The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The topic of Anarchism is typically associated with notions of rebellion and agitation which tend to bring to mind the feelings of hard-nosed masculinity, destructive power and societal chaos. This might have something to do with the fact that is the inclination of those under ‘a strong delusion‘ to believe that anarchism is lawlessness, and so they muddy word meanings and make crooked the way to ‘salvation.’

True anarchism, complete in ideology, is not chaotic or exclusively summed up in masculine power, but thrives upon a nurturing, self-sacrificial spirit that is very commonly manifested in women: with wives, and with mothers. Anarchism without the assistance most easily associated with a feminine or meek spirit does not create or care for a free society. It does not love its neighbor unto a cooperatively prosperous society. However, despite these misconceptions about anarchist philosophy, one thing should be made distinctly clear: Women are the first vessels of society. Society is born out of a womb of a woman, and without women, there is no society. It has no life. In an anarchist society, a free society, a righteous woman’s sacred job rests upon the weightier matters of society, like health, education, and welfare.

Free women, not outsourcing their responsibilities to human civil government fulfill many necessary roles in the support of the family, and therefore the strengthening of society. They are the primary healthcare practitioners in a free world. Experts in chemistry, they are responsible for the nutrition of their families as deft dieticians that nurture and empower society through holistic wellness. They are the primary teachers, knowledgeable educators, building up future productive members of a free society in matters of arithmetic, history, theology, and various other subjects; the most important being ethics and virtue. Free women are proficient examples of welfare, sacrificing their lives for the betterment of husbands and children, expressing the very image of tireless service and diligence.

FreeSocietiesRighteousMothers
(Link)

The virtue of a free wife even includes testing the mettle of her husband, compelling him to rise to the occasion of being a provider, husband, father, and leader. As they are lawfully one flesh, she provides him with the reinforcement towards his headship, being a servant to his coverture, meekly attending to the affairs of the family.

‘…the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.’ (Blackstone [1769])

This notion of coverture is often revealed in Scripture as ‘covering’, the word being used to refer to delegating authority and receiving protection. Coverture was often expressed through various imagery and metaphors, especially in mentions of clothing. Going out from under delegated authority and its inherent protection was sometimes described as being naked. The New Testament describes the covering a man has over his wife idiomatically as long hair, and uses the metaphor of short hair to describe a woman without a lawful covering, calling it a shame unto her. The reason why man had lawful representation over his wife in a patriarchal free society was to serve as a protection over the weaker vessel, to manage the affairs of their estate, and to be lawfully regarded as both leader and provider of the family. When this political relationship was compromised, society was in danger of no longer being free.

‘And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ (Mark 10:8-9)

‘Husband and Wife are considered one person in law.’ (Coke, Litt. 112; Jenk. Cent. Cas. 27.)

‘A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband.’ (Coke, 3d Inst. 108.)

‘All things which are the wife’s belong to the husband.’ (Coke, Litt. 299.)

Uncommon in modern society, which is corrupted by the distractions afforded in seeking or relying upon bureaucratic authoritative structures and positions, women endeavoring to be free have no need to exercise authority over their neighbors or usurp the roles of their husbands. This is because they are already daughters of a King whose Spirit writes his law on the hearts and minds of other freemen after having freed them from the need of human rulers and therefore the repercussions of contentious women who seek to use sinful society to exercise bureaucratic authority. The great progress of free women, in addition to the paramount roles of helpmeets and mothers, is that of moral suasion. To declare their King’s decrees and explain his ordinances and to simply call the culture to repent unto his kingdom is authority enough for free women. Even the authority of this Great Commission is ultimately one of encouragement: nurturing the lost to be proper citizens of God’s Kingdom.

In a worldly, broken society, one characterized by human civil government, women commonly attempt to usurp their husband’s equity, endeavoring to remain separate, legal persons who no longer serve the family, but rather serve the human civil government through employment, or voluntary indentured servitude. They give up their roles to be the family’s educator, healthcare practitioner, and welfare agent to the corrupted system intrinsic to human civil government, which rely on the forced contributions of the people. In giving up God for the civil authority of false gods, they are given over to a debased mind where they tend to become loud, boisterous, and even endeavor to be masculine, giving up the nature of God for the weaker vessel, and taking up the nature of the Adversary by rejecting the Holy Spirit’s calling. In an effort to become equal with men, they find an equal share with them in bondage, completely dissolving the family unit in a deathblow of selfish ambition.

However, the Son of God who re-rights the wrong order of society sets repentant women free of their former covetous ambitions and restores them to the liberty inherent in a righteous society built from the bottom up by righteous gender roles, does so by His Gospel which maintains the power, not only to restore common sense to women who have been given over to a debased mind in chasing idolatrous political endeavors, but also restores the people to their original glory of being made in God’s image, which excercises true dominion over the earth instead of each other.

