Do We Get Mail?!
(Even our letters have footnotes)
This is our most recent
letters page
Click here to go to more Letters
Romans 13 Is Not Accepted By Catholics
Response to: Plan to Enlist Clergy to Quell Unrest
Romans 13 is not accepted by Catholics as a primary doctrine
that governs their response to government. Catholic groups
frequently contest government policies based on conscience.
In fact, it was Martin Luther's late "doctrine of the two
kingdoms"
that mandated Christian passivity in the face of the authoritarian
state. This is what you might bring to the attention of your
readers,
since Luther resorted to this doctrine only after the peasant
and
sectarian rebellions led to social uprisings and disorders.
Karl
Barth, the 20th century Protestant theologian criticized Luther's
doctrine as having led to the submission of the state church
in
Germany to the Nazi regime.
In fact, giving clergy this role in a state response to disaster,
amounts
to "domesticating" the church in America, and savvy
clerics are aware
of this. Unfortunately, this plan to co-opt religion in service
of the state
will fool many clerics who see it only as a chance to serve the
unfortunate
in a critical situation and to be heard (initially) by the state.
It's a bad bargain for the churches and the people. Religion
has been
described as a "culture of dissent" by prominent scholars
who study it.
Catholic dissidents--most recently in the new sanctuary movement--do
not
inherit Luther's solution to the political disorder spawned by
this theological
reformation. He told his followers that they belong to "the
kingdom of God"
and "the kingdom on earth." They should obey the rulers
who rule by
God's choice, but they should lead exemplary lives because their
souls
would find ultimate rest and redemption in the kingdom of God.
Jean Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Historian of religion (and violence)
Can't Trust the Dems, Plus A Scholar's Comments
on Romans 13
I just read your article on the dangers of dominionism –
good stuff,
greatly enjoyed it, but your championing of the Dems is a bit
disturbing –
by now you may have realised that they are as much under the
sway of
the Madness as the Republicans. You cannot trust any of them
as they
are all in bed with one another.
Look for a cataclysmic event in the next week which will herald
the start
of a wider war in the middle east, and the melt-down of the American
economy – they want to destroy the government by war and
unremittable
debt so that they can take over and institute a totalitarian
state.
The dumb-in-your-nests are simply tools to a wider Machiavellian
end – they became subverted and sequestered by Satan. Remember,
the first rule of warfare is – “Know your enemy”.
And if you want to know what
Romans 13 really means, harmonise
it with John 1. vis:
1. In the beginning [of creation] there was the Manifestation*;
(The essence – the Greco- English rendering is Logos or
“Word” – as in “Your word [is Law] as it
is the expression
of your essence.) And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation.
2. This was in the beginning with God.
3. Everything was within his power*, [otherwise] nothing would
ever exist.*
4. Through him [there] was Life* and Life became the
spark* of humanity
5. And that [ensuing] fire* lights the darkness and darkness
does not overshadow it.
6. There was a man sent by God, his name [was] John [the Baptist.]
7. He came for that testimony, to testify [concerning] the
light,
so that every human [being] may [come] to believe by his [testimony*.]
8. He was not the light, except that he was to testify [concerning]
it*.
9. There was the light of the truth, that which lights everyone who is born*.
Footnotes:
1:1 "Milta," in Aramaic: the essential connotation
for a person or thing.
There is no true English equivalent for this concept.
1:3 Literal Aramaic idiom [Lit. Ar. id.]: "[In his] hand."
1:3.2 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: "And without his
hand, not one
[thing that] became would have become."
1:4.1 "Lives," whenever it represents: "life everlasting"
is stated
in the plural. When used in this sense it will always be capitalized
in
this translation and appear as "Life."
1:4.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Light."
1:5 Lit. Ar. id.: "Light."
1:7 Lit. Ar. id.: "Hand."
1:8 Lit. Ar. id.: "The light."
1:9.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "Gives Life to."
1:9.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Comes to [people, or] the universe."
So Romans 13 can be Read as Follows:
1. Every soul is subject to a higher power, for there is no
power
that is not designated by God. And the powers that are instituted,
are under God's commandment.
2. Therefore, whoever rises against this power, is rising up
against
God. And those who rise against them, receive judgment.
3. For judges are not feared by those who perform good deeds,
except [by those who perform] evil deeds. Do you wish not to
be
afraid of power? Perform good deeds and you will receive praises.
4. For this service is for God, except for you it is to perform
good
deeds. But if you do evil, then be afraid. For the sword is not
carried
for nothing, for [the one who wields] it is a servant of God,
and the
instrument of wrath to those who perform evil.
5. This is why we are forced to submit, not in anticipation of
wrath
alone, except due to our conscience also.
Do you see what I mean? Add Romans 8 & 9 as well –
8:20. For creation worshipped emptiness, not by its own will,
except for the sake of the One who makes her worship the
Hope [of the Kingdom.]
9:21.Or does not the potter have the authority over his clay,
that from its mixture he molds a plate, one for honoring and
one for ignominy?
This is talking about the
internal governance of the kingdom of God,
not the external governance of men – except where a man
is
operating in God’s stead, as his agency.
A pox on all dominionists and aberrant politicians!
Kind regards,
Ian Williams
Christchurch
New Zealand.
Say It Isn't So: "Two
Old Ladies
in Running Shoes"
Dear Ladies,
Reading YURICA REPORT's "About Us" page,
I came across your "...we're just plain ordinary born
again Christians!" admission. With your myriad items
regarding theopolitics that involve born agains, I think
your mentioning your religious beliefs tends to invalidate
your goal of maintaining journalistic objectivity. Why not
also mention your political party affiliation while you're at
it?
