “ice pit” where ice, brought down from the frozen mountains in huge blocks, was insulated and stored for air conditioning, food preservation, and, of course, cold drinks. In the South, the Icehouse has long been a symbol of our heritage, and, here in Texas, the Icehouse (now turned into a cold beer bar) is a remnant of a time when men were smarter, more industrious, and more able to survive without overwhelming dependence on the world and the industrial system.

For the average farm, ranch, or homestead, the Icehouse was at once a great luxury, and a solution to several different problems facing the off-grid homesteader. In short, an Icehouse is a heavily insulated building or room designed for the long-term storage of ice. The simplest icehouse was a mostly underground room with walls several feet thick and insulated with hay or sawdust, where blocks of ice could be stacked and stored in a way that would keep them mostly frozen for 6 to 8 months at a time. Some Icehouses were built above ground, with heavily insulated thick walls, in an area shaded by trees or some other form of shade. A common practice was to build the Icehouse adjacent to a “spring house” where the melted runoff from the ice would be funneled through troughs where milk, cheese and other perishables would be stored.

So where did they get the ice?

It depends. Areas in the north, where lakes and bodies of water would freeze, people would cut blocks out of the frozen ponds and haul them to be packed in sawdust and stacked in the Icehouse. Some folks would make their own ice, by building forms and allowing water to freeze in them during the coldest days of the winter. This type of ice-making was quite common in the south, where most places at least had a week or two of freezing weather sometime during the winter. Places further south would have ice trucked in from areas farther north. Before the advent of easy refrigeration, ice trucks were as common as newspaper delivery boys in most cities. You would merely contract to have your ice house filled sometime in January, and if you packed it right and insulated it properly, your ice would last through the summer into the next winter.

You often use the term “worldling” in your sermons and articles. Could you define that for me?

Of course in its simplest definition, one that may not suffice in some situations, but usually will – a “worldling” is merely a child of the world, a product of her, the offspring of the ways, means, ideas, and processes of the world. The term is used to contrast the operative motivations and over-riding view of the world, as opposed to the operative motivations and over-riding view of the Kingdom of God.

Now, specifically, there may be several different things meant by the term “worldling”. A worldling may fall in one of several different categories.

In its most benign sense, the term may merely refer to those who operate by worldly motivations, and who are incapable of seeing things from a Godly point of view, merely because their carnal, compromised, colonialized minds are not yet able to see the truth and discern a different motive of operation. In a more malignant sense, a “worldling” may be a person who is actively hostile to the ways of God, to the simplicity of the truth and the Gospel, or towards the way God would have His people to live. For example, the man who lobbies, argues, insists that he can live in the world, in the exact same way and manner as his non-Christian neighbor – doing the same things, wearing the same clothes, working the same jobs, watering identical lawns, - but insists that he is a Christian and is going to heaven, while his neighbor, because he is not a Christian, is going to hell --- this man is a psuedo-Christian worldling, a deceived product of the world, a practical atheist who will be shocked when he enters into the judgment on the left hand of Christ with the goats he pastured with in life. You can see this most readily in the modern “neo-Calvinist” movement. Take for example the head honchos over at “A Puritan's Mind”... pure worldlings who live in the suburbs and drive their SUV's to their jobs; who raise their children to dress like the world (albeit maybe a bit more modestly), who shop at the Wal-Mart's and let the industrial corporate farmers raise all their food. They like to talk Puritanism, baby-baptistm, etc. They like to pronounce anethemas on any one who hasn't had hands laid on them by the presbytery, traceable back at least two generations! But could you tell one of these men from any other man on the golf course? Are their operational motives any different than the Arminian worldlings they despise? No.

At the same time, the word “worldling” might be used for a neophyte “christian” who still operates in the flesh, according to the industrialized (carnal) mind, who cannot see the way of righteousness, because he has been raised and trained in the ways of the world. God may have yet to bring this man to his senses, and to take the shades off of his eyes, and to bring him to himself so he no longer acts like the world that crucified Christ and that hates Him passionately.

So, you do have to check the context – but the principle remains the same.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
1251 CR 132
Santa Anna, Texas 76878
editor@lazarusunbound.com
www.biblicalagrarianism.com

Q&A Fridays! Special Edition. One Q and One A.
Thursday July 19, 2007

Once again I had a big question, so I am sending it out as a special edition.