Read more about Biblical gender roles here.

girly AHA
(Link)

Why be Evangelical?

Why be Evangelical?

As the first tenet of Abolitionist ideology, we understand the importance of preaching the Kingdom of Heaven at hand, hoping to persuade men unto repentance and faith so that they may partake in the congregations of the Lord.

To be evANGELical is to be God’s ‘messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God’. The Great Commission, though mostly ignored and twisted by professing Christians today, is a perfect example of what it means to be evangelical.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Any consistent approach to liberty will be one that honors God’s order of creation and pays homage to the truths with which he has blessed us. In discussing the civil bondage that man makes for himself and his neighbor can only be regarded through a lens of sin and repentance and how they relate to judgment and faith. The lofty discussions about human civil government, political action, taxation, non-aggression principles, and any other bulwark against liberty must be from a Biblical worldview and a Christian perspective. This is because human civil government is a sin issue and the road to liberty is a repentance issue, characterized by obedience to God.

ChristianConfrontationSchaeffer
(Link)

This is not to say that humanists and secularists are unable recognize the wickedness of being mastered by their fellow man. Surely God making upright, those made in his image still gives those who reject him the ability to recognize common sense truth, but the fact is that they cannot account for that truth and have no ideological framework on which to interpret it. This is also why it is the rejection of God which leads men to recognize the truths of liberty but wholly reject them in order to form the bonds of human civil government. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God, He gives them up to a debased mind. When they have a debased mind, they will fail to keep his commands. When they fail to keep his commands, they soon disregard social virtues, fail in keeping the Sabbath, dishonor their fathers and mothers, and eventually chase after other gods for provision and protection, which will enslave them into the Egyptian bondage that we all find ourselves in today.

It has exclusively been on behalf of God’s nature and desires for his creation that famous men in the Bible have liberated their neighbors from bondage or warned them against the dangers of rejecting God from their worldviews. Abraham rescued civil citizens from the yokes of Ur and Haran. Moses liberated the Israelites from the covenants they made with EgyptGideon refuses the voice of the people to have him rule over them. Samuel refuses to give the people a king, then warns them of the consequences for their sin. Nehemiah makes friends of the unrighteous mammon, then secures the freedom of the Israelites and moves them away from human rulers. John the Baptist condemned the political bondage of the Pharisees to Herod and Caesar while overseeing the conversion of many into a kingdom of freemen. Jesus Christ himself refused to subject that kingdom to the Pax Romana and established a nation for freefolk who keep his perfect law of liberty.

Even though the subjects of bondage and liberty can be over-complicated and muddied from secular points of view by economists, political affiliates, and humanistic presuppositions, they ultimately and firmly rest on two theological propositions:

  1. The imago Dei gives man a certain nobility that, when maintained, prevents him from being ruled over by other men. When God gave to Mankind the Dominion Mandate, establishing his prerogative to subdue the earth, fellow image bearers of God were not included in that subjugation.
  2. The God-man himself, stepped down into the darkness of human civil society to establish a kingdom in order to liberate man from the dominion of man, including the sins that lead them into that bondage. Jesus Christ, the king of Judea, became like us in all things, humbling his sovereignty in order to provide an example for his disciples to follow while having a name for which they can make appeal in order to live as free souls under God. Read more about this here.
All Must Be Told
(Link)

The reason why worldviews in competition with Christianity cannot consistently provide a framework for a free society is because they invariably presuppose the validity of the principles that necessitate a free society while simultaneously rejecting the very foundation for those principles. The worldview of the humanists, ‘atheists’, nihilists, and postmodernists contain the tenets of subjective morality, exclusive materialism or naturalism, and the idea that all beliefs must rely on observational evidence in order to be valid. The reasons for all of these tenets are intrinsically related, and that is because they each conveniently rule out the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible in a childish pretense of forcing their debate opponents to intellectually disarm themselves in a sort of philosophical socialism. They attempt to penalize Christians for the natural advantage that their worldview affords them in contrast to the slothful and covetous worldview of those who reject the existence of God. This is only one reason why (we will use a general term) ‘modern atheism’ is directly related to socialism. It insists upon professing Christians disqualifying their own worldview in order to operate on an even playing field with the pseudo-worldview of professing atheists.