Also, the "two old ladies in running shoes" wipes
out my
impression that YURICA REPORT is comprised of
a staff of writers and editors. Thus making me feel
uncomfortable in terms of making references to
YURICA REPORT in my forthcoming book. Which is
to say: Your content and site design evoke smart, solid,
trustworthy impressions, that you undercut through
mentioning your religious beliefs, your ages, and that
there are only two of you.
And, should either of you "two old ladies" pass
away,
I am left with the impression that YURICA REPORT
will go with you. I want you to be up there with Slate,
The Economist, Psychology Today (which I've read since
1980), New York Times, UK Independent, and other
sources for my work.
Be it architecture, art, or anything meant to leave a
strong impression, I must say, with apologies to
Meis Vandero, "Less is More."
Sincerely yours,
Paul Meyer
[Editor's Reply]:
[Dear Mr. Meyer,
We found your letter to be both heartwarming
and sincere if a little confused. Allow us to clarify:
The Yurica Report does not state our specific religious
affiliation. It does state, however, that we are "born again"
Christians and that term comes from a passage in the
New Testament, the third chapter of John, in which
Jesus explains what a true spiritual journey entails to
Nicodemus. The term, therefore, applies to all Christians.
We chose to reveal that we are Christians because our
essays have been republished by secular humanists, both
on the web and in published book form. Most people think
that anyone who attacks a religious dogma must be an
atheist. The religious right's march to control America is
wrong--and it is a Christian who is pointing it out! That
should enhance the perception of our objectivity--not detract
from it.
On that score, do you find that Bill Moyers' journalistic
objectivity is compromised because he has openly
revealed that he graduated from Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary of Fort Worth and was ordained
a minister? Or that his journalistic objectivity is
compromised because he worked for Lyndon Johnson
(acting as Lyndon Johnson's chief of staff and then as
Johnson's Press Secretary)? Moyers has devoted his
life to journalism and has won well over 33 Emmys for
his efforts.
As for our revelation that we are "two old ladies in
running shoes," spoiling your impression that the Yurica
Report is "comprised of a staff of writers and editors,"
we admit that our pride in producing and maintaining
our web site has simply gone to our heads! We thought
by making this admission--that it would inspire young
people all over the world to turn their energies to creative
efforts and to the world of ideas. After all, if two old
ladies in running shoes can do it--think what two kids
in a garage could do (Steve Jobs and his partner Steve
Wozniak for Apple) or Larry Page and Sergey Brin
(founders of Google) and that's not mentioning another
kid who dropped out of college to program a machine--
named Bill Gates!
As for our passing away, and it is so kind of you to be
concerned about that, for we too have considered the
prospect of leaving this world behind, and have wrestled
with the idea of converting the Yurica Report into a
corporate entity that by law is granted a form of 'eternal life,'
(unless the stockholders choose to end it). I think our
leaning is toward a non-profit foundation. If you click
on the little copy of a Rembrandt portrait in the left hand
frame of our home page we do touch on the subject ever
so delicately and briefly, but it may assuage some of your
fears and pain concerning the YR's coming demise.
Lastly, we are ever so appreciative of your desire for our
everlasting longevity in the ranks of Slate, The Economist,
Psychology Today, New York Times and the UK Independent,
that we are humbly absent from any comment other than
a sincere "Thank you."
P.S. We're sorry you feel that you cannot cite our publication
in your forthcoming book, but I'm sure book buyers won't
be purchasing your book because the Yurica Report
is or is not cited in it! We wish you the best of luck
and success!]
In
the Beginning God Created an Open
Society
I have enjoyed many of the articles you have written
and the variety of other articles that you have posted
on the Yurica Report.
I do want to share a comment on your beginning comments
about the snake in the Garden of Eden found in your
commentary "In The Beginning God Created an Open
Society." One of the wonderful ironies of the text from
Genesis 3 that you quoted is that, while God and the snake
suggest different consequences of what will happen if the
woman and the man eat of the fruit from the tree in the
center of the Garden, as it turns out the snake is right!
The snake told the woman that she would not die if she
ate the fruit, but that her eyes would be opened. That is
exactly what the Genesis text says happened! We can only
conclude that one of the following things happened:
1) God was wrong; 2) God was misquoted by the writer(s)
or editor(s) of Genesis; 3) the writer(s)/editor(s) (or a later
scribe copying the manuscript) got what God and the snake
said turned around.
To me, one of the things that gives the Bible the quality of
being "holy", of being "true", of being "important
for human
reflection" is that it is one of the few defining books
of
faith which suggests that God doesn't always get things
"right" the first time.
Consider the story in Genesis 2 in which God decides to
make a "help mate" for the man and makes all sorts
of
animals to serve this purpose - elephants, kangaroos,
hippopotamus, aardvarks, baboons, snakes, wolves, seals,
lions, eagles, water buffalo, etc., to which the man kept
telling God, "I think not! These are nice animals, but they
aren't exactly what I was thinking about. You don't really
have a clue of how to create a help mate for me, do you?"
This story is a wonderful example of Hebrew humor at God's
expense, and it seems to be OK with God! Isn't that wonderful?!
Another example is the story of Noah and the flood and the
rainbow. The story ends with God saying, "I blew it that
time.
I need something to remind me to never do that again.
The rainbow will serve a reminder to keep my anger and
temper in check."
I think that we are meant to take the Bible seriously, but not
literally; to read it more as poetry or metaphor, rather than
as
historical prose. I believe that God enjoys a good laugh at
God's own expense. I believe that God can be wrong at times
(or, at least, the "God of our human understanding"
can be
wrong at times). This is the kind of God that I can take seriously.