Michael,

I just finished listening to the April 7th singing while I made bread this morning and I enjoyed it so much. This may sound dumb, but, how does one discern a biblical hymn from a heretical one? Can you give a few examples of each maybe in a future Q&A Friday?

Thank you for your question. First, let's examine the purpose for the singing of hymns. In Colossians 3:17 we are admonished to Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord – which means to sing these types of music to one another (with one another) for the purpose of letting the Word of Christ dwell in us richly (so we know His Word). In Ephesians the 5th Chapter it mentions singing hymns in our heart to the Lord as a means of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18-19). Now, this is particularly speaking of speaking or singing hymns “to yourself”, which means silently in your head. Here is how that works. Generally we have either a conversation (if there is something we are working on), or a song running through our heads continually. Singing hymns to yourself does not “summon” the Holy Spirit like He is a waiter or something, but when we allow our minds to be focused on a hymn rather than some senseless business or some secular or worldly song, we are more sensitive to positive and Godly motivation - we are more operated by the Spirit of God, which is what is in view here. Singing the hymns in our head is not a natural practice if we do not hear them and sing them aloud regularly. I can tell you from experience that when we started singing hymns here in the community on the Lord's Day mornings, fairly soon I found myself singing them in my head and heart all the day long. It is a daily occurrence to be walking around here at the ranch and to pick up snippets of different people humming or singing hymns to themselves – and often we pick up the same hymn and you hear it everywhere you go for awhile! It works the same way that a worldly, secular song gets stuck in your head, which is why having the radio on a lot is a terrible thing. When a hymn gets on your mind, you are reinforcing the words to that hymn in your soul. Now, that brings us to the answer to your question. What words do we want in our minds? Wholesome words. So it is critical that we examine the words and doctrine in the songs. This is what makes a hymn Biblical or heretical. What exactly is being taught in it? We should avoid songs that don't say anything at all, or that repeat inane phrases over and over again, or that appeal to the emotions alone in order to manipulate them. We should avoid songs that picture Christ in a false way, or that focus too much on one aspect of God to the detriment of another. We should avoid songs that appeal to worldly instincts, or that humanize God or lead to irreverence towards God (God is not your good buddy). We should avoid songs that promise things to us or others that may not be true, or that might possibly give a false impression to children. You cannot fail if you sings the Psalms and if you stick to some plain and Biblically sound hymns and spiritual songs. I will give you an example of several different types of song.

Biblical Lyrics (From IT IS WELL WITH MY SOUL):

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.

This hymn, if sung by a true believer, glorifies God in His providence, and recognizes that we believers go through trials and tribulations for our good and well-being, but God is in control and works all things to our eternal benefit.

Unbiblical Lyrics (From SINCE JESUS CAME INTO MY HEART):

I’m possessed of a hope that is steadfast and sure,
Since Jesus came into my heart;
And no dark clouds of doubt now my pathway obscure,
Since Jesus came into my heart.

First of all, this “invite Jesus into your heart” thing is just stupid and unbiblical. Second, this song states that there is no doubt or obscurities in the pathway of the believer, which is false.

Just Plain Stupid Lyrics (From BECAUSE OF LOVE):

Because of love He left His throne
And made this earth His home
He did it willingly for you and me
With heaven left behind
He came to save all mankind from sin and shame
He could have walked away
But instead He chose to stay upon a tree
And take a crown of thorns for me
Because of love

Stupid AND Repetitive Lyrics:

Praise is rising, eyes are turning to You
We turn to You
Hope is stirring, hearts are yearning for You
We long for You

Here are my top 10 tips:

1. If a song could easily be about a girl (or a guy) instead of about God and His glory, then it is junk.
2. If the song is a secular song with a few words changed in order to sell it to “christians”, then it is junk.
3. If a song makes statements that when read alone or taken alone don't really mean anything... (for example “praise is rising” or “hope is stirring”, or “I can feel this God song rising up in me”), then it is junk.
4. If a song is not really about God, but glorifies how a man feels about God, then it is junk.
5. If a song puts emotions in front of the intellect, then it is junk.
6. If a song lies about us (claims that we are pure, or that all we do all the day long is praise God), then it is junk.
7. If a song is about singing songs, or about singing songs about singing songs to Jesus, or if it sounds as if it came from the marketing department for the corporate “jesus”, then it is junk.
8. If it attempts to invoke, summon, or conjure the Holy Spirit, then it is junk.
9. If a song does not identify some attribute of God, then it is junk.
10. If a song mentions cartoon characters, a modern appliance or reality (like a toaster or a store), or if it compares God or heaven to some earthly item, it is junk.

