Rebuilding the Godly Foundations (4)

The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble; and those who know Your name will put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You (Ps.9:9-10)

I had coffee recently with a Christian man whose life experience in recent years remarkably paralleled mine. Married and homeschooling with 3 children, he and his family had been attending what he thought was a conservative Baptist church in northern Brisbane, which took the step of nominating a woman for the position of elder, who was soon ordained. This is despite the fact that the notion of women holding positions of leadership or authority in the church is expressly prohibited by Paul (see I Tim.2:11-15).

When my friend challenged their pastor about what was happening, his response was significant. He said that Paul’s apostolic comments have to be considered from the perspective of Jesus. Jesus (he said), liberated women, so now there was equality of the sexes. Women elders? No problem.
A couple of weeks earlier, we’d been briefly attending another Baptist Church in Eatons Hill, where we live. At a Saturday Working Bee, I asked one of the pastors if the church had elders. Yes, it did, he said, and he rattled off the names of the 7 elders. Three of those names were females. Oh well. That was the end of that.

We’d seen something similar happen in 2013, in another big, supposedly conservative church in northern Brisbane. The Senior Pastor indicated from the pulpit that the church wanted to nominate some new elders for the congregation to consider, but that we wouldn’t be reading the relevant Biblical text this morning.

That was interesting. The relevant text (I Tim.3:1-7) indicates that overseers (or elders) are to be the “…husband of one wife…” (v.2). Then, we found that one of the people nominated for the position of elder, was a woman.

There were other issues. I’d had a major disagreement with the earlier Senior Pastor, back in 2002. He’d been repeatedly making reference that year, to the notion of God’s “unconditional love.” He made this statement to a congregation of 1,000: “God loves you-unconditionally.”
That triggered a yellow flag in my mind, so I went searching and reading: probably 50 hours. I concluded that the idea of God’s “unconditional love” is nonsense. If He loves all people unconditionally, how did He “hate Esau?” (Mal.1:3), or repeatedly harden Pharoah’s heart, before drowning him in the Red Sea?

More accurately, His love is an aspect of His covenant relationship with His own people, not all people. Even then, don’t go counting your chickens. The Bible says that

Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord… and did not enquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse (I Chron.10:13-14).

Two relevant theological statements are:
1. Election is with a view to function.
2. Disobedience leads to dispossession.

I’ve concluded one thing. The leadership of the modern church is walking away from the Bible, in droves. The authority of scripture is not merely being questioned; it’s been discarded, years ago. Naturally this is disappointing, but after so many years of observing it now, I’ve stopped being upset about what is now, a fact of life.
An American wrote this recently:

I went with a friend recently to her local Episcopal Church. I could not recognize it (from when we were kids). Her church is led almost exclusively by women. The rector, bishop, almost every post, is filled with a woman. No worries there, but still very different from when we went to our childhood church long ago. The current rector, the past rector, the future rector, all are women…

Women seem to fill almost every leadership role…The emphasis in my friend’s California Episcopal church is focussed on gay rights. During the two services I went to, there were prayers of joy about the Supreme Court decision… I guess I expected to see “some” women, but not close to 100% women in all leadership roles.

When the leaders of the flock of God are wolves in sheep’s clothing, the flock of God has to either choose new leaders, or get out. There is no other legitimate option.
Now, the church is being severely challenged by the issue of homosexuality. And those church leaders that have already caved in on other fundamental issues relating to the authority of scripture will probably do the same on this one. Why wouldn’t they? People are generally consistent. If they fled the field of battle on one basic issue, they’ll do it again on the next one.
When King Saul proved to be a disaster, God didn’t wait long. He said to His prophet Samuel,

How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons (I Sam.16:1).

Conclusion: I’m not interested in trying to prop up corrupt, dying institutions. It proves to be an utter waste of time. Jesus said, “Let the dead bury the dead.” I’d much rather go looking for where the faithful saints are. I know they’ll probably be in some ignored, out of the way place, looking after sheep like David was, or in the cave of Adullam with a motley crew (I Sam.22:1-2), but that’s OK. That’s pretty normal. That’s where reformation generally starts.
What about you?

It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly then to divide the spoil with the proud (Prov.16:19).

Rebuilding the Godly Foundations (3)

                   Conviction vs. Preference

…Let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up (Dan.3:18).

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

The men who uttered these statements, held Biblical convictions about how they ought to behave. Holding Biblical convictions and acting on them got them into trouble. They knew it would get them into trouble, but they acted on those convictions, anyway.

This is what men and women in the Bible did. When Abram heard that his nephew Lot had been kidnapped, he acted on his convictions. He took his life in his hands, and went and fought, and rescued Lot (Gen.14:12-16).

But there was a lot more to Abram’s convictions, than just being willing to put his life on the line for a relative. That was physical courage, but God requires of us much more than that. When the king of Sodom said to him, “Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself” (Gen.14:21), Abram responded with a statement that the modern church steadfastly ignored:

I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, ‘I have made Abram rich’ (Gen.14:22-23).

Refusing money or property that shouldn’t be taken requires convictions, and a clear sense of priorities. Moses did similarly. When Moses saw one of his brethren being beaten by an Egyptian, he killed the Egyptian (Ex.2:11-12). But once again, this was more than a case of physical courage. The Bible tells us of Moses, that he

refused to be called the son of Pharoah’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward (Heb.11:24-26).

When shepherds came to drive away the daughters of the priest of Midian when they were preparing to water their flock, Moses “stood up and helped them [the daughters]” (Ex.2:15-21).  When Jesus witnessed the corruption of the temple of His era,

He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables (Jn.2:15).

I’ve walked out of jobs three times, the first time being 1986. I was working in a really good Christian school in the Blue Mountains of NSW, where I’d been since 1981. But through the course of the year, I formed the conviction that my days there were coming to an end, that something else was coming up and I needed to leave. The school closed at the end of 1987.