I continue to enjoy the Yurica Report. Keep up the good work!
Grace and Peace!
Dan Gerhard
[Editor's Note: On the assertion that God lied about
the consequences of eating the fruit and that the
Serpent told the truth: Taken literally our reader may
be right. However, the fact remains: man did die--
just not immediately. In other words, death was
introduced into the universe at the moment of man's
epistemological fall. Man began dying at that moment!
This was the position taken by John Milton in Paradise
Lost, 1667. Also, we do not see two separate
versions of the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2.
Rather we read the text as poetry and view the
repetition in the second stanza as an elaboration
of the first stanza. And taken as a whole, the entire
cannon of scripture describes God as the personification
of Truth. Ultimate Reality cannot lie. See Katherine
Yurica's discussion on this
topic by clicking here.
See
also this passage from the same essay.]
Has God Changed the Rules?
I'm a loyal reader of this site, and though I may
differ with you on some issues politically, I am, like
you, distressed by the hijacking of our faith for
base and personal political advancement by the
Republican Party, and by Dobson, Robertson,
Falwell, et al. That said, I feel that we must show
restraint in how to express our differences with the
current religiosity that is being expressed by the Religious
Right/Republican Party so that we are not confused as
being two sides of the same coin. Dr. Wolman, I feel,
is throwing out the baby with the bath water in her
attempt to illustrate the difference: "I began by asking
how many believe that we are in the end-times
prophesied in the Book of Revelation? Very few raised
their hands. Several spoke up, saying Revelation is about
cycles, or inner experiences. By contrast, the "Christian
Coalition" firmly believes that we ARE in the end-times."
Using the "end times" as a litmus test is one such
item that
stands out as being the reverse part of the Religious
Right/Republican Party who also, oddly enough, uses it
as well. Also, and I might add sadly, illustrates to me
how little Dr. Wolman understands the biblical meaning
behind the "end times" (which the members of her audience
seem to share with her, another sad point for me to read).
To put it charitably, she commits the same mistake as her
counterparts in the Religious Right make: A cynical use of
the "end times" as a barometer for political affiliation
and a
demonstration of demanding a level of "Right Belief"
to be
considered part of her "in crowd."
We are in the end times, and have been for the past two
thousand years since Christ ascended. Big deal, both sides
are using the end times to justify their contempt for the other
side of the aisle, both are completely wrong, and to be perfectly
honest, the two are blurring into one heretical blob.
My hope is that you do not endorse this form of politicized
Christian demagoguery, and thus by comparison, condone a
Religious Right/Republican Party form of Liberal "Right
Belief"
for those of us seeking to escape the apostasy that seems to
have enveloped the American Church by it's embrace of the
Republican Party.
Sincerely, and Hopeful that this isn't the case.
Steve Jungers
Editor's Note: We essentially agree with Mr. Jungers
that on the day of Pentecost, Peter, quoting the prophet
Joel, characterized the outpouring of God's spirit upon all
men and women as the beginning of the "last days" or
end
times. (Acts 2: 14-21). Thus the seventieth week
of Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) presently
consists of more than two thousand years of church
history. This makes all the modern "interpretations"
of a seven year period of the Anti-Christ's reign of
power propounded by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye
and many other prominent adherents, completely false,
if not absurd. (Since it requires the reader to assume
that God laid out 69 weeks of time for history--then
skipped over the entire church age to focus on one
week of time--the 70th week at the end of the church
age.) We don't think Dr. Wolman meant her question to
be understood in biblical terms, but rather in psycho-
logical terms. Believers in the "end times" are being
unmercifully and unjustifiably driven by fear. That
is a very sad state and one to which we must bring
some form of amelioration. K.Y.
Rebuttal to Stanley Kurtz
Thank you!! I've been waiting to read those words
somewhere ever since March 2003. God bless you for
writing them!
Sincerely,
Patricia Farrell
(A fellow liberal in Christ)
Oops!I'm sorry I spelled your name wrong.
Your Rebuttal got me so excited I had a brain hemorrhage.
Patricia Farrell
(still your fellow liberal in Christ)
Rebuttal to Stanley Kurtz
Dear ladies- I love what you are writing about and I am so
glad
to know that the truth will come out because of wonderful Christians
like you. God bless you and keep on fighting the good fight!
June Cooper
Downing Street Memo
Dear Editor:
When I bring up the Downing Street memo to my "Bush-ite"
friends,
their response is non-plussed. Their reaction is something along
the
lines of "so what?" or "its just somebody's hearsay
and doesn't prove
anything." I am sure most of your readers have reported
similar reactions
to you.
I can envision a time when George W. Bush, by then thoroughly
drunk on his version of corrupted absolute power, will appear
on
television in America and admit that he lied about the reasons
for the
Iraq war and that he did so for the good of the country. In effect,
that is
exactly what Ronald Reagan did when he admitted, though with
great
equanimity, that he authorized the violation of Federal law by
selling
arms to Iran in order to support the Contras in Nicaragua. And,
if George
W. Bush pulled a similar mea culpa in prime time on Faux News,
you know
what? That will be the end of it. That will be that. Back to
business as
usual for the country. No outrage amongst the faithful, conservative,
sheep in this country.
What I am saying is that we don't need any more proof of the
corruption and abuses by George Bush. We already have all we
need
and all anyone with half-a-brain would need. The problem is getting
people to be concerned about its implications. We need an answer
to
"so what?" that hits home with these brain dead zombies
who vote "red"
in most elections.
How do you reason with zombies? I don't have an answer to that.