Bonus rant:

If a song requires a drum set, guitars, microphone headpiece, microphone stand, “sound man”, vibrato, or cymbals; or only has 7 words repeated over and over again; or requires a woman with jeans and a half shirt on to sing it; or invokes raised hands and closed eyes (or eyes glazed over, staring off into the middle-distance as if heaven can be seen), then it is junk.

Paul said that in order to fulfill our reasonable service in offering ourselves to God, we must be “transformed by the renewing of our mind”. Our mind always must lead the emotions. The words are important, and we must always guard ourselves against back-door attacks by the devil, who uses the emotions to hijack our service. We should pay attention to what we sing, and what the purpose is behind it. By doing so, we protect ourselves from the devices of the enemy.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
1251 CR 132
Santa Anna, Texas 76878
editor@lazarusunbound.com
www.biblicalagrarianism.com

Q&A Fridays! Issue #25

Welcome to Issue #25 of Q&A Friday for Friday the 6th of July, 2007. I want to thank you all for your great emails and questions. I want to remind everyone of the rules by which I will be playing:

Not all questions will be answered, and not all those that are submitted can be fitted into one issue. Those that did not make this issue (for length reasons) might be included in a future one. Questions might not be answered or included in the Q&A for the following reasons:

The scope may be too broad, or it may involve a topic on which I have taught at length... ex: “Can you explain the whole Creation?”

The question might need to be asked more specifically, or with fewer presuppositions that I would have to handle before actually getting to the question (I do reserve the right to rewrite questions to make them more clear and understandable or to make them more amenable to the format here). Answering the question might drag me off of “message” or into an area on which I am currently teaching, but haven't gotten to yet. If the question is answered in an upcoming teaching, or would involve getting into a topic I have planned for the future, then I will likely choose not to answer it yet. The question might be considered rhetorical, or might involve me bearing witness against myself... such as “Are you going to enjoy prison?”

As always, send your questions to Q&A Fridays: editor@lazarusunbound.com.

Michael, What is your opinion on the writings of Howard King?

I appreciate his Agrarian and Patriarchy writings very much... his reasonings behind his abandonment of credo-baptism, not so much. I definitely recommend his article entitled A CHRISTIAN-AGRARIAN CRITIQUE OF TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY .

A Question from my daughter Tracy: Daddy, Who were/are the Hutterites?

The Hutterites are an Anabaptist sect, similar to the Amish and Mennonites in that they reject infant baptism, believe that the state and the church are distinct and each has its own sphere of influence or authority, are pacifistic, and believe that the Lord's Supper is a memorial done in remembrance of Jesus Christ (they reject Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation). The Hutterites differ from the Amish and Mennonites in one major point; the Amish and Mennonites believe in COMMUNITY, where all members of the community own their own private property and operate it to the glory of God according to the rules of the community. They assist one another, provide for their own people (especially the old or infirm) and serve as “insurance” against loss by helping one another rebuild or repurchase lost or damaged property. In contrast to this, the Hutterites believe in “the community of goods and of all material things”. They derive this view from their interpretation of Acts 2:44-47. So they take the Amish and Mennonite view of “community” to an extreme called COMMUNALISM, where all things are owned completely by the community. In most other respects they are similar to the Amish and Mennonites. For more information on this subject, read my note on COMMUNITY VS. COMMUNALISM in the Content section of the BiblicalAgrarianism.com website under Agrarianism.

Here's a few for ya MB... How long have you known your wife Danielle, and how long have you been married? What's your favorite book from a non Christian author? What position/s did you play in high school football? How good were you? :-) (I was pretty good at baseball, stunk at football, my career ended after junior high, sigh)

Thank you for your questions. I met Danielle while she was still in college (I was in and out of college and working full time) at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas in early 1990. She was studying Biology, Science, and Range and Wildlife Management. I was studying how to not graduate. We were married on February 22, 1992.