In 1987, 900 hundred kilometres to the west, in Mildura, Victoria, I walked out of a service station job, when the boss wanted his staff to sell cigarette lighters with a naked girl on them. I left, and God provided another job immediately.

In 2005, I walked out of a well-paid educational position in Brisbane, because I’d formed the attitude that the management had become disingenuous with clients, compromising Biblical ethics in their pursuit of the vast sums of government money available.

Did those decisions cost me? Sometimes they cost me a lot. Am I sorry about any of those decisions, now? No.

Political leaders have sought to control the church, at least from Abram’s day. Little has really changed much. Political leaders want to extend and secure their power, and they don’t appreciate community rivals, whoever they may be.

When confronted by Moses and Aaron, Pharoah declared,

Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go (Ex.5:2).

But the modern church is a confused church. It’s been that way for well over a hundred years. It’s confused, firstly because of its dreadful theology, leading to all manner of false doctrine, ideological aberration and practical shallowness. These four things have led directly to one significant, deadly outcome: the church has been easy game for political manipulators. It’s forgotten it’s supposed to hold Biblical convictions, and act on them.

Like most successful twentieth century political leaders, Hitler was a master political manipulator. He knew how to get around the church of Germany. In fact, the church made it easy for him, because the Lutheran and Catholic churches (which were predominant in Germany), were State churches, funded from taxes. They didn’t understand that conviction and preference are two, vastly different things; thus they were compliant. They only knew this:

He who takes the king’s shilling, does the king’s bidding.

Hitler despised them, but he was politically shrewd and wanted their support. Of the German Protestants, Hitler said to one of his aides,

You can do anything you want with them. They will submit…they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.[1]

Anyone who thinks that this was merely an aberration of Nazism is making a mistake. Hitler in his manipulation of the German church merely followed on from Bismarck, 50 years earlier. It’s normal now, all over the West.

The fact is, the church wants money, and it wants its people to get money. Where it comes from is rarely the point. So, if governments hold out wads of cash for Christian families in the form of some kind of Social Security payment or educational grants for “Christian” schools, what could be wrong with that? This short-sighted attitude leads directly to the political manipulation that Hitler utilised.

Money is not evil, but where it comes from is the critical factor. Modern governments want to control the electorate with money in the form of electoral bribes, and everyone’s used to it. It’s the new normal, but it’s manipulative and evil.

In the mid-1940s, the Labor Party in Britain decided to create a system of State-financed national health care. They knew that they would not readily gain cooperation from the private physicians of Britain. So the Labor Party created a plan. First, they made it illegal for non-participating physicians to sell their practices upon retirement, thereby extracting a major capital tax from the physicians. Second, they offered relatively high salaries (for the post-war years) to all participating physicians. Third, they offered high positions in the new, compulsory system to the leaders of the British Medical Association. Nye Bevan, the Labor Party’s master political strategist, who served as Minister of Health, promised Party leaders that the Party would gain the support of the medical profession’s leadership. “How?” he was asked. His answer shall ring down through the ages: “We shall stuff their mouths with gold.” So the Labor Party did, and the medical leadership capitulated, just as Bevan had predicted.1

Whenever the church becomes ambivalent about money, it has exposed itself to compromise and corruption, and this has always been deadly. A compromised church is a silent church, and a silent church is always ripe for judgment. Can you imagine Moses accepting a golden payoff from Pharoah, Elijah being paid by Ahab, or John the Baptist being silenced by Herod with gold?

Political leaders think, “This is how you do it. Throw money in front of them. That’ll fix ‘em.” But as The Animals sang, fifty years ago,

We gotta get outa this place, if it’s the last thing we ever do. We gotta get outa this place, girl there’s a better life for me and you.

The answer is not (generally) to leave the country. It is to understand that a game of cat and mouse is being played, and we’d best stay out of it. We have to do what godly people have been doing for thousands of years, when political leaders seem to hold all the political and legal aces: we hold to our Biblical convictions, and follow our own plan.

We must be careful to adopt the long-term strategy of the early church. They did not rise up against the Roman legions. They did not become guerillas. The Jews did, and they were scattered, becoming an identifiable minority to be persecuted throughout the Roman Empire. The Christians adopted a different strategy, although suffering intermittent persecutions-a strategy of avoiding a frontal assault on Rome. By 313 A. D., the Christians triumphed; a non-pagan Emperor came to power. [2]

Conclusion:

Money in the hands of evil people is sometimes a lure dangled before believers. It’s especially challenging when those evil people are political leaders. But Abram didn’t fall for it, neither did Moses, and neither did Jesus.

One of the ways the godly foundations of the church must be re-laid, will be by the church asserting its independence again, turning away from all forms of illegitimate taxpayer funding. And when we renounce his thirty pieces of silver, Caesar won’t be able to control, manipulate and silence us.

Perhaps then by God’s grace, light will begin to shine on our path, again.

One generation shall praise Your works to another, and shall declare Your mighty acts (Ps.145:4).

[1] Quoted in William Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” 1968, p.329.

[1] Gary North, (Ed.,) “Tactics of Christian Resistance,” 1983, p.146-147.

[2]  Gary North, (Ed.,) “Theology of Christian Resistance,” 1983, p.xvi.

Rebuilding the Godly Foundations (2)

Your Name, O Lord, is everlasting, Your remembrance, O Lord, throughout all generations (Ps. 135:13).

We make a big mistake as believers, if we centre the purpose of God in our lifetime. Our lifetime is certainly important to us, but God has a far greater time-frame in mind than the few years on the planet that we’ll have.

This means that we have to think about those years when we certainly won’t be here. We won’t be around, but our children and our grandchildren will. We can’t live their lives for them, nor should we try. But what we can do is help prepare the next generations of God’s people for faithful service of Him.

For this, homeschooling presents us with a great opportunity, and more. We can fulfil our obligation to the Lord to use our time productively, with the next generations in mind.