Professing atheists tend to claim that the reason that morality is subjective (while also ejaculating that ‘the God of the Bible is immoral‘) is because, they might say, ‘nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective.’ However, the real motivation behind this tenet is more along the lines that, if there were a source of objective morality that established right from wrong for all mankind, then they would necessarily have to deal with the conviction and shame of rebelling against that standard. Pretending that morality is subjective (even while hypocritically declaring liberty to be an objectively good notion) is the integrous equivalent of a petulant child pretending to not hear his mother’s scolding over his deliberate misbehavior. The tenet is nothing more than the practice of putting their fingers in their ears and their head in the sand. However, there is one sense in that morality is subjective: Either it is subjected to the arbiter of the objective standards for morality (a just and righteous God), or it is subjected to the debased mind that a just and righteous God gives men over to when they refuse to be ruled by Him. In the case of the latter subjugation, those men invariably eventually are themselves subjected to the false gods of human civil government who promise to reflect the ‘subjective morality’ of the majority of the people through democracy, but always just tend to reflect the end result of such a worldview: corrupted, tyrannical, covetous, violent, and oppressive. Man cannot be good without God. Those who try, raise up men to be gods over them. The beliefs of professing atheists contradict their worldview, more often than not. They will habitually and incessantly make claims about morality. Some right. Most wrong. They may express condemnation over a pedophile or a rapist, citing that ‘consent’ should be the standard for sexual acts. And while they are mostly correct in that assertion (they would also wrongly assert that voluntary intercourse in the context of exclusive matrimony between two polarized genders is not the standard) they cannot account for that standard without appealing to some ultimately arbitrary presupposition. They know right from wrong, often lie about that knowledge, and do not know why they have that knowledge.

Professing atheists also tend to claim that the reason why naturalism is the superior worldview is because it automatically discounts ‘magical skydaddies who grant wishes and perform miracles and demand your blind belief’ and asserts that ‘only natural and physical processes such as evolutionism operate in the universe and account for all of existence’ or something to that effect. The actual reason why professing atheists must reduce themselves to a materialistic worldview is because the existence an immaterial Creator who is not contingent to the Universe would require their acknowledgment and a complete overhaul of their lifestyles to conform to His majesty and power. It is much more convenient to dismiss this reality in order to commit to their selfish lifestyles and self-will. The irony of the kind of debased mind that asserts that the world is naturalistic and that God does not exist is that it also presupposes and takes for granted concepts that it cannot account for. In order to elevate the scientific method, professing atheists presuppose truth while rejecting the idea that absolute truth exists. This is because the material world is always changing or ‘evolving’ and if truth is materialistic then it must also be subject to change. This does not prevent them from ever making truth claims in their hypocrisy, however, even though they cannot account for truth in a materialistic worldview where entropy is the dominating force. Professing atheists do tend to imagine themselves to be logical, but do not assert that logic is universal to all men, but is, like morality, relative. This necessarily means that they must consistently believe that contradictions in logic are acceptable, or that logic can change, or that it is made of matter, but you will be hard-pressed to find one that will admit it. Because that would mean they could never rely on logic in any meaningful way and that their entire worldview is simultaneously logical and illogical from moment to moment and from person to person because then reality would have to be subjective and they would have no reason not to imagine themselves to be lost in an absurd twilight of confusion with no substantial meaning or conceivable purpose. All the same, they refuse to admit that logic is universal, unchanging, and immaterial because they would have to try to account for these factors without appealing to a universal, unchanging and immaterial God which is impossible and self-refuting. No doubt, most of them are more willing to admit that they could be programs in the Matrix, nothing more than a disembodied brain in a vat running simulations, or a floating port-a-potty in space dreaming of their everyday lives, than they are willing to repent, come to their senses and admit that God must exist and that they are just more comfortable pretending that He doesn’t so they can think and act how they desire.

Lastly, professing atheists assert that the reason why only observational evidence is an acceptable standard for truth claims is that ‘Christians believe in the “god of the gaps“. The more scientific study that occurs, the fewer gaps there are, the less reason one has to put their blind faith in the existence of God. I only believe in something if the evidence supports it.’ Naturally, the real reason should be obvious. If God is immaterial because he is spirit, then resorting to a tenet of exclusively observational evidence of physical criteria would conveniently rule out God’s existence by narrowly defining it to exclude him. In essence, ‘God does not exist because he does not fit into the arbitrary rules I have made to examine the universe because I do not want him to exist.’ So, while on the surface the ideas that: all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and that beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated, appear to be rational and logical, they are anything but. Professing atheists must have ultimate standards for determining the validity of evidence for their beliefs, and no doubt they would appeal to whether the evidences have been falsified by other observers, but ultimately they must appeal to their own reasoning to determine whether those conclusions are valid. And what do they appeal to in order to determine that their reasoning is valid to make that determination? Their own reasoning, of course. A worldview contingent upon entirely observational evidence is necessarily tautological and absurd for the same reason subjective reasoning is both the crux and the condemnation of a godless worldview. When the reason why you know something is true is because you trust your own powers of reasoning, then you are ultimately only ever supporting yourself with yourself. What you believe is valid because you say so because you say so because you say so… The irony is that everybody intrinsically knows that God exists.