Books:

My favorite book from a non-Christian author? I suppose by this you might mean “secular” author, unless you actually mean a book by someone who is actually not a Christian. That gets tricky, because most authors claim at least some sort of “christianity”, yet I wouldn't consider most confessing “christians” to be Christians at all. I read a lot of books, and so these types of favorite questions are tough for me. My favorite genre of secular reading is the action/espionage thriller – like Robert Ludlum. I am a Bourne fan. Can't stand Clancy. I really don't like the military thrillers too much, although I used to read Dale Brown. Some of these guys who write these action thrillers are actually perverts and it really sickens me that so many believe they need some gratuitous sex scene in every book. It is stupid and insulting. My favorite authors of secular books are:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn (who is a professing Christian) and I recommend him highly.

Ernest Hemingway – I don't actually recommend him, unless you like really good stories told with a very unique writing style.

I recently found a Robert Penn Warren collection at the Santa Anna Funtier Days celebration. They have old library books there on sale for 50 cents or a dollar every year. I definitely recommend Warren, especially to those of you who like history.

If anyone would like, I could put together a recommended reading list of some secular books that I think are of great quality and value. I believe that Christians, especially those who do what I do, really need a high level of “cultural literacy”. The Apostle Paul was well read in the classics, and quoted Greek poets to the Epicureans and Stoics in Athens. I intend to have my children read the classics, and already have started them down that road.

Sports:

I played High School Football in Odessa, Texas. I was a defensive end and a tight end. I was a pretty good receiver. I was good at sports in this order:

Baseball, Football, Basketball

I excelled at sports in this order:

Basketball, Football, Baseball

I quit Baseball first. I was very good, had an astronomical batting average, and was able to play every position. I once played every position in a single game, and once made a triple play by myself. I quit because of the overwhelming pressure applied at a very young age. It stopped being fun.

I quit Football (to the horror, chagrin, and gnashing of teeth of everyone but my parents) after my Sophomore year (on the day I was told I was going to play on the varsity the next year) because I realized that I had never liked the sport, hated to practice, disliked the culture and the coaches, and dreaded the thought of ever playing again.

I played Basketball all the way through high school, although it was my weakest sport. I was a starter and was all-district my senior year, and was the only full-blooded white guy on my basketball team. I intended and had the opportunity to walk-on and play some college ball, but I broke my left wrist and most of the bones in my left hand in a bar incident the summer after graduation – which ended my career, something for which I am now very grateful.

I now reject sports and competition as fundamentally contrary to Christian principles, have repented of my participation in them, and although my flesh likes to watch a game every once in awhile – my conscience is usually pricked by it. We do not let our children participate in competitive sports.

Michael, Why is infant baptism unnecessary and when is it appropriate to baptize?

It would be impossible for me to make all the appropriate arguments against infant baptism in this type of venue. Here are some important articles on the subject:

Baptism - A Burial, by Charles Spurgeon
Baptism a Divine Ordinance to be observed - by John Gill
Baptism a Public Ordinance of Divine Worship, by John Gill

The Tract Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery remains unanswered by the paedobaptists to this day. Another tract which cannot be challenged is The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing, BY IMMERSION, PLUNGING, OR DIPPING INTO WATER; Maintained And Vindicated.