But when the first digit on your age changes as many times as mine has, you realise that statistically, there can’t be a lot more of these. We simply run out of time, run out of life.

On my office wall, I have a photo taken of the property where I grew up, near Cowra in the central west of NSW. In the foreground is a mob of sheep, and five hundred metres back is my home till I was 18. Another five hundred metres back, is the home my grandfather built around 1910, where my father (the youngest, born in 1918) and his siblings grew up. The last of my father’s generation died in 2000. Now, the property is owned by my cousins and their sons. Life moves on, to the next generations.

Abraham was the first of his family to be called of God. He sojourned in the promised land, knowing that God had promised it to him, but not just yet. For God said,

I will give it to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Gen.17:8).

Abraham and Isaac both lived in tents, dug wells, and built altars to the Lord. Some family traditions are futile, but not these ones. When you have lots of livestock (Gen.13:2) and dependent families (and Abraham must have had over 1,000 people-see Gen.14:14), a good supply of water is critical. But Isaac’s well-digging was fiercely contested by the Philistines (see Gen.26:12-25), because they were envious of him.

Moses was called by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was Joshua who led them into the land. And what was the centrepiece of God’s encouragement to Joshua? Faithfulness to the law of God.

This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success (Joshua 1:8).

David had it in his heart to build a temple for God, and that was good. But it wasn’t his task- it was Solomon’s. All David was supposed to do was prepare for it, by assembling the raw materials for its building.

David was a great man, but Solomon, who seemed initially to show great promise, ended up in compromise and idolatry (I Kings 11:1-13). Though God had appeared to him twice, he frittered away his great inheritance, influenced by hundreds of foreign, pagan wives: “…the foreign women caused even him to sin” (Neh.13:26). In this, he did what his father had actually initiated: he married lots of wives; something God’s law (Deut.17:14-17) specifically forbade Israel’s kings to do.

This much is clear: the next generation of God’s people either builds on the past successes, or abandons them.

Everyone has to pass the baton, sometime. But what we must do as well as we can, is make those preparations for others who come after us, even while they are children.

This requires some things. It requires that we have faith in God, that He will lead and keep our successors just as faithfully as He has led and kept us. If we leave something of worth behind, they will have something to build on.

The first thing to leave for our children is a godly example. This aspect of leadership is a prominent theme in scripture.

It is a show of false modesty for a parent to say, “Well, my role is not a very important.” You are important, because you will spend a significant portion of your adult years modelling a lifestyle to your children, and then perhaps your grandchildren. Saying, “I don’t model anything,” is not facing the facts; you may not deliberately do so, but it will just happen in the day to day affairs of home and family, as others observe your speech, attitudes, behaviour and decisions.

Godly Gideon said to his three hundred men, “Look at me and do likewise. And behold, when I come to the outskirts of the camp, do as I do” (Judges 7:17).

Even evil leaders understand the importance of leadership. Abimelech said to his followers, “What you have seen me do, hurry and do likewise. All the people also cut down each one his branch and followed Abimelech … (Judges 9:48-49).

Leadership by example is God’s way. The Bible says that “…God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Ro.5:8). Jesus commanded us to “take My yoke upon you and learn from Me…” (Mat.11:29), and He also said that “when he [the good shepherd] puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice” (Jn.10:4).

When Paul explained to Timothy the requirements of an overseer (see I Tim.3:1-7), implicit in his description is that the overseer is to be an example to those he leads, while Peter plainly says that the elders are to be “examples to the flock” (I Pet.5:3).  Paul said, “the things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil.4:6). He also said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (I Cor.11:1).

Conclusion:                                                                                                                             Everyone godly person leads with the hope and prayer that those who come after them will follow the Lord, and build on the useful foundations laid before them. We cannot ensure this will happen. But this we know: God wants to lead successive generations.

…Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he crouched down on the earth and put his face between his knees. He said to his servant, “Go up now, look toward the sea.” So he went up and looked and said, “There is nothing.” And he said, “Go back,” seven times. It came about at the seventh time, that he said, “Behold, a cloud as small as a man’s hand is coming up from the sea” (I Kings 18:42-44).

Rebuilding the Godly Foundations (I)

If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps.13:7)

It’s deeply upsetting when the good things in a community or nation are being progressively destroyed.  The good and godly institutions of the West like marriage, continue to be under pressure.

We know this is not right. But lamenting is insufficient for the Christian, or it should be. Why?

The Christian believes in certain things. He believes in a sovereign God Who made the world in 6 days, Who rules all the affairs of men. His ethics are found in scripture, and He’ll hold us all to account concerning them.

We have to do a lot more than shake our fists at the humanist’s parade. They may be parading, but we must be working at articulating and building a God honouring, viable alternative. And that cannot happen overnight.

Nehemiah heard of the state of Jerusalem when he was in Susa. He was told that

The remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burnt with fire (Neh.1:3).

Nehemiah was deeply upset about this. The Bible says that he

sat down and wept and mourned for days; and I was fasting and praying before the God of heaven (v.4).

The scripture then records the seven verses of Nehemiah’s prayer. He’d been greatly upset, so he prayed and fasted.

Is that where he stopped? No. Now, he acted in faith, which godly people must always do. He had a plan, that he put before his master the king. He said

    …send me to Judah, to the city of my father’s tombs, that I may rebuild it (Neh.2:5).

Lamenting just won’t ever be enough for the believer, because if we stop at that, we’ve never gone far enough. Yes, lament if you wish, but ensure that it leads to the thing God always wants it to lead to: prayer and action.

About the time I was married in 1979, I heard this simple saying:

            Men of action, have satisfaction.

Nehemiah moved from hearing, to lamenting, to praying (with fasting), to acting, and we must do this too.

How do we do it? Well, the Bible tells us. It says that

Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; you will raise up the age-old foundations; and you will be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of the streets in which to dwell (Isa.58:12).

The godly man has to begin with his family; their education and discipleship. He has to begin at the beginning with what God has given him, and this will require his dedication, his time, and some of his money.