The professing Christian, equipped with the integrity to assert that an immaterial, unchanging, and universal God who is not contingent upon the physical universe (which has a point of origin that cannot be observationally evident, by definition) exists, has a starting point to consistently recognize truth, and morality, and logic, and reason. That necessarily includes recognizing that only the truth claims found in the Bible are consistent and ultimate. Not just with itself in a logical framework to understand various physical sciences from cosmology, to archeology, to molecular biology, to history, but also to understand political science and why men go under the civil authority of ruling men, how to get them out again, and just what makes mankind special enough to be eligible for that kind of redemption.

A materialistic worldview cannot account for these things without being entirely arbitrary and literally whimsical. Only a Christian worldview has the ability and integrity not to just consistently prescribe a righteous and free society, or condemn an unrighteous and enslaved society, or actively liberate man from the dominion of man, but it also expresses the reason why those who reject God as their authority, find themselves under the dominion of Benefactors who exercise authority.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [man-made institutions] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.’ (Romans 1:18-25)

All of scripture either describes and warns against the way to bondage and death or prescribes and instructs the way to liberty and life. These are not just hyperspiritual concepts that have little to no impact in this life. The jurisdiction of Heaven is not just a place awaiting dead men or some second coming of Christ. Hell is not just a punitive reality for unrepentant deceased sinners. These paths are taken while you are alive and their destinations are likewise experienced by the living; their choices determining ultimate fate.

And this is why the subjects of bondage and liberty are concerned with the Gospel of God, which must be preached, not out of man’s wisdom which so often perverts the truth and makes victims out of sinners, but from the perspective of God who desires that every man repent before he be redeemed unto liberty and new life.

Inscription-Proscription-Prescription-Redemption
(Link)

The Incarnation of Christ

The Incarnation of Christ

The almighty creator of all things once tabernacled himself into a limited flesh-and-bone existence to become like mankind in order to redeem mankind, the pride of all his creation, from their own machinations and corruptions of his original intended purpose for that flesh and bone. The Son of God, whose divine existence was not even limited to the jurisdiction of Space-Time, became the Son of Man and subjected himself to human ideas about socio-political jurisdictions, in order to navigate them in perfection and to conquer them in the gambit of sacrifice, never compromising his role as the humbled God-man and servant-King.

NoKingButChrist
(Link)

He was conceived into the house of David both in accordance with the flesh through his mother’s lineage, and in accordance with the law through adoption by his legal father’s lineage. Before he was born, he skirted the Massacre of the Innocents, decreed by the ethnarch Herod Archelaus who recognized Christ as the prophesied, rightful King over the lands allotted to Archelaus by the imperialism of Rome under Caesar Augustus, and therefore threatening the hard-won political and social dominion won by Archelaus’ father, Herod the Great. Mary and Joseph had fled with Christ to Egypt, one of the most significant nations in Israel’s history where God’s people, ever the unfaithful fornicators, subjected themselves under the jurisdiction of Pharaoh who promised to feed them and house them and give them religious liberty if they subjected themselves to Pharaoh’s laws of the land and decrees such as federal taxes and injunctions to abort their children at the time of Moses’ birth. It is fitting that Christ must flee the land where He came to play savior to the people and revisits the land where Moses played savior to the people.

For the 25th anniversary of the reign of Caesar Augustus, Joseph and Mary were recalled to Bethlehem for the celebrations honoring the emperor by naming him the Father of the Country (pater patriae) and to enroll themselves in the special census that was decreed. This sort of fealty to Commander-in-Chiefs would later be proscribed by Christ who instructs us to ‘call no man Father’.

‘The year 2 B.C. marked the 25th anniversary of Caesar Augustus’s rule and the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Huge celebrations were planned. The whole empire was at peace. The doors of the temple of Janus were closed for only the third time in Roman history. To honor their emperor, the people were to rise as one and name him pater patriae, or Father of the Country. This enrollment, described in the Book of Luke, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, has always been a mystery since no regular census occurred at this time. But the pater patriae enrollment fits perfectly.’ (The Star of Bethlehem by Crag Chester, Imprimis D 96 Hillsdale College)

When Christ began his ministry to redeem his usurped Judean Kingdom, he was sure to be baptized into the Kingdom of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the exclusion of all other kingdoms of this world, especially the one provided by Herod Antipas, brother to Archelaus. This refusal to fraternize with or throw his citizenship into the nations of this world is the most basic, fundamental aspect of what we call Christianity. Understanding the sin of serving magistrates and rendering unto ‘Caesar’ that which is God’s, through social welfare or compacts, contracts, and covenants, Christ chose to rather be the savior of the people and see them baptized into his Kingdom rather than the New Deal provided by Herod or the New World Order provided by Rome. The Pharisees, however, had no scruples against partaking in the economic prosperity, political influence, or the religious freedom provided by the ‘Benefactors who exercised authority’ over flesh and bone.