I haven't read anyone else that has found the answer. But we
need to
start looking for one. Fast.
Alan K. McCall
Rebuttal to Stanley Kurtz
Your rebuttal of Stanley Kurtz' caricature of your
views gives me a much needed boost. These days,
when I hear someone describe him or
herself as a Christian, I'm apt to duck behind the
piano as I expect that I'm in the presence of a
war-mongering, gay-bashing, profiteering,
violence-prone....
[Editor's Note: we thought this letter deserved special
attention, so we gave it a separate page, which
you can
read here.]
On Stanley Kurtz' Article:
Do You Really Want to Be the Left's Answer
to Kurtz or Kristol?
I did enjoy two articles that you wrote on the
Dominionist movement.
First, let me tell you who I am. I have an M.Div. from Eastern
Mennonite
Seminary. I'm also starting a PhD at the U of Birmingham (UK)
in
Christian-Muslim Relations. I am a Mennonite missionary. I've
basically
been outside the USA for 16 years, though more recently I've
been
staying in touch with American political/cultural development
over the
internet, and through a few short visits. I think that Bush's
initial
election (or mis-selection) motivated this interest. The subsequent
lies, acts of vengeance, etc, increased my worries.
Second, I've been somewhat familiar with the Reconstructionist
Theology
since my seminary days. I'd never actually read Rushdoony, nor
Gary
North, nor Pat Robertson. I think I skimmed an article by Rushdoony
and
parts of a book by Pat Robertson. To be honest, I'd never really
associated Pat Robertson with this movement before reading your
articles. I mostly though of him as a buffoon. Since the article
in
Harper's and reading your articles, I've been checking out some
Dominionist websites. One site (which opposed Dominionist ideas)
linked
George Ladd with Dominionism, which is completely whacko!
Third, I also read an article by Kurtz in the National
Review Online,
that was very critical of your article. As usual the very tone
of the
right-wing press is offensive and arrogant. Yet, I wonder if
he didn't
make some valid points.
Sorry, this introduction is a little long. I completely agree
with you,
and many others, about the danger of the dominionist ideology.
I also
find it to be quite un-Christian. However, I also found many
very
conservative and fundamentalist-type websites that posted 'discernment'
articles against dominionism and spiritual warfare (which has
some
similarities). I seriously wonder if you, and others, have become
too
alarmist. I often take my mother, and a few other family and
friends,
who are basically conservative Evangelical Christians, as a barometer.
(Not even Mennonites, as I found the Mennonites as an adult.)
Most
members of my family - not all - didn't like Bush, nor Kerry
for that
matter. Dominionist ideology has little to no hold on them. In
my wife's
family, however, one brother-in-law, formerly non-practicing
Catholic,
has become a Christian fundamentalist ditto-head. Anyway, this
is to say
that I find reality to be more complex and mixed than your articles,
or
the Harper's articles, would state.
It seems that people are jumping to conclusions. While Bush
and some of
his administration are Machiavellian and Straussian (a few may
even be
Reconstructionists), it would be difficult to apply that across
the
board within the administration, let alone within the congress,
even
among Republicans. It begins to sound like a conspiracy theory.
I have
grave reservations about claims that a theocracy is just around
the
corner. That capital punishment for homosexuality is coming.
One, most
Christians I know would not stand for it. Most are in fact rather
narrow-minded, even hateful, about homosexuality (which I find
disturbing), but none (save perhaps my brother-in-law) would
support a
government that was intent on executing sinners. Second, and
more
importantly, Bush and his cronies are more about money and power
than
they are about religious ideology. To actually outlaw abortion,
for
example, would take away one of their most proven methods of
motivating
voters. Homosexuality is now the new 'bogey-man' for the right
- a
cynical motivational tool to garner support and votes from people
who
don't want to think through ethics and issues beyond a 'soundbite'.
Also in one article, you mention this Oklahoma church with
the
godhatesfags website. The mention is left hanging as if this
expresses
mainstream thought within evangelical churches. If this does
so, I'm in
for a rude awakening when I return to the USA this summer. Isn't
this
Westboro Baptist Church in reality pretty fringe? Has hatred
become
truly a part of evangelical Christian doctrine?
I think that a more accurate portrayal of the right, and its
influence on,
and influence from, evangelical Christians would serve the public
and
the church much better. Do you really want to be the Left's answer
to
Kurtz, or Kristol?
Mike Brislen
Do We Finally Have A Christian
Presidency
I read an article on the "Yurica Report"
https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DoWeFinallyHave
AChristianPresidency.html
and it's a good exploration of biblical terms that are largely
ignored
by Christians.
The only thing I want to point out is that in Romance languages,
the
word "prove" doesn't tend to mean what it means to
you and I
in this day and age. It doesn't refer to science or the satisfaction
of rigorous study. There weren't any standards of physics or
biology or forensics or mathematical "proof" when it
was written.
It is actually more in line with the much weaker ideas of "probing,"
or "approving", both adapted from the same Latin word.
I don't discourage you from showing the passage "prove all
things"
to Christians, because it will probably reveal that they haven't
"probed"
the Bible, and they'll feel like jerks until they consult with
a Latin scholar.
But the proper translation is probably more in line today with
"taste all
things", or "test all things" and of course the
unmistakable -- keep what's
good for yourself. To me it's meant to give Christians the green
light
to sack the earth and plunder others whenever possible, and
subject it to their gaudy, psychotic fast food-induced judgement.
Of course the authors of the Bible could never have envisioned
the
existence of Graceland, so they remain blameless.