Thankfully, the cost of a godly education in terms of dollars continues to decline in relative terms. The internet is going to keep driving this cost down. Economics tells us that as the price of something is reduced, more is demanded.

That means that there is and will be a growing market for home education. That means that over the next few decades, the ranks of homeschoolers are likely to broaden, while public education has already peaked: it’s struggling.

The Bible speaks of the consequences of this man’s activities:

Praise the Lord! How blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in His commandments. His descendants will be mighty on earth; the generation of the upright will be blessed. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever (Ps.112:1-3).

But the godly couple knows there is more than just their family that needs to be rebuilt. They have to consider the church, too. Like the family, it’s of vital importance for the future. Paul declared that                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Cor.3:10, 11).

So, the godly couple are investing in their church: their tithe, their faithfulness and their time. The church is all about God and His people. They know it’s a God ordained, essential social institution of the future, which has received magnificent promises from God:

You who remind the Lord, take no rest for yourselves; and give Him no rest until He establishes and makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth (Isa.62:6, 7).

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                                                               

There are many things wrong with our society, and it doesn’t require a rocket-science degree to understand it. But what are we to do? We have to go back and begin at the beginning.

And where is that? With God and His Word; with the family and the church.

Events do take place that are disappointing and disheartening, but we have to look beyond these, and accept the encouragement that Nehemiah received from his fellow-workers, hundreds of years before Christ:

              …Let us arise and build (Neh.2:18).

Education in the Modern Era

By Andrew McColl

The twentieth century was the century of government in the West, more than at any other time in the last two millennia. In the twentieth century, government steadily entrenched itself as the foremost institution of society, so that society has become steadily centralised. The individual, the family and the Church have been progressively pressed into society’s background, because government has demanded that dominant role in society.

It was the recognition that the Bible was at the foundation of western civilisation that led to restraints in the size and expansion of government. Christians historically have led this cause. This provides us with an explanation for the Magna Carta (written by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton), the opposition of the Puritans in England to Charles I, and in modern times to much of the ideology of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It was Reagan who said in 1986 that

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’

Nowhere has the growth in the role of government been more evident than in education. In a previous era, the family was recognised as the responsible institution to educate children, in agreement with scripture. But ambitious, arrogant governments could never be content with parents determining how their children were educated.

That would never do! What would parents know?

Jesus Christ made an observation concerning the Pharisees, which can legitimately be applied to governments of our era. He said

Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted (Mat.15:13).

What did Jesus mean?

All people and institutions need to observe Biblical boundaries, given to us by the God of heaven. If they do not, they are implicitly claiming that “There is no God: we do what we like.” In doing so, they risk His judgment.

Ultimately the Pharisees destroyed themselves, through their hostility to God and His Son. Forty years after Jesus made His comments about them, the Romans came to Jerusalem, and they weren’t happy. Just as Jesus had predicted (in Mat.22:1-7), and as He warned His disciples (Mat.24:15-34; Mk.13:14-30; Luke 21:20-32), the Romans burnt the temple, destroyed the city, and every person within was either killed or enslaved.

Now, as He also predicted, “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone…” (Mat.21:42). Yes, they could get rid of Him, but His would be the last Word. 

 Like Jesus Himself, the Christian person can never afford to ignore the facts of life around him, even if people about us are violently in conflict with scripture. What we must do is get our marching orders from the Word of the God of Creation, and proceed accordingly.

And in terms of education, He requires that parents take responsibility for the education and training of their children. To pass this vital parental task over to a tax-funded bureaucratic government department, that employs atheistic teachers utilising an ungodly curriculum that promotes the religion of humanism, in the presence of an evil peer-group, cannot be construed to be faithful to God. It’s in violation of His clear commandments to parents, found in Deuteronomy.

Many years ago whilst working for Australian Christian Academy, a woman made an appointment to see me, to discuss the idea of homeschooling her 7 year old boy. As we spoke together, she admitted she’d been convicted when her son (who attended a State school), had said to her,

Mum, why do you send me to a school that doesn’t believe in God?

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                      Every era passes, and Jesus’ warnings to the Pharisees (and to us) haven’t gone away. In our era, there are plants that our heavenly Father has promised one day will uproot.

In that day, will we be subject to His judgment, or will we glory in His salvation?

                                                                             

What Does it Mean, to ‘Train up a Child?’(9)

Taken from, “The Significance of the Godly Family,” 2009.

By Andrew McColl, 11th May, 2021

The decision of parents to homeschool their children means that they take complete responsibility. That doesn’t mean that they have all knowledge about every educational possibility that they could possibly employ. Nor does it mean that decisions can’t be reversed.

What a family chooses this year, they may not choose, next year. It means that the parents, beginning with the father, look at some of the options available (and there are many), and make some choices: “What do we want? What do we need? What do we have time for? What suits our children? What can we afford?”

This is the function of responsibility. “Every passage in the Bible that mentions the education of children makes it clear that parents are responsible.”[1] 

Furthermore, parents have the opportunity to tailor their childrens’ education to their family’s needs. Family needs and circumstances do vary and change over time. The overriding issue, is that parents have a glorious opportunity and responsibility to educate and disciple their children, for a life of possession and dominion. Parents should explain to a child that:                                               

God has a Destiny for my life
Destiny requires my Discipline
Discipline leads to Dominion.

The fact that children are at home and are being educated under their parents’ supervision, ought not mean that their home should be a place of anarchy. Conversely, every moment of the day need not be completely regimented. Home school families are able to structure their day how they want, enjoying their freedoms, while making sure theirs is a home of relative discipline and industry. This could be yours!

Sue and I commenced home schooling our children, in Dubbo (central-west NSW, Australia), in 1990. At the time, we had three sons; Jonathan aged 9, Benjamin aged 6, and Philip, aged 4. Philip commenced in 1992, and of course was the last to finish, in 2003. He never attended a school in his life. Home schooling was an excellent experience for us all. All of our sons have been grateful they were home schooled. We were able to do a lot of things together, which would not have been available otherwise.