These Pharisees (and Scribes) were quick to accumulate wealth through Corbantemple taxes and money-changing, inspiring our servant-king to ceremoniously federal employees, terminating their positions and taking the Kingdom away from those who would have political affiliation with governments ordained by men and who, in the spirit of reconstruction, would call this affiliation ‘the Kingdom of Heaven.’ Christ would then turn this government over to those who would remain servants of the people because, the law of God that was written on their hearts prevented them from aspiring to become legislators, congressmen, and heads of State, thereby securing their religion to remain pure and undefiled.

These religious leaders would then appeal to the magistrate, to Rome, to kill Christ and squash his growing Kingdom. Christ could have appealed to Rome to investigate his legitimate claim to the throne of Judea, and they undoubtedly would have found his claim to be true and supportable, but this would have irresponsibly placed whatever political and jurisdictional victory won under the dominion of the authority-exercising Benefactors to which he made appeal. History, as exampled by the Hasmoneans, would surely have been repeated. Instead Christ chose, not to go the way of the pagan, or the way Israel did all throughout history, exchanging their freedoms and responsibilities for the outsourcing lethargy of captivity, but subjected himself to the ‘higher power’ and thus fulfilled the perfect law of liberty. He was unjustly put to death, both as an innocent man and as the rightful King of Judea, and His Creation. But, in the gambit of sacrifice, he secured to himself all those who would obey his commandments and remain free souls under God, thereby winning for all his Ambassadors the Kingdom for which they are anticipating.

To be adopted into Christ’s Kingdom means to forsake all other kingdoms, becoming a royal priesthood that serves mankind through a generous love that sets them free from the bondage of this world, teaching them to forsake the rudiments of the tree that bears no fruit. The Gospel necessarily plucks men from these jurisdictions of man that lead to damnation and places them in the jurisdiction of God that leads to life.

It is the life, death, resurrection, and work of Christ that make it possible for those who endeavor to become free men to have a living and reigning king to justify seeking the kingdom of liberty that he provided. It is for this reason why his incarnation serves as one of two theological principles that warrants and demands our action and message.

ElectMagistrates
(Link)

The Ideology of Abolitionism

The Ideology of Abolitionism

The word ‘ergon‘ appears 169 times in the Bible.

ERGON. Strong’s Number: 2041 ~ἔργον~  from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work)

Definition
  1. business, employment, that which any one is occupied
    1. that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
  2. any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
  3. an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opposition to that which is less than work

Of those 169 instances, ‘ergon’ is translated ‘works’ or ‘work’ 96 times, and ‘deeds’ or ‘deed’ 65 times. Because Abolitionism is a natural outworking of Biblical values, it is necessary to calculate this word in a Scriptural context. From the book of James: ‘For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.’

Tozer
(Link)

In addition to endeavoring to maintain a consistent orthodoxy and doctrinal stance towards understanding Scripture, Abolitionists also rely heavily on applying that scripture in their daily lives through a principled orthopraxy (works) towards Abolition which is properly defined and repeated by abolitionists of human bondage: the liberation of man from the dominion of man

“…from the thraldom of self, from the government of brute force, from the bondage of sin—and bringing [people] under the dominion of God, the control of an inward spirit, the government of the law of love, and into the obedience and liberty of Christ.” (William Lloyd Garrison. The Liberator1837.)

“Henry C. Wright stated the ruling principle even more clearly: ‘God, and God alone, has a right of dominion over man; and he has never delegated this right to another… Men, women or children never should be subjected, in any kind or degree, to the will of man… A desire to hold dominion over man is rebellion against God… The moment a man claims a right to control the will of a fellow human being by physical force, he is at heart a slaveholder.'” (American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Ira Chernus.

These principles and ideas are included in the core message of the Bible because, as John Wycliffe so accurately stated, the ‘Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.‘ Because the message of Scripture repeatedly expresses the moral opinion that man’s dominion over man is a sinful and deleterious concept, and that mankind was created to be free souls under God, then it is necessary that Scripture also conveys a practical approach and ideological framework in order to propagate and enact this moral opinion. It is the beacon of Abolitionism that professes to possess this ideology, and this is so that abolitionists can remain morally upright as we confront a lost and dying culture in bondage and endeavor to secure lost sheep to the Kingdom of Heaven so that they may become those free souls under God. In other words, Abolitionists recognize five principles from Scripture that guide their works, or ERGON:

Abolitionists are Evangelical. This is not to say that Abolitionists subscribe to the movement of evangelicalism, but rather are evangelists, relying on a Biblical worldview and by the power of God’s Spirit in order to make their remonstrance towards a lost and sinful people. Their apologetic is not one of humanism or secularism. Their attempts at moral suasion are decidedly Christian, like the early apostles who preached to the public in the synagogues and marketplaces that the Kingdom of God is at hand. They preach repentance from sin, recognizing that sin is what leads us to bondage.