I highly recommend these tracts which are required reading in our community and fellowship. Adherents to the Romanist practice of baptizing babies generally defend it on the grounds of assumption and inference. In fact, for all time and forever, the paedobaptist will be in the precise stead of the Romanist who, when he must defend indulgences or pilgrimages, or Popes and Holy Water - must do so from assumption and inference without one shred of Biblical support . For example, though there is not a single, plain case of any baby being baptized in all the Bible, paedobaptists must assume that when households were baptized (as in Acts 16:15) that there MUST have been babies there too. They assume there must be babies present, not because there is any Biblical license to do so, but because they really need for it to be true. They assume it must be true despite all evidence to the contrary, including verse 40 of Acts 16 which identifies Lydia's household as brethren which, in every other case in scripture signifies adults. When challenged on the lack of any command or instruction to baptize babies in the scripture, they infer that such instructions must not have been necessary, since, they assume, the Jews were already in the practice of baptizing babies. Of course Gill disproves this silliness in the aforementioned tract on the Ancient mode of Baptism. Neither did the Apostles refuse to give other plain instructions in other areas for the benefit of their readers just because that practice may have been the practice of the Jews. The Bible exhorts men to pray, give to the needy, and keep the commandments of God, even though these were already the practice of the Jews. Paedobaptists would have us believe that the Bible gives instructions on things as simple as “take some wine for your stomach”, but neglected to tell us that our children are made participants of the Covenant through baptism. Assumption and Inference. If you say, “The Bible says BELIEVE and be Baptized” (Mark 16:16), they will say in one place that babies can believe in a saving way; and in yet another place they will say that, since they cannot, they must be baptized in order to protect them until they can believe! Calvin argued that since babies cannot yet believe in a saving way, and are guilty of Original Sin, they should be baptized as infants and counted members of the Church (considered saved) because to not do so would assume them damned and lost – which is ridiculous and illogical. Other paedobaptists assume and infer that since it is evident that some babies (like John the Baptist) were filled with the Spirit in their mother's womb, then it is entirely possible for babies to believe in a saving way and be saved, and that it is only safe and just to baptize all babies because we should assume them to be saved because they are the offspring of baptized professing Christians. You'll notice that every single paedobaptist argument is based on an assumption or an inference precisely because of the lack of any Biblical support for the position.

Baptism is to be obediently observed upon a profession of faith (Matthew 3:6, 16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38, 39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), by immersion, in the name of the Father, (Matthew 28:19) and of the Son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. If, as is evident in scripture, the Jewish believers were rebaptized upon a fair and willing profession of the Christian faith, then it is acceptable for Christians, who, if they were once baptized into a false faith or false system (calling itself “Christian), to be re-baptized to show their obedience to Christ and His commands.

Mr. Bunker,

I read one of your articles dealing with 'miscegenation' and was hoping to get your insight on a question that it raised in my mind. This is a subject that I have had to reevaluate in light of scripture and have been left with many questions. Some have argued that participation in Israel was not strictly 'racial' as it was 'covenantal'. An example of this argumentation and dichotomy is found here by a Mr. Dykstra, quoting O. Palmer Robertson:

"Yes, citizenship in Israel was never based on any concept of so-called "purity of blood." O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God is helpful in understanding this point. "No legislation in Israel forbade the marriage of an Egyptian proselyte to an Assyrian proselyte. The offspring of such a union would be fully Israelite, yet completely non-Abrahamic in ethnic origin. For these reasons Israel could never be defined along purely ethnic lines." Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development, and God's law made it clear that foreigners not deemed to be enemies were to be welcomed and loved, no matter what their race or ethnicity."

My question is this, was a Gentile Proselyte considered a "Full Fledged" Jew, or were they looked upon as distinct, especially in relation to marriage? I would appreciate your insight into this. May God bless you.

Thank you for your question. I had a similar question on Saturday night at our Q&A concerning Esther, Chapter 8 where in verse 17 it says that many people in the land (of Persia) "became Jews". I am far from an expert on OT proselytism, but here are some comments for consideration.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exo 12:48)

At first blush this seems to imply that the stranger who desires to keep the passover, once he is circumcised, would be "as one that is born in the land", and I have heard some preach that this made the proselyte a "full-fledged" Israelite. However, other verses seem to contradict this. In that same chapter:

Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. (Exo 12:19)

There is a delineation made between the stranger and one born in the land, even of those who would be participating in the Passover (meaning a circumcised man). Genesis also shows us that all strangers at that time were to be circumcised in order for them to participate in the social and cultural events of Israel.

In the Gospel of John, we find some "Greeks" who are going up to keep the feast of passover:

John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast

According to John Gill and most other good commentators, these were not national "Greeks" but were called Hellenes which meant GENTILES. Now, these had to be circumcised gentiles or they would not be permitted to keep the passover - which seems to indicate, again, that they were considered a different and lower class, although they had converted and were keeping the religion of the Jews. In history books (that I do not have at hand right now because they are all in storage) I have read where gentile proselytes were called "God-fearers" and were permitted to participate in the religious rites of Israel, though they were indeed second-class citizens. For example, they would be allowed to attend synagogue, but were either kept outside (where they could listen through windows) or they would have a special floor or section for seating. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that the Temple in Jerusalem itself had a Gentile court. Now anyone who came to the Temple complex (or who wanted to participate in the feasts) had to be circumcised, so the fact that there were separate facilities for converted gentiles kind of proves the point.