To home school children is a marked change in role especially for women, who commonly haven’t seen themselves as educators, or believed they could do it. Plenty of people believe they can’t, and may say so. It certainly seems to be different in relation to other people, but we aren’t told to observe other people; we are told to follow and obey Jesus Christ.

About ten years ago, I heard a quote from Ruth Prince:

If women do not fulfil their God-given calling, it leaves a void in the fibre of society which nothing else can fill.                                                                                                 

That has made a lot of sense to Sue and I, in relation to home schooling, and the training of children. Helping her husband to train their children to “rule and have dominion” (Gen.1:26-28), is a vital part of a woman’s role.

Is home schooling better for students academically?

In a 1997 U.S. national study by Dr. Brian Ray, home schoolers (K-12) were found to have outperformed their government school counterparts by 30 to 37 percentile points across all the areas tested. In reading and mathematics, for example, home schoolers scored in the 87th and 82nd percentiles, respectively. The study showed that by the 8th grade, the average home schooled student was performing four grades ahead of the national average.[2]

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think-tank, conducted research on home schoolers’ academic performance in 2001. The survey author, Patrick Basham, summarised that,

According to the U.S. Department of Education, ‘virtually all the available data show that the group of home schooled children who are tested are above average.’ Such impressive results have been observable for at least 15 years…From coast to coast, and from border to border, homeschooled students in the United States surpass the national averages on both of the major college entrance tests, the ACT and the SAT. [3]

As part of my study for a Masters Degree in Education (completed in 2005), I surveyed students who had graduated with a Year 12 Certificate, from Australian Christian Academy, between 1999 and 2002. Of the 55 graduates who responded, 96% were positive about their use of a Christian curriculum, 90% thought they had received a good preparation for life, 94% said they were glad they were home  schooled, and 74% believed they would home school their own children. One respondent indicated that she valued “being in a Christian environment, being nurtured in my education, and the flexibility to do things with my family when it suited them best.”[4]

Gatto seemed to concur with this respondent, when he wrote that “the curriculum of the family is at the heart of any good life.” [5]

One U.S. restaurant operator, who has employed 75 homeschoolers, claimed that

People assume that they [home schoolers] will be socially handicapped because they’ve been homebound, but it is just the opposite…they have a good sense of humour and know how to act. Lots of kids have trouble with judgement…Not these kids. They’re stable and mature, good team players and likely to stand up for what is right. [6]

 A former U.S. Department of Education researcher, Patricia Lines, who is well acquainted with home schooling, has rendered the most telling judgment on the character of home schooled children:

If I didn’t know anything about someone other than their educational background, I’d rather hop into a foxhole with a home school kid than one from a public school. The home school kid will be a little better educated and dependable. It’s just the law of averages. [7]

 U.S. Senator Dr Ron Paul commented in 2007, that

parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family…The best way to improve education is to return control to the parents who know best what their children need.[8]   

Conclusion:

God gave clear statements about education to Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. Nothing much has changed since then, as the scripture says, “there is nothing new under the sun”(Ecc.1:9). But God’s requirements have remained the same, for Jesus is the same, “…yesterday, today and forever”(Heb.13:8).

The responsibility for the education of children will not go away, though it can be ignored, but the consequences of inactivity or the wrong kind of activity are frightening. Dabney, at the end of the nineteenth century, so ably expressed this:

The education of children for God is the most important business done on earth. It is the one business for which the earth exists. To it all politics, all war, all literature, all money-making, ought to be subordinated; and every parent especially ought to feel every hour of the day, that, next to making his own calling and election sure, this is the end for which he is kept alive by God-this is his task on earth. [9]


[1] Shortt, ibid., p.55.

[2] Quoted in Shortt, ibid., p.343.

[3] ibid., p.343.

[4] Andrew  McColl, “Homeschooling: the Graduates Speak,” unpublished Thesis, 2005.

[5] John Gatto, “Education and the Western Spiritual Tradition,” (date unknown) p.152.

[6] Quoted in Shortt, p.349.

[7] Shortt, p.349-350.

[8] Ron Paul, quoted on http://www.lewrockwell.com, 2007.

[9] Dabney, quoted in Shortt, p.356.

What Does it Mean, to ‘Train up a Child?’(8)

Taken from, “The Significance of the Godly Family,” 2009.

By Andrew McColl, 4th May, 2021

The Bible specifically commands that God’s people are not to make covenants with ungodly people. Why? Because God’s people are bound in covenant to God, through Jesus Christ, and He is a jealous God. He is jealous for the love, affections and the obedience of His people; He wants their hearts. There are many texts dealing with this, such as Ex.34:10-16, Deut.7:1-6; 12:1-4; 20:16-18, Num.33:50-56; Judges 2:1-4; II Cor.6:14-18.

Every time God’s people disobeyed him in this context in the Bible, God said the results would be disastrous. (Joshua 23:11-13 is a good example.)

The Biblical position with regard to alliances is that alliances are religious acts…a common cause and a common faith motivates the allies.[1]

The most obvious application for this, is in relationship to whom we marry, but it applies to all areas of our life.

The Christian parent needs to consistently apply their faith to education, as an important aspect of life. This is a non-negotiable issue. What does it mean to be faithful to God, in the raising of children? Do I really believe I can expose my children to the influence of evildoers for twelve years, and then give a good account to God for how they have been raised? This was Lot’s delusion. Is enrolment in a godless educational institution, consistent with the scriptures’ command, to “train up a child in the way they should go?” (Prov.22:6)

Children are a God-given inheritance for our conquest of the world for Christ. They are a means of subduing the earth and exercising dominion under the Lord. If we give our children to state or private schools which are not systematically Christian in their curriculum, we are then giving the future to God’s enemies, and He will hold us accountable for laying waste our heritage. [2]

In about 2002, while I was working for Australian Christian Academy in Brisbane, Australia, a church-attending woman came into our office to enquire about homeschooling. During our conversation, she admitted that she was troubled by a comment that her seven year old son in a state school, had made to her:                   

Mummy, why did you put me in a school that doesn’t believe in God?