- Jonathan
[Editor's Note: The passage J. is referring to 1
Thess. 5:21, was not
written in a Latin language. ("Paul says in 1 Thess.
5:21, “Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.” KJV) It was written in
Greek. And it was
translated from the Greek word dokimazo as "prove,"
and in some
translations, as "test." And in the Amplified version,
the scholars
chose to use both words: "But test and prove all things
[until you
can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast." Dokimazo
is the
same word used in 1 Thess. 2:4 in which God is doing the testing.
Compare also 1 Cor. 3:13 where a man's work will be tested
by fire.
J. also errs in the assumption that mathematical proofs did
not exist
at the time of the writing of the Pauline letters. Euclid's great
book on geometrical knowledge, The Elements, which had
been in
existence since about 300 B.C. has served both as the textbook
of
geometry and as the paradigm of rigorous scientific thinking
until the
nineteenth century. It was in fact, one of the most influential
classics in the literature of Western thought. However, it would
be
a mistake to think that St. Paul was dependent upon Greek thought
for scientific proof. Moses authored the most comprehensive under-
standing of the scientific method ever written until the works
of
Karl Popper, the distinguished Professor of Philosophy of Science,
who analyzed the scientific method and described it in exactly
the
negative formulations of Moses. The true man of knowledge
seeks to refute theories--not to prove them! Thus Moses as
well as Popper devised a means to distinguish pseudo-
science from true science. K.Y. ]
Jimmy Carter Says the Christian Right
Isn't Christian
I read your article/interview and I was reassured by its tone
and
content. I am an evangelical Christian in Canada. I can hear
the
church bells of my small town playing hymns right now!
I was beginning to think that a new proprietary gospel was
emerging in the United States. A gospel that was so intertwined
with the republican party that it would be offensive to people
around the world and really would only appeal to people from
the United States. My beliefs differ from the Republican party
(I like universal health care, gun control and no captial punishment)
so I thought that American evanglicals would see my faith as
lacking.
I am sure that my Christian life and responsibilities must consist
of
more than opposing abortion and same sex marriages. I thank you
for showing me that not all evangelicals in the States have united
with
the Republican party.
Eric Brind'Amour
Ontario
Canada
Blasfeme (Sic)
i don,t known what bible do you you read, but is not what
i have read,
taking the lord name in vane, jugdment will fall apon you , putting
this
lying article, i tell you why are we under jugdment., GOD is
vengine the
blood of the inicent that the earth call for vengince (abortion),
and that
the world is in the body of christh , we do Gods work like the
world. the
world is darkness and the children of god are ligth., how can
we be ligth
and darkness at the same time ?? itsn't possible GOD IS IN THE
BUISNES OF SOUL SAVING.
Gumeboy
Bloodguilty Churches
Was doing some reading on your website, nice articles.
Don't agree with all of it but alot of interesting information.
One thing stuck out at me. In the article on the nutty
dominionists you said some things about 'once saved-
always-saved believers'. On this I feel you are incorrect.
As a student of philosphy and religion this is a consistent
position within Christianity. A works based theology
removes the gift of salvation and is a philosophically
vacant position, if you have to work for a gift it is no
longer a gift. Of course Christians sin, the alterative is
a process by which you lose salvation per each sin and
regain it again--a mockery of the gift. The problem comes
when people think because they are saved they can do
as they please which makes a mockery of their salvation
to the unsaved. So while your article on the dominion nuts
was good, your position on this is incorrect. I suggest
Christianity 101 from Amazon. Keep up the good work,
Christopher Dieter
[Editor's Note: Mr. Dieter misrepresents the passages.
We have located the two places in which the heresy is
raised: the first is in the essay Despoiling of America.
and the second is from the Bloodguilty Churches.
In both instances, the essay is referring to the belief
that a Christian can do no wrong regardless of what
he does. Mr. Dieter makes an exception to his argument:
"The problem comes when people think because they are
saved they can do as they please which makes a mockery
of their salvation to the unsaved."
The passages below make it clear that the references
in the texts are the very exception Mr. Dieter makes.
Here are the two references:
1) From The Despoiling of America:
"But the
Dominionists needed the aberrant
extension of Calvinism; they believe as did Calvin and
John Knox that before the creation of the universe, all
men were indeed predestined to be either among God’s
elect or were unregenerate outcasts. And it is at this point
Dominionists introduced a perversion to Calvinism—the
same one James Hogg utilizes in his The Private Memoirs
and Confessions of a Justified Sinner—its technical
name
is “supralapsarianism.” It means essentially that the
man
called from before the foundation of the world to be one
of the elect of God’s people, can do no wrong. No wonder
then observers noted a definite religious swing in George W.
Bush from Wesleyan theology to Calvinism early in his
administration.[25]"
2) From Bloodguilty Churches:
Footnote 185 in the passage below makes it clear that the
reference
is to the very exception Mr. Dieter makes:
"But
see Ezekiel 3:18-21,[184]
in one of the most remarkable
passages in the scriptures that clearly reveals the Bible does
not bestow upon anyone the so-called “security of the believer”
doctrine, or the “once-saved-always-saved heresy.”
[185]
Ezekiel shows us that the righteous are required by God to warn
the wicked as well as someone who was righteous and is now in
error! If, because the warning was issued, the person changes
his
behavior, then he or she escapes God’s condemnation. But
should
the righteous fail to warn the wicked—then the blood of
that
person is on the head of the righteous man or woman who
failed to issue the warning!
Criticism is viewed as a life-saver in the Bible. And those
who
would try to shut the mouths of the critics—do so at their
own
spiritual peril."