Abolitionists are Reliant on Providence. Because the Creator of the Universe blesses a virtuous people who endeavor to be ruled by God’s spirit, our actions must reflect stark obedience, wholly rejecting the morally-suspended pragmatism of those who believe that the ends justify the means, or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Abolitionists must operate righteously, having graceful speech seasoned with salt, walking by faith and not by their own understanding. Duty is ours. The results belong to God. (Psalm 20:7, Psalm 33:16-22, Isaiah 33:1)

Abolitionists are Gospel-Centered. Men cannot rescue themselves from bondage, but must be delivered by a Redeemer who chose to purchase them by laying down his life for those who denied him. This is the good news for all of those who choose to repent and believe on Jesus the Christ, claiming no king or master but him. Without the Gospel, there would be no foundation on which to untangle the machinations of men against their own liberty, nor would there be a means to forsake the rudiments of the world in favor of the Bread of Life.

Abolition is the Obligation of every professing Christian. Every soul that recognizes God as his creator and giver of laws has a duty to make manifest his ordination to be salt and light, preaching repentance among every civil institution of man to the ends of the earth, baptizing the repentant unto the Kingdom of God, and discipling them to hate evil and to love good, expose the unfruitful works of darkness, and to demolish arguments raised up against the knowledge of the truth. Every believer has a role to play and a work to do. Loving your neighbor as yourself means holding them back as they stumble towards the slaughter.

Hyperbolically, abolition must happen Now. The immediatism of repentance is diametrically opposed to the incremental slippery slope characterized by the gradual nature of increasing sin and bondage. Mere belief in the salvific teachings of Christ while remaining apathetic and lukewarm about your obligation to seek His Kingdom and live out those teachings is the essence of having faith without works. It is the essence of death, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness in the Valley of Dry Bones. Additionally, the Biblical injunction towards immediatism is contradicted by the compromising, deal-making, approaches of the worldly-minded characterized by ‘incrementalism’. Incrementalism looks for ways to ‘take what we can get’ in regards to liberty. It may look like Constitutionalism, and endeavor to hold magistrates to the standard of some interpretation of the Constitution, regarding some perceived infraction or policy as ‘unconstitutional’ and seeking to restore our quality of life to the intentions pursued by the framers of a piece of paper. Incrementalism may also look like enthusiasm for ‘States’ Rights’, where political power is to be shifted from the central authority of the United States Government to the individual states, creating not just one Benefactor who exercises authority, but fifty. Of course, the abolition of human archism cannot be applied by incrementalist schemes of men that rely on compromising with the idea of ruling over each other in order that a little perceived liberty can be obtained. Abolitionists recognize this compromise as short-sighted faithlessness that competes directly with the plan of salvation that Christ the King established for his faithful followers. Incrementalism can only ever further entrench bondage in a culture of bondage, while having a deceitful illusion of progress. Much like hitting rubber with a hammer, or running on a treadmill. Incrementalism mistakes motion for action, which results in death for someone struggling against the quagmire and quicksand of human civil government.

In applying these five principles, Abolitionists further their ideology and the cause of Christ by using two modes:

Agitation is the destruction of speculations, the undermining of misinformation, the awakening of the apathetic, and the unsettling of the indifferent. The tepid, putrid waters of a lethargic culture must be agitated in order to stir up the comfortable indiscretions and expose the filthy idolatry in the hearts and minds of men. The unfruitful works of darkness must be brought to the surface, so that new life can be introduced by way of the Gospel of God.

Assistance is the provision of an alternative Kingdom to the bureaucracies of man. Abolitionists seek to love their neighbor as themselves and lay down their lives for their friends. In providing a daily ministration to care for the least of these, adopting fatherless, cursed children into the family of God, and ministering to the widows in true and undefiled religion, Abolitionists seek to take back their responsibilities towards social virtues in order to build a networked adhocracy that lasts from generation to generation.

“…wherever it took shape, abolitionism was both a meditation and a movement: a meditation on “big ideas” about freedom and equality and a complex movement of people, organizations, and events designed to bring those ideas to fruition. Abolitionism was a social movement—an activist struggle akin to the twentieth-century civil rights movement—that focused on political and social agitation.” (Abolitionism: A Very Short Introduction. Richard S. Newman)

Ideology&Modes
(Link)

Honor the Military?

Honor the Military?