The issue of educational accreditation is a significant religious issue for Christian parents. It may be one of the most significant tests of their faith in life. It is really a case of, “Who is Lord of my family?” It is a test of our faithfulness. Because much of the modern church is syncretistic, many can find a good excuse.

Syncretistic?

It’s an attempt to combine two religions, and it very commonly has an ulterior political motivation. Syncretism was Israel’s problem, from the time they came out of Egypt. Aaron tried to maintain the façade of faithfulness to the Lord, when he produced the golden calf (Ex.32:1-8).

Ahab may have wanted to maintain the facade of the worship of the Lord, but he also wanted to maintain his grasp on political power; so he didn’t want to offend others (including Jezebel), who were Baal worshippers. He tried to maintain an impossible religious compromise, with a political motivation. That was Ahab’s way: compromise, rather than initiate conflict. But, as someone has said,

The path of least resistance makes men and rivers crooked.

Ahab’s syncretism only brought God’s curse on his family (I Kings 21:25-29).

Conflict for the Christian is necessary, and an aspect of our faith. The early church had lots of it, and it frequently led to the persecution and martyrdom of individuals. No one that I know likes conflict, but bearing in mind that we will all give an account to God at a later date, we must ensure we make wise choices. “If we please God, who does it matter whom we displease?”

Conclusion:

Elijah said to the people in his day,

“How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people did not answer him a word (I Kings 18:21).

In relation to our childrens’ education, we must make choices which:

a) Are pleasing to God.

b) Will lead to their long-term benefit, assisting their education/discipleship.

c) Are decisions which they will see as being consistent with our Christian faith, which they can draw an example from, over time.

                                                                                                                                               

Is that what you’re doing?


[1] Rousas Rushdoony, “Salvation and Godly Rule,” 1983, p.89.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, “In His Service,” 2009, p.20.

What Does it Mean, to ‘Train up a Child?’(7)

Taken from, “The Significance of the Godly Family,” 2009.

By Andrew McColl, 27th April, 2021

       1.Educational Accreditation:                                                                                                                             

         There was conflict between Rome and the early church. Rome’s policy toward all religions was that no religion had a right to exist unless it was a licit religion, duly licensed by the Empire, and possessing a certificate which that religion or cult was supposed to hang on the wall of its meeting place. A part of the procedure whereby licit status was secured, was to appear before a Roman imperial centre, and there to put a little incense on a brazier before an image of the emperor or a battle insignia, and then to declare briefly ‘Caesar is Lord!’ That was all. It was an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Caesar over every area of life and thought.[1]

When we say that we believe in God and in Christ, we are saying that we are putting our faith in a higher Being. When a school is accredited, the school is putting its faith in a higher institution, which grants the school legitimacy. When a school is accredited by the state, the school is putting its faith in the state and being accepted by the state. Thus, accreditation is a religious act. This explains why accreditation is one of the means used by humanistic governments to control Christian schools.[2]

State control of education has always been a key component of humanist and socialist ideology; an article of their faith promoted since Aristotle, and espoused by Marx and Hitler. Engels, (Marx’s co-writer and supporter) claimed that,

with the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, [communism] the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society…The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. [3]   

State education has always been hostile to Christianity, and the family. As early as 1864, John Swett, the Superintendent of California state schools, claimed that

the child should be taught to consider his instructor…superior to the parent in point of authority… the vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous…parents have no remedy as against the teacher.[4]

As early as 1930, humanists realised that education and in particular public education, would be a means of alienating students from Christianity. In that year, Charles F. Potter, a signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto,indicated that

education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday School, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?[5]

Rushdoony highlighted the religious claim of public education:

Since a sovereign must have absolute power, the state, where it claims sovereignty, whether a democracy or anything else, moves towards totalitarian powers. Sovereignty with such powers becomes the saving power, and the state becomes man’s god and saviour. It then governs and controls man’s total life.[6]

Christian parents must understand that Departments of Education have a deeply religious reason to maintain an educational monopoly. If departmental individuals are not believers in Jesus Christ, they will be hostile to the faith, for Jesus said that “he who is not with me is against me” (Mat.12:30).They know that Christian faith is communicated primarily within the family. The department may give lip-service to the notion of family influence within the curriculum or a school, but that is all. That is merely the maintenance of a good façade. What counts to them, is the maintenance of departmental power.

Strong family structures are a threat to the humanistic state, as they represent an independent power base, and are difficult to control. This is one reason why socialists have always hated the family. The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, when she was the Federal Minister for Education, indicated in Parliament (25/8/2008) that “parents of school-aged children are obligated to send them to school.” She was utterly indifferent to the wishes of the parents. This reflects a consistent socialist view.

If the child is in a government registered school (be it a state school, private, or “Christian”), the child will spend a large portion of their time away from their parents and family, being progressively instructed in material which has departmental approval, in an age-segregated classroom. Over twelve years, that computes to some 14,400 hours, of departmentally approved, worldview indoctrination.                

There is a second reason why education departments are keen to maintain control. Like the silversmiths of Acts 19:23-27, they want to protect their business monopoly, and their future. If a large proportion of the community was able to successfully educate their children, without any reference at all to an educational bureaucracy, that bureaucracy would clearly be irrelevant. That could mean the loss of hundreds, and ultimately many thousands of tax-payer funded jobs, the total collapse and elimination of seven state or federal departments in Australia, and a massive saving to the taxpayer. I believe that would be a good thing, and a logical outcome of Jesus’ promise, that “every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted”(Mat.15:13).