Bloodguilty Churches
Your “article” is so full of bullshit! You liberals
know nothing
of conservative Christians! You don’t hang out with us,
go to
our churches or know anything but [sic] what we think, believe
or
talk about! Your writings are so incredulous, I have to ask,
what drugs are you on? You people are so whacked, so
deceived that speaking the truth to you is pointless! Have a
nice
eternity!
Jeff Johnson
Bloodguilty Churches
What a great website! Have you tried appealing to Christian
churches
regarding Bush being un-Christian and therefore he should not
be supported?
Do you have a summary making these claims?
Thanks!
Rob
Seattle, WA
Bloodguilty Churches
Once again you've managed to show the hypocrisy, and sadly,
the bankruptcy of
the Evangelical church and its unwavering support for President
Bush by
shedding the light of the Bible on them. You didn't even have
to use the Old
Testament in any of your critique, since the entire "Sermon
on the Mount"
has been violated by the Robertson's, Falwell's, Dobson's, and
LaHaye's, and
Bush supporters of the world. Their love of money and "seats
of honor" with
the kings of the world shows just how much they really disdain
Jesus' words.
The proclaiming conservative church today in America is blind
to its support
for the death and hate of Muslims around the world, holding to
the "just war
theories" of Augustine, a Catholic, whose theology evangelicals
reject. And
the theology of the thrice divorced, 4 times married end times
teacher Hal
Lindsey, whose ­anti-Muslim rants/Israel can do no wrong­
are completely
opposite the words of Jesus to love those in "deed"
who persecute you and to
judge righteously.
As you asked in your article, "What has happened to the
church of our
fathers?" Its been hijacked by wolves.
Please continue with your fine and insightful articles.
Sincerely,
Stephen Patrick Hamburger
On Bloodguilty Churches by a Dominionist
[Editor's Note: Mr. Wade's letter
was seven pages long. In the interest
of both getting the heart of his position across and shortening
the process, we
have edited his statements down considerably. Because we find
the letter so
interesting, we have inserted links to our original "Bloodguilty
Churches" essay
so the reader will be able to follow the actual sentences Mr.
Wade attacks as
apparent falsehoods, which should enable the reader to judge
for himself. ]
I'll start off by pointing out that, like you, Satan tried
to used God's Word
against Him. As I read through unbelievable twists and half-truths
you spewed
forth in your diatribe, that's the first thing that came to mind.
1. The churches
didn't rise up because justice was served. A man who, though
is far from ideal, seeks God's guidance prevailed over a demonstrably
godless one.
The electoral
college determined the winner. The number of popular votes
is NOT
what we go by in national elections. I didn't like it when Clinton
was elected, you
don't like it now.
2. You completely missed the point of Samuel 8. First off, Gore
was as the
sons of Samuel. He was no different than Clinton, who was
truly an abomination.
The same is true of Kerry---directly contrary to the teachings
of his own (professed)
church.
3. All presidents are over the
military.
4. A great many politicians and military minds, not to mention
a great many average
Americans
supported the move on Iraq. There's Biblical reference to
stopping the rise
of Babylon (which is Iraq) to a new presence. Try visiting www.hilton-sutton.org
and
read up on our place in prophecy.
5. Both of your very poor examples of pre-emptive
strikes because of fear were made
by an evil man and evil regime against God's people and plan.
6. Have you even looked at the many references to the spoils
of war in the Old
Testament?
7. You should be ashamed of your misrepresentation of Proverbs.
We did not go into
Iraq out of greed.
8. Just where do you get the inference that a "man led the
nation away from God" in
Proverbs
59:1? By the way, if you really want to play that game, I
argue that Clinton is
exactly the type that would be referred to. However, you clearly
don't understand the
passage. With Mr. Bush a significant percentage of Americans
were seeking to turn BACK
to God, despite the liberal drive to push God out of every aspect
of our lives. As we draw
closer to Him, He will draw closer to us.
9. You're playing political philosophy and semantics with the
complaints regarding the
Geneva
Convention. Many would argue, and with good reason, that
terrorists
don't
qualify or deserve the treatment reserved for conventional
prisoners of war. Terrorists
certainly do NOT observe ANY generally accepted rules of engagement.
They are
evil and have no concept of anything other than killing everyone---innocent
non-
combatants as well as military.
10. As soon as you embarked in your tired arguments about the
church stance on
homosexuality,
I knew instantly that you have fallen into the same rhetoric
as so many
liberals. You constantly like to deflect one sin by pointing
out the sins of others. The
bottom line is ALL of it is sin.
11. How
dare YOU tell us that because we are not sinless that we
have no ground
on which to take a stand and fight against an agenda that seeks
to tear apart one of
the most basic and very first institutions ordained by God! We,
as Christians, do not
say divorces or any of the other sins you lay at the feet of
believers are right.
12. I'll let you in on a secret. Social
welfare, while certainly the responsibilty of
believers, is not supposed to be the jurisdiction of government.
I'll tell you PRECISELY
where all of this came from and why generations have been brainwashed
into submitting
to the State.You can't do the Godly
thing if you've passed on the responsibility to
government, and the proceed to wring every ounce of God out
of it! Wrap your mind
around that.
13. You are completely
incorrect on your concept of the tithe.
Lev 27:30 "Thus all the
tithe of the land, of the seed of the land or of the fruit of
the tree, is the LORD'S; it is
holy to the LORD.
14. On immigration, once again you distort the Word of God. All
of the references you
mentioned are on the temporary dwellers, the sojourners. Illegal
immigrants are NOT
temporary, nor are they sojourners.
15. While your points regarding Biblical references to treatment
of animals and land are
present, the radical ecologist viewpoint is that we aren't to
use land or animals or anything,
for that matter.