When people tell me that I should ‘honor the military’ because American troops are guaranteeing my freedom, dying for my liberties, and allowing me the right to express whatever opinion I want, these are the thoughts that come to mnd:

The last war fought on American soil was the Civil War. The last time America was invaded was during the War of 1812. If the liberties of this nation have ever been in question since then, it has not been from foreign aggressors. Besides, this nation can no longer afford me anything. Not liberty. Not freedom of speech. Nothing. The American nation, like most every other nation on the planet is in fiscal and moral bankruptcy. This might probably have something to do with excessive spending in sending armed forces overseas to die for some opiate farms and some oil for business tycoons, all the while our real liberties are being squandered away by our own sloth, covetousness and bureaucratic oppression. The draft has even been expanded to cover both sexes in order to compound this reality.

Enduring Freedom
(Link)

So why are American troops really dying? It is not for my freedom. They are dying simply because ‘all who hate God love death.’ The majority of recruits are lost, scared teenagers with little to no direction in life, nor do they have any healthy motivation or identity, due to the fact that they went to public schools, which is due to the fact that both of their parents were full-time employees and could not be there to raise them, which is due to the fact that everybody is in debt, which is due to the fact that everybody is in civil bondage. So, because the parents cannot be around to give their children direction or provide them with a structured worldview, these kids go to where they think they can get direction, structure and even ‘free’ college, housing and maturity: the military, where, if they do not end up dead, they very well likely end up becoming drug-addicted, alcoholic, abusive rapists and degenerates of society who are rewarded with token free shots of alcohol at bars and entitled discounts everywhere else, just because they are enlisted. They have lost their common sense.

American troops do not die for me. They do not die for you. They do not die even for themselves. They die for bureaucrats who consider us all to be expendable property as a recompense for having been wicked our whole lives, coveting our neighbor’s goods, being slothful, and making idols out of death, destruction, and damnation. They die to maintain the status quo, which is slavery. They died for the same reason we all die. Because we hate God and we love false gods.

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots… (1 Samuel 8:10-12)

Military Samuel
(Link)

It does not seem like I get anything at all out of that deal. No freedom. No honor. Nothing. Welcome to the American Dream. But there is good news. God established an alternative society that is worthy of honor because it does offer true liberty established by the voluntary bloodshed of its ruler in order to redeem poor sinners who have been entangled into socialist and militaristic bondage. This precedence is extremely important when contrasting the Kingdom of God (characterized by voluntary self-sacrifice) against the bloodthirsty kingdoms of the world (characterized by compelled human sacrifices).

In an attempt to politicize lip service to lofty ideals, false god Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, gives patriotic sentiment for the dead soldiers that he had press-ganged into his imperialist military. He had sacrificed their lives so ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth‘. The government he is speaking of, naturally, is the authoritative United States government that willingly sacrificed the lives of more American combatants (not to mention civilians) during the Civil War than any other American-involved war combined. What should be addressed is that his sentiment is unashamedly plagiarized from a prologue by John Wycliffe in 1384 AD before being martyred on behalf of his convictions regarding human liberty: ‘The Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Which sentiment is true? Which government is in the best interest of ‘the People’? The magistrates of the United States model of government pragmatically sacrifice the lives of their people in bloodshed, in order to preserve their authority at all costs, completely disregarding their professed principles in the process: ‘If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.‘ (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.) The magistrate of the Biblical model of government voluntarily sacrifices himself for his people by unduly submitting himself to the bloodlust of the United States model of government, not to maintain some authoritative power, but to sincerely serve the best interests of his people in a gambit of laying down his own life as a ransom for slaves:

‘If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.’ (John 8:36)

‘It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.’ (Galatian 5:1)

MarcellusTheCenturion
(Link)

The Gospel of Men unto Damnation

The Gospel of Men unto Damnation

‘We must elect good men into office.’

This is the gospel of men who presuppose themselves to be good men and have good desires, whether on the left or the right, or who identify with Libertarianism or with Communism or with Reconstructionism.

‘We must elect good men into office.’

This is the gospel of everyone who has voted, presupposing that the voters of other men were bad men with bad desires, whether on the left or the right, or who identify with Libertarianism or with Communism or with Reconstructionism.

By the only standard of goodness that matters: that of Jesus Christ, the good King of a good kingdom, full of men who want to be good, good men do not run for office and good men do not elect men into office because desiring Benefactors who exercise authority is an objectively bad thing for the exact same reason why men are dissatisfied with their current Benefactors who exercise authority and want to elect different men to rule over their neighbor so they can be satisfied.

Men desire to be ruled over by other men. They love it. They need it. The anarchistic Gospel of God is not foremost one of eradicating ignorance with education, but one of chasing away cobwebs of fear and unrighteousness in dead, dusty, hardened hearts. It is not a lack of knowledge that must be overcome, but the willful sin that darkens and debases men’s minds.

You see, men need their feudalism to feel safe from the unknown, protected from personal failure, insured against invasion or natural disaster, and justified in their sloth and apathy that creates and sustains kingdoms that produce civil slavery and hardened hearts.