So my conclusion would be that a Gentile proselyte was accepted insofar as he was permitted to partake of the feasts and to participate in the religious rites, but he was definitely considered as part of a separate people - and race was the primary cause of this separation.

Concerning intermarriage then, in a society where marriages were arranged by the parents, this would mean that race would have been one of the primary considerations in the choosing of a mate for the child. The fact that the law forbade intermarriage would include the idea of intermarriage with proselytes of other nations (ethnos).

So my position would be that, while it is true in a very general sense that "participation" in Israel was not strictly racial, but was covenantal - it is important to define what we mean by "participation". Participation in religious rites was open to proselytes, but in a structured way. I don't see any evidence at all that full participation (meaning akin to modern desegregation) was extended to Gentiles.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
1251 CR 132
Santa Anna, Texas 76878
editor@lazarusunbound.com
www.biblicalagrarianism.com

Blog of Deliberate Agrarian Herrick Kimball, author of the Whizbang books.

Early Q and A:

I had started writing the Q&A for this Friday, but the first question and first answer took so much space, I decided to send it out on its own:

Michael,

You're from the South, and you're a Texas "patriot", in a manner of speaking. I'm sure you've come across the Confederate Flag quite a bit down there. My question is, is the Confederate Flag a symbol of hate? What is it's meaning? What should our response be to the 'Stars and Bars' (or any countries flag)?

Thank you for your question. First let me say that I believe it was a mistake for some Texans to seek entrance into the Amerikan Union, and that I still believe that Texas was illegally brought into that Union and that even in doing so Texas constitutionally codified its right to separate from that Union if it ever came to the conclusion it had made a mistake, which exclusion and right was agreed to by the government of the United States, and therefore Texas today ought to be a free Republic and is both illegally and immorally occupied. That aside, I will attempt to answer your questions about the Confederate Battle Flag. Let me point out here that the flag in question was never the “Confederate Flag”. The Confederacy adopted several political flags, some officially and some unofficially. The most popularly accepted “Confederate Flag” was the Bonnie Blue Flag:

...which is the only flag I own, and it would be the only flag I would fly. The flag commonly called the “Confederate Flag” today, is actually the Confederate Battle Flag (also called The Flag of Saint Andrew), which was adopted in 1861 during the war in order to better differentiate between the two warring parties. The flag of the North (the Stars and Stripes) was an irreligious flag, representing politics, humanism, “liberty”, union and sacrifice – this according to Wikipedia:

“Many understand the flag to represent the freedoms and rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights and perhaps most of all to be a symbol of individual and personal liberty as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Through the Pledge of Allegiance and other political uses the flag has also come to be associated with U.S. Nationalism, patriotism, and even militarism. The flag is a complex and contentious symbol, around which emotions run high.

In terms of the symbolism of the design itself, a book about the flag published by the Congress in 1977 states: "The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays of light emanating from the sun." George Washington is credited for saying: "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty."”

So there is nothing naturally “religious” about the Stars and Stripes, other than some very general Unitarian and Humanist ideals represented by “heaven”. The Southern Battle Flag was one chosen out of expediency, and to satisfy several different sensibilities:

1. To set forth religious (particularly Christian) ideals. The Cross of Saint Andrew was chosen because it was the symbol on the national flag of Scotland. Scotland was Protestant, primarily Presbyterian, and many of the most prominent leaders in the South were of Scots or Scots-Irish descent. Most Southern Protestants were Calvinist and would have been offended by the use of the upright cross, which was called “the Latin Cross” and was considered idolatrous and a possible violation of the 2nd commandment. According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on an “X” instead of an upright cross, because he considered himself unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as was Christ.
2. The flag needed to be very easily contrasted to the United States flag. During the 1st Battle of Manassas (called “Bull Run” by the Yankees), there was so much confusion because of the similarity between the Yankee Stars and Stripes and the Confederate Stars and Bars, that at times the opposing generals were unable to give orders until they could determine which army was prevailing.

I also need to correct another common error. The Confederate Battle Flag is often today called “The Stars and Bars”. The “Stars and Bars” was the first national flag of the Confederacy:

The Stars and Bars was replaced as the national flag in 1863 due to the fact that it was so easily confused with the Stars and Stripes. The Confederate Battle Flag was NOT the Stars and Bars.