16. Your complaints about
voting fraud are laughable
at best.
17. On justice and laws, you blew
it in your first sentence. To follow Scripture, we are
ruled by the laws of GOD. Not just "laws". However,
as so many liberals are doing,
these
laws are increasingly leaving any reliance on God's instruction
whatsoever. In fact,
far too many are exactly UNGODLY
laws.
18. Since you chose to bring up Roe
v. Wade, I'll play. Right off the bat, that decision
was directly opposed to God's law, which I contend is the ultimate,
be-all, end-all law.
19. On capital punishment cases. You basically contend
we should throw out the judicial
system, because in your mind there is no way to righteously
convict a person and exact
capital punishment on them. The process is not perfect because
the people are not perfect.
No person ever gets the death penalty carried out without many
years of appeals, etc.
20. On tort reform. Your perception is that any
and all awards to people who bring
lawsuits is righteous and justified. The Scripture warns us to
not show prejudice against
the poor, but it doesn't direct us to conversely show prejudice
against the wealthy...or the
corporate. Greed is what drives too many law firms, as well as
too many businesses.
21. I find it hard to believe you can even put
miscarriages and abortions in the same
context. They
are not the same, and your weak, disgusting attempt to apply
Biblical
references to miscarriages in the abortion issue is unacceptable.
Killing of innocents,
that's what it is. It is murder. Period.
22. Slander,
indeed. Once more, conservatives and liberals are quite equally
matched in
slander and rhetoric. And, conversely, not all liberals are non-believers.
However, for
Christians, the conservative philosophy tends to lean more toward
Biblical
principles than
does the liberal one. And, you're darn right, liberalism
has become equated to socialism.
If you look at the various programs and initiatives the liberals
in government have espoused
throughout history, you'll see they have quite the tendency toward
the socialist mindset.
23. Worship
the President? Oh please. I don't know a single person, Christian
or not who
worships the President. I find it laughable that you are trying
to equate support, satisfaction
and, yes, even joy that Mr. Bush is the President. No true Christian
idolizes the President,
and you're kidding yourself if you think that.
24. Ignorant followers....really? If you call using the Bible,
God's Word, as my guide, then
I suppose I have to agree with you.
I could go on and on with this, but it would be senseless. Not
all people who profess to be
Christians are really so. And all Christians are not correct
or mature in their spiritual growth.
I freely admit I'm not. I make no excuses or explanations for
things that Mr. Bush or his
administration has done. There are things I agree with, things
I know that are entirely in line
with God's Word, and there are things that are not. This I know
for certain---he is more in
line than the alternative. The alternative would have been a
choice for even more moral
decay. I, as so many other Christians, will continue to pray
for our governmental leaders, and
we will hold Mr. Bush to task for the Godly principles to which
we submit. We are not blind,
and we will be as shrewd as necessary to build upon the kingdom
of God.
Most Sincerely,
Robert Wade
Bloodguilty Churches
As a Christain, I have known for some time that the so called
"religious
right" were neither religious or right. The Bible stands
in direct
condemnation of the Bush Administration. I do not understand
how informed
people of faith could be so misled. Some time back I did have
confidence in
Dr. Dobson, who now has become the worst of the worst. I have
left the
Southern Baptist after 50 years of membership, because of their
blind
indifference and promulgation of the "Bush Agenda"
over a true "Christian
Agenda". I am so much happier in the United Methodist Church.
Melvina Jordan
Infiltrating the U.S. Military
Having read Infiltrating the U.S. Military / Gen. Boykin’s
“Kingdom
Warriors” On the Road to Abu Ghraib and Beyond, I just wanted
to
highlight that Gen. Boykin has figured prominently in Seymour
Hersh's
most recent report in The New Yorker. Very disturbing.
Thank you for your site,
Thalia Large
Cambridge, MA
Bloodguilty Churches
What a MAGNIFICENT article!
Mark and Paula Grindell
Bloodguilty Churches
I read the entire document/blog: A Stunning Major Analysis
of Mr. Bush's Agenda & would like to make a comment. I would
caution you about using Scripture in a adversarial manner.
I am not on GW's side. Nothing you produced was new to me.
It was interesting & I shared it with a few thinking people.
We all
felt the same way about the apparent misuse of Scripture.
I want to repeat, Scripture is not to be used to make fun off
something
nor is it for producing a satirical contrast. It is meant as
instruction of
what to do & what not to do for the believer. If Scripture
is used by
non-believers in a manner other than its intended purpose, it
will only
produce anarchy & increase future grief.
Marat, from the French Rev, is not a good example of journalism.
Lindsey Greene
"Deregulation" in Bloodguilty Churches
"Deregulation" is a strange word, an anomalous word.
I might almost say it
has no meaning as it is used in American politics, except that
people who
use it think it does have meaning. They might not agree as to
what the
meaning is, however. I note that, of all the meanings "deregulated"
might
have, it certainly does not mean "unregulated."
Every major industry and business in America, and every activity
in which
the polity engages, is regulated. The question of whether an
activity will
be regulated or unregulated does not exist. The only real question
is, "For
whose benefit will the activity be regulated?"
This comment is just something I have observed. It does not
go directly to
anything you said, but I hope you don't think it extraneous.
Ron Counsell
Baltimore, Maryland
The Despoiling of America
It is common for Islam to be demonized because of the harsh
penalties prescribed by Shariah law, but the Old Testament law
prescribed by the Dominionists is even worse! How come the
Dominionists haven't been discredited by comparing their proposed
law with Shariah?