They cannot afford to let this happen, so they will fight tooth and nail, and coerce families by various means of intimidation (including the threat of prosecution), to try and ensure children are enrolled in a departmentally registered institution. Any other scenario would be absolutely anaethema-unthinkable for them.

Nowhere in the Bible does God delegate the education of children to the state or to the disciples of other religions.[7]  


[1] Rousas Rushdoony, “The ‘Atheism’ of the Early Church,” 1983, p.15-16.

[2] Robert Thoburn, “The Children Trap,”1986, p.96-7.

[3] Marx and Engels, Selected Works, 1976.

[4] Rousas Rushdoony, “The Messianic Character of American Education,” 1995, p.80-81.

[5] Bruce Shortt, “The Harsh Truth about Government Schools,” 2004, p.54.

[6] Rousas Rushdoony, “Sovereignty,” 2007, p.471.

[7] Shortt, ibid., p.55.

What Does it Mean, to ‘Train up a Child?’(6)

Taken from, “The Significance of the Godly Family,” 2009.

By Andrew McColl, 20th April, 2021

The Pattern of Breakdown of Old Testament Discipleship:

Others have been with those who rebel against the light… (Job 24:13).

The incest of the daughters of Lot: (Gen.19:30-38) What was different about the education and discipleship of the daughters of Lot, compared to that of Isaac, Abraham’s son? How had they been so influenced in their upbringing, that they could conclude it was perfectly appropriate to trick their father into drunkenness, so they could have sex and fall pregnant to him? Clearly, the attitudes and behaviour of the inhabitants of Sodom around the girls during their upbringing, had a marked impact on them, and their father.

The scripture says that Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men… [and] felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds” (II Pet.2:7-8). But foolishly, he did not consider these were sufficient reasons to take his family and leave the city; he required a visit from angels to persuade him. When the men of the city approached his door, wanting to rape the angels who were with him, he offered to give his daughters instead to the mob, promising that they could “do to them whatever you like”(Gen.19:8). The angels were able to save the lives of Lot and his daughters, but the girls’ subsequent behaviour shows that they had already succumbed to the morality of Sodom.

[Lot] selected a city where his children could not be discipled and educated properly in the Bible. He wanted to live in the luxury of a corrupt society with a wicked educational system, instead of wandering around in a bunch of tents with Abraham…the long-term price was great. Lot ended up living in a cave…more importantly, he lost his children. [1]

B) The rape of Dinah: (Gen.34:1) It appears that Dinah went alone, when she “went out to visit the daughters of the land.” Whether Jacob knew she was going is not clear, but this is not the point. While it is easy to be wise in hindsight, she should have been accompanied and protected, if she was to go at all into the company of people she knew nothing of. This instance reflects Jacob’s negligence in the care of his only daughter, and his failure to be responsible in the subsequent negotiations with Hamor and Shechem. As a result, there was needless revenge and bloodshed on the part of Simeon and Levi (Gen.34:25-29), so much so that Jacob feared that they would all be destroyed.

C) The rape of Tamar, and murder of Amnon: (II Sam.13) The sin of our children cannot always be prevented by our diligence. But we are obliged, as much as it lies within our power and responsibility, to behave wisely and circumspectly, knowing that there is corruption in every heart, whether it names the name of Christ, or not. This David did not do, in his oversight of his children. When Amnon requested of David that Tamar be sent into him, to prepare him some food, David did not perceive any impropriety. But Amnon went one step further. Being with her half-brother in a bedroom, when everyone has been dismissed by him from the room (v.9), was itself a place of vulnerability for her. But she has no apparent inkling of any danger.

Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar was a family tragedy. It was the second in a series of tragic events within David’s family, which relate to David’s adultery with Bathsheba, and his murder of Uriah. Was David at fault in relation to Tamar’s rape? He was Amnon’s father, and had not successfully discipled that young man.

David had written the Psalm, “Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Who is the man who desires life and loves length of day that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit” (Ps.34:11-12). Perhaps David and her mother had not trained Tamar (like Dinah), to avoid circumstances that could leads to compromise or danger. What David clearly didn’t do, in relation to Amnon, was to “know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds” (Prov.27:23).

King David’s inability to act justly after the rape of Tamar in dealing with Amnon, set in motion a further series of events, spanning a number of years. Absalom, angered by his sister’s rape, is never consoled by justice being done, and being seen to be done, to Amnon. He is angry with Amnon, but also frustrated and angry with his father. There appears to be no penalty for Amnon, for an offense that in some circumstances would result in capital punishment (Deut.22:25). David was “very angry (v.21), but what does Amnon care about that? The injustice is swept under the carpet.

David is unable to act, presumably because the criminal is his own son, and he is torn between a conflicting sense of the need for justice for the Lord, for Tamar, his desire to avoid a public family scandal, and his attachment to Amnon. He fails to put into practice his own injunction, that “…he who practices deceit will not dwell within my house” (Ps.101:7). David is emotionally manipulated by the events of the day. This may have been what Amnon was confident about, all along.

Thus Absalom murders Amnon; an awful, but in some ways, a logical conclusion (v.29). But there is one person who plays a subtle, perhaps indirect role, in both the rape of Tamar, and the murder of Amnon. The Bible describes Jonadab, David’s nephew, as “a very shrewd man” (v.3). Jonadab knew before both the rape of Tamar, and the murder of Amnon, something of the possible outcomes. Initially the “friend” (v.3) of Amnon, Jonadab was also aware of Absalom’s conspiracy against him. When King David hears the initial news, that there has been a slaughter, that“not one [of the king’s sons] is left” (v.30), Jonadab is able to explain to him, that “…only Amnon is dead” (v.33).

What can we learn from these three tragic Old Testament examples?

Firstly, we are instructed that every father has authority from God to “manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity” (I Tim.3:4). This is effectively a New Testament rendition of God’s command to Abraham (Gen.18:19).