Is the Confederate Battle Flag a symbol of hate? Generally, when a Yankee (or any young person) asks this, they are actually asking “Is the Confederate Battle Flag a symbol of racism or slavery?”, since they attribute an extreme emotion, “hatred”, to those things. Now, this is not a dissertation on the legitimacy of slavery; that is a question for another time, but since slavery and the attitudes towards it are at the root of the question, let us, then, look to that issue. If hatred is to be directed towards racism and/or slavery, then there is a flag that represents those things...

There is a flag that flew over virtually every slave ship that came to the Amerikan continent. That flag was the Stars and Stripes.

The national flag of a people that ordained and sanctioned slavery officially for 220 years, and officially flew over their nation for 86 of those years, was the Stars and Stripes. By contrast, the Confederate Battle Flag was only officially flown for 4 years as the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, and this for a nation (the Confederacy) that had already considered outlawing slavery before the Battle Flag was first used. The Confederate Battle flag never once flew as the official national flag over any nation that had legalized slavery. The only reason that slavery was not outlawed in the South at the beginning of the war was because the South believed that to change their law based on the threat of foreign invasion would be to legitimize terrorism – and, at the time that the consideration was made, slavery was still legal in the North, and would be for many more years.

There is a flag that adorned the uniform of an army that, under orders, hunted down and often executed escaped slaves. That flag was the Stars and Stripes.

There is a flag which represented the nation whose President did and said the following things:

1. proposed and signed a 13th amendment to the Constitution which would have protected and defended the institution of slavery for all time.
2. proposed and campaigned for the removal of all blacks from the United States with their re-colonization back in Africa.
3. proposed and preached often and with great passion on the inferiority of the black race, and on his desire to see them perpetually maintained as a second-class people. This national President said this: “There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”

That President was Abraham Lincoln and the nation he represented flew (and still flies) the Stars and Stripes.

There is a flag that adorned the uniform and flew in front of the army commanded by a very famous General. That famous General was a well-known gambler, drunk, and rotter – a man who had been drummed out of the military in 1854 for being drunk on duty. He retired in shame in that year rather than be court-martialed. He then gained work on a farm using slaves owned by his father-in-law. He failed at farming in 1858 due to his personal weaknesses, and for the next year he was a bill collector in St. Louis. He failed at that too, and finally, in humiliation, in 1860 (1 year before the war) he begged his father for a job in his leather shop, which was granted. That drunken failure was perfectly suited to the national character of the nation for whom he would become a General, and under whose national flag he would later serve as President. The General? Ulysses S. Grant, and his flag was the Stars and Stripes. By contrast the Confederate General Robert E. Lee did not own slaves and when he did receive slaves on one occasion, he immediately freed them. Lee was a man of great moral character who was loved and respected by men of all nations, including those in the North, and was revered as a kind, gentle, loving and honorable man, against whom no man of any nation dared raise a claim of immorality.

There is a flag that, even today, represents a nation that has institutionalized racism; that allows hiring and firing based on race; that demands that race be considered over qualifications and character in the selection of those who would receive higher education; that protects victims of some races by the institution of “hate crime” legislation, while denying it to other races. That nation is the United States and their flag is the Stars and Stripes.

If hatred and bigotry are to be attributed to any nations flag, they are best represented by the national flag of the United States. If any flag represents the triumph of commerce and banks over character and freedom, it is the flag of the United States. If any flag represents the triumph of lies and deception over truth and honesty, it is the flag of the United States. If any national flag represents history revisionism, dishonesty, greed and avarice, it is the Stars and Stripes. If any flag represents a nation where sin is encouraged, righteousness is ridiculed, homosexuality is promoted, infanticide is federally financially supported, licentiousness is heralded, death and every manner of pagan ritual is celebrated – is is the Stars and Stripes of the United States. If militarism and oppression have a flag, it is the Stars and Stripes. If fascism and statism can possibly be distilled into a national symbol, it is the Amerikan Stars and Stripes.

So I think, to answer your question, that there is a symbol of hatred and racism that should be expunged from the heart and care of any thinking Christian man. That symbol is the Amerikan flag.