George Carty
Diane Swayer's Interview With the Prez
I found the president to be inspiring as he answered Diane
Sawyer’s persistent condescending questions. I found it
refreshing to see his strong convictions in the things he
believes in. I found Diane Sawyer to be typical of most
liberal news, biased!
Jake and June Strahm
Living Under Fascism
It is such a pleasure to read a well thought out, well
written, documented essay. Dr. Loehr is a brilliant,
learned individual, who does his research and is willing
to share information that is often difficult for many to hear.
He has the gift of writing about a difficult subject in a manner
that allows for easy comprehension. This is a subject that has
been discussed for decades. Dr. Loehr was able to draw
clear references to the application of Fascism as it exists in
our society in current times.
Thank you for providing the forum for the expression of diverse
ideas.
MDhlng
Congressional Accountability Act HR 3920
This is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation
that I have ever seen! Until this very moment, I knew nothing
of its existence. Is it a done deal? Or does it still have to
pass?
If it has not passed, I will contact all my representatives in
my
area and demand that they DO NOT vote for such a piece of
legislation, EVER!
Michael Joel Held
Infiltrating the U.S. Military
I thought that this article was extremely disturbing in light
of the
planned military shift in troop deployment that involves bringing
some 70,000 troops back to US bases. I'm not drawing any conclusions,
yet, but after reading Rick Erikson's statements and exerpt from
Alex Jones'
interview with "David," I begin to see some serious
implications...
Jessie Plaster
What About 9/11? What Do You Know?
I want to know what you really know. Did Bush know
that 911 was going to happen? Why did he sit in that
school for 18 minutes with out moving and then why did
he not fly to White House to take care of business as he
should of? Did Clinton know of this possible attack and
never let Bush know? Too many question not answered.
I think Bush and Cheney knew this attack was to take place,
one went into hiding and the other had a heart attack. A I
the only republican that wants to know the truth of it? Thank
you.
Lois D.
Call for Firings
I don't think you have called for the jobs of those responsible
for the information to the President. This error has led to the
greatest overhaul of the intelligence community ever. Maybe
because of what happened will cause us to be even safer in
the future. Maybe or Maybe not.
Barry
Another Religious Group to Consider
Although they are not as numerous as the pentecostals,
evangelicals, etc., an ultra-right group of catholics called
the
Blue Army of our Lady of Fatima is another proto-fascist
religious group. They work with the various political
organizations you mentioned and are big abortion clinic pests.
I am glad that normal people are starting to wake up to how
frightening the religious right people really are. I grew up
in that
kind of household and I frankly don't know how on earth I
survived my childhood. No one believed that my parents could
really be as creepy as I sadly knew them to be. I saved myself
by running away.
Mary Forrester
How to Treat Our Sojourners
and Immigrants
from Mexico
If they are so desirous of becoming Americans let's really
allow them
to show their affection for America: before citizenship they
will be
REQUIRED to spend two years in the US Military. You may have
already had this article somewhere but it just recently occured
to me.
By the way.......your website is AWESOME.....thank you.....
ALL AMERICA SHOULD HAVE ACCESS to it.
Norma Hosea
[Editor's Note: Thanks Norma, we agree all America should
have access to our web site, but we disagree strongly with your
immigration policy suggestion.]
Voting Fraud
Sir, with all due respect I do not see the opposing views
of
those who claim “substantial evidence” of vote fraud.
Specifically,
the paperless trails and the Diebold executive’s claim to
win Ohio
for Bush causes much concern and distrust of the results. Given
the
fact of long lines in the cities in Ohio and Florida contrasted
to easy
voting in the suburbs also underlies the distrust of the election
results.
The fault-ridden software as described in your paper and others
must
give you cause for concern that the vote for president was subject
to
fraud. Yet, no outcry from the Democrat’s. Do your job as
a media
outlet relying upon the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
the press
to investigate the Democrat’s position. Why is the leadership
so silent
in the face of such basic questions? Please do not go the way
of Fox
or the Washington Times. If I can help I will.
David Zegler.
Conquering by Stealth and Deception
Just read this article from Sept 2004. Wow.
So the Dominionists just take God and the Devil,
good and evil, and reverse them.
It's like what is important is the name, not the
principles.
Oh, yes they claim the high road to carnal morality,
but that is for the lower classes. The upper do as
they please. Oh, yes, they decry abortion, but if
push comes to shove with their relatives they will
take the pragmatic path.
Amazing. Can you imagine spending all the money they
have spent to come up with this convoluted
rationalization to just do what they want. And to
even use Hitler as tactical model.
For Hitler, the end justified the means. As a friend
of mine observed, "ultimately the end becomes the
means."
Tom Rimes
Garland, TX
Whose Monitoring GOP Bills in Congress?
My question is , who is monitoring all the bills that the
Republicans
are trying to pass and if no one is on top of every single bill,
then how
can we get an organization together to gives us a hourly update
on
every bill brought to congress.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Being A Christian in a Hitler-like
Environment
Every person who is not an artist is a traitor to
his own nature"
William Blake
Thank you for your penetrating insights and awesome
scholarship. You remind me of my old dear friend the
very courageous and brilliant Mae Brussel (maebrussel.com.
in case you are unfamiliar wth her work)
I also want you to know that I am a Christian. Even
though it has become a badge of dishonor more than
ever before. (Except in Germany under the reign of A.
Hitler who had most of the German Christians in the palm
of his right handed salute. I have done much research on the
strategies Hitler used to win the hearts and minds of the
German citizens ...I became painfully aware that the same
political strategies were being played out then (as now).
Anyway..thanks again for your dedication to Truth
and the Prince of Peace.