Men need constitutions to bind them to the fate of their neighbor, contracting them together in mutual surety for collective debt, walking by sight of guaranteed civil provision, instead of by the faith of God’s Providence; forcing one another to be responsible for each other’s fiat prosperity, enslaving each other for their mutual want of forced benefits: those sacrifices with the blood of struggle in them.

Men need rulers to perform their social virtues for them through a bureaucratic Corban, taking care of their neighbor through social welfare schemes and government services in their sloth, and taking care of themselves through the application of benefits in their covetousness. Men want to be able to break the Sabbath, resting now to work it off later, borrowing against the future so they can fail to even pay back the interest, much less the principle.

They need to eat at the tables and banks of rulers, wiping their mouths, saying they have done no wrong, pretending as though they did not just take a bite out of their fellows slaves.

Men are chained to that table by their own rejection of God and the personal responsibilities that come with His Gospel of Freemen under righteousness. Men reject the opportunity to walk by faith in an adhocracy of freewill association, taking care of each other through exclusive charity instead of taxation, and praying for daily bread through hope, instead of socialist entitlement.

AnotherChrist
(Link)

This is not so much an ignorance issue as it is a conflict of interest issue, because when the ignorance is confronted and the light is revealed, the men in bondage often scurry back into the darkness, defending the protection of their cage, safeguarding their illusions of statism more desperately than their illusions over any other thing, even including the subjects of abortion and apathy towards abortion. They are as tenacious as ancient Israel, chasing after the dainties of Pharaoh or other foreign gods, rejecting God’s Providence, and binding themselves by social contracts rather than by love.

The hearts of men are full of hatred, cowardice, sloth, and covetousness. Likewise, it leads them into the civil traps that God has always called slavery, leading to their own destruction, damnation, and economic collapse. Try and educate those hearts about the alternative Kingdom of Heaven that liberates man from the dominion of man, and being unregenerate, they will play dead, as is custom in the Valley of Dry Bones. But some may see their error, come alive and begin loving their neighbor as themselves, walking in repentance, and seek the literal, jurisdictional, alternative Kingdom that is built upon the rock and bound together in love, forgiveness, and life and lasts from generation to generation.

Bankrupt bureaucracies are installed by Christless men as a by-product of the socialism in their hearts, but they are used by God to bring judgement on those depraved men through the heavy legal and financial burdens of governments in debt.

Electing men into authoritative office is a wicked work. Authoritative office invariably takes taxes to work. In this way, authoritative office is a terror to wicked works. This is why you pay taxes, to teach you to cry out to God in repentance.

Do not put your faith in false gods, human rulers, fathers of the earth, and Benefactors who exercise authority. Be good men. Obey the gospel of good men. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand; the Kingdom that does not depend on taxation or Benefactors who exercise authority, but depends solely on charity redistributed by pastors who do not exercise authority, but serve the people in a way that emulates their good King, binding them by their voluntary servanthood, in a kingdom bound in voluntary faith, hope, and love.

BankruptBureaucracies
(Link)

The Kosmos of Heaven vs The Kosmos of Rome

The Kosmos of Heaven vs The Kosmos of Rome

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God instituted one while men, in rebellion to God, form the other through sloth, through covetousness, through contracts, compacts, covenants, and constitutions, or through some combination of the lot.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is not based on the appearance of civil government mimicking some cursory reading of the Laws of God. The difference is not based on fulfilling some reconstructionist or theonomic agenda to invade the power centers in some cycle of abuse no different than the plot to George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is whether or not it has Benefactors who exercise authority, Fathers of the Earth, false gods (judges, rulers and magistrates); or whether it has benefactors who do not exercise authority but become bondservants in redistributing the freewill offerings of the people who have real equity and allodium rather than legal titles found in human civil government. Commonly known as pastors, shepherds, and ministers.

TwoFaiths
(Link)

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God institutes one for men who want to be free souls under God, not slothful or covetous, but diligent and charitable in a New Testament networked adhocracy.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God allows one as a punishment for the evil doer who refuses to keep God’s commands and instead sells his brother into corvee bondage for benefits and bureaucracy transacted for the reciprocal justice of, as the Apostle Paul puts it, taxation.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is simply the details surrounding its apt, harmonious arrangement, constitution, order, or structure. One is a bottom-up endeavor that returns every man to his family and property, liberating man from the dominion of man, while one is top-down in its ecclesiology, making merchandise of men in a collective surety for debt, complete with fiat currency in national economies.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that one is on the narrow road that leads to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private property through obeying the Gospel of God in pure religion, while one is on the broad path that leads to destruction, economic collapse, and damnation through obeying the Gospel of Caesar in cannibalistic public religion.

Seek first the Kingdom of Godly civil government.

Kosmos
(Link)