The Confederate Battle Flag was (and still is) a symbol of political freedom, Christian ethics in war, and honorable resistance to ungodly tyranny. While I do not condone or defend every action taken by those who have flown the flag, nor would I side with every group who now uses its symbolism, I recognize the flag itself as a symbol of resistance to foreign invasion, resistance to industrial imperialism, and resistance to the reign of commercial interests. Any man who would stand against the supremacy of godless banks, mercantilism, and industrialism over Godly agrarianism, has a debt to those who fought for their interests against Northern aggression under the Confederate Battle Flag. Any man who calls himself an Agrarian, but who defends, supports, or flies the flag of the United States of Amerika, involves himself in a palpable contradiction. He defends that flag under which his own people were killed, raped, and tortured. He supports that flag under which his own ideals were trampled and attacked. He flies that flag under which his Christian philosophies were debased and corroded. History revisionists and mental colonists have successfully trained whole generations of people to ignore their true history, to hate their own ancestors, and to revile the symbols of the highest and greatest ideals of their people. Hear the prophetic warning which foretold of the current condition:

Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson:

“If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property, it is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity and the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory.”

General Patrick Cleburne:

“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”

Robert E. Lee:

“If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men and my sword in this right hand.”

Now to the question concerning what our response ought to be to a flag. Of course, as I have shown above, our response to the national flag of the United States should be to look upon it as God looks upon the character of those who now adorn their vehicles with it, and fly it over their Wal-Marts. We should hate what God hates.

Flags (or banners, ensigns, standards) are biblical, and stand as representations of the ideals and character of those who adopt it, camp under it, or rally around it. No flag should be idolized or worshiped, and no oath of allegiance or fealty should ever be made to a flag. The flag as symbolism is an acceptable way to communicate in “shorthand” our political beliefs to others. They should never receive undue attention – nor should any man put flag, country, or any national duty before his duty to God.

I hope this answers your question.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
1251 CR 132
Santa Anna, Texas 76878
editor@lazarusunbound.com
http://www.biblicalagrarianism.com

I read on a blog today another Presbyterian trying to defend baby baptism. It is amazing to me how wide they will flail in their attempts to save babies who, in reality, are alone in the grip and power of God. The argument always starts with a false premise, then a strange solution is proposed in order to solve the false premise. In the blog I read, it went like this:

Babies are precious and received into the bosom of God. It would be cruel to think that any of them should be estranged from God or not received merely because of their age.

This false premise assumes that the majority of people (or some people) believe that babies who die in infancy infallibly die and perish because of Original Sin. That is ludicrous. I have never even heard anyone teach that.

Based on this false premise, the solution is offered (and the solution itself consists of a false premise):

Since babies in the womb have yet to actually commit sins, they would not understand why they are being punished for Original Sin. Therefore, though their punishment would be righteous, their inability to understand it would thwart justice and cause God to be an offender. Therefore, people are not damned for Original Sin, but for sins they actually commit.

Wow

Throw Original Sin out the window, along with God's power and sovereignty in election and reprobation! According to one commenter, who seems to agree with this thesis, this means that God saves by Grace, but damns by works.

Ummm... yeah, and Adam's work was enough to damn all men.

If you lessen the power of the imputation of the penalty of sin, you must necessarily lessen the power of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul set up an equation, and you cannot do work on one side of it that doesn't correspond with some work done on the opposite side of the equation. Here was my response on that blog:

But infants do commit sins in the womb, and immediately thereafter:

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

If not, what need would there be for the elect to be covered from the womb?

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

I think that asserting that Original Sin alone is not sufficient to damn men, or that if it did it would be a stain on God’s justice, basically throws Original Sin out the window, and that is a dangerous road.

Maybe you can understand now why Catholics are so at home on these supposed Reformed sites, they both are desperately trying to save babies, even those who are not in peril.

Something to cover the stench...

I wonder how many Amerikans, who do not speak Chinese, are voting in Chinese elections? I mean, if they had legitimate elections.

What is the Gospel, Part I
What is the Gospel, Part II

Shearing the Flock... I wonder where these folks learned this? The Roman Catholic indulgence and the Roman Catholic inspired Charismatic movement.

A South Korean bank has created a new credit card specifically for Protestant clergy members.

"The Industrial Bank of Korea launched 'I am a Pastor' card on Friday mainly to help clergy members who do not qualify for regular credit cards because they have irregular incomes."

...argh

Michael Bunker