Job, who probably lived in Abraham’s era, also took his obligations as a father very seriously (Job 1:5). One minister whose views I respect, has written that “by far the majority of church families I know are not protective enough of their children.”[2]This is a critical aspect, if fathers wish to see their family inherit the promises of God. 

Secondly, it is the devil’s classic strategy when attacking a family, to send an evil thought to a weak family member, via a person who appears to be perfectly innocuous. The devil of course, appears to be “an angel of light” (II Cor.11:14). Who would have thought that a demonically inspired serpent in the Garden could have brought down the whole human race, or that Jonadab (David’s own nephew), could have participated in two evil conspiracies, which ended in a rape of one family member and the death of another? Fathers need to be aware of this demonic strategy, and respond accordingly.

Thirdly, sins in the family, may not be a father’s fault; but they are his responsibility. They happen on his watch. A father’s failure to act firmly, decisively and protectively when necessary, can have disastrous consequences in his family. Sin has a remarkable capacity to intrude into the family, the most central place of human activity, as Genesis graphically shows.

Conclusion:

We sometimes make an error in majoring on the sins of commission, such as murder, rape and adultery, sins which are addressed in the Ten Commandments. But sins of omission, which Adam, Lot, Jacob and David committed, can be just as dangerous and deadly, as sins of commission.

Adam’s first error was in not protecting his wife in the garden, from a devious, lying, slanderous interloper. That was an aspect of God’s command to “cultivate and keep it” (Gen.2:15). At a critical point in their families’ development when a crisis was looming, these four men failed to take initiative and act protectively. The Bible warns us that, “Like a trampled spring and a polluted well, is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked”(Prov.25:26).


[1] Ray Sutton, “That You May Prosper,” 1997, p.116.

[2] Dr S. M. Davis, “Changing the Heart of a Rebel,” 1998, p.1.

What Does it Mean, to ‘Train up a Child?’(5)

Taken from, “The Significance of the Godly Family,” 2009.

By Andrew McColl, 13th April, 2021

Deuteronomy: An Analysis of two Chapters:

Deuteronomy, chapters 6 and 11 expand on God’s promises to Abraham. They have many similarities to those promises, and the two chapters are similar to each other. Time has moved on since Abraham; perhaps 500-550 years, but God, being the Unchanging One, has kept His covenant with Abraham, as He promised. Now, He is speaking through Moses, to the group of 2 to 3 million people, who are Abraham’s descendants. They are ready if they’ll obey to be the recipients of God’s promises, made originally to their forefather Abraham, in Genesis 18.

Six significant words are used repetitively in Deuteronomy 6 and 11. A close analysis of these words is critical to understand God’s purpose in educating and discipling the children of Israel, and our children today.

“Teach” is used 3 times, “listen,” 4 times, “sons,” 7 times, “possess” or “dispossess,” 7 times, and “land,” 19 times. The word “command” (or “commandments” or “commanding” or “commanded”) is used 26 times, whilst “Lord” is used 33 times.

From an educational and a discipleship point of view (education and discipleship being subjects I consider inseparable), it could be said that these are the six most important words in these two chapters, about education.

Drawing on the use of these 6 words, we can construct a one sentence summary of the two chapters, which reflects and explains God’s educational purpose for His people, at all times:

   Teach your sons the Lord’s commandments, so they can possess the land.

Abbreviated further, we could say:  Education is for possession.

We can now make a summary:

The Bible teaches us, that

a) God had given revelatory words within the family, to the person He had chosen to be in authority-the father.

b) These words are in the form of authoritative instructions and commands, from God.

c) Obedience to those words leads to life, blessing and dominion.

d) God expects the father to faithfully represent Him.

V. Education in Psalms and Proverbs:

A) Without wishing to deal in an in-depth way with either of these books, the Book of Proverbs is substantially a book of a father’s instructions to his son, the father being designated by God as the primary instructor. Once again, it is parents who are designated as God’s choice, to educate their children.

43 times, Proverbs uses the word “son,”and on 20 of these occasions, the even more personal term, “My son,” is employed. Perhaps the most important thing a father is to teach his children, is the fear of the Lord (see Ps.34:9-11).

B) The mother’s role in the education of her children, is clearly stated (see Proverbs 1:8; 6:20; 31:1, 26). The bride in the Song of Solomon, said to her husband, “I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother, who used to instruct me” (Song of Sol.8:2). The family is thus the primary place of instruction.

C) Psalms and Proverbs warn us that one of the most destructive things to do to any young person, is to let them be in the company of fools (see Ps.1:1-3; Prov.13:20; 22:24-25). The Bible doesn’t merely warn of the potential of bad consequences; it predicts them as being an inevitable result.

Furthermore, Ps.106:34-39 is a history lesson on the children of Israel, explaining Israel’s steps down into idolatry. Having failed to destroy the peoples as the Lord commanded them, they then “mingled with the nations, and learned their practices, and served their idols”(v.35). Like the children of Israel, childrens’ association with others subjects them to the influence of others, leading to the formation of habits, and to lasting character change. Socialisation can be of a positive or negative nature.

The Christian person doesn’t doubt that socialisation for children is important, for the scripture says, “He that walks with wise men will be wise…” (Prov.13:20). Socialisation is essential. The critical factors are,“With who?” and “For what purpose?” The Bible clearly teaches us here, that Christian children gain no benefit in mixing with ungodly people, whose values are qualitatively different to theirs. The consequences will be damaging, and sometimes irreparable:“…the companion of fools will suffer harm.” A person’s moral environment (as Lot discovered, to his lasting pain) is of great importance.

A survey presented in 2001 in the U. S. showed that within two years of graduating from high school, between 70% and 88% of teenagers from evangelical families stop attending church.[1]

As one writer indicated,“all too many churchmen view the undisciplined and amoral products of statist education as evidences of the failure of these schools. On the contrary, they are evidences of their success.”[2]


[1] Bruce Shortt, “The Harsh Truth about Government Schools,” 2004, p.51.

[2] Rushdoony, quoted in Shortt, p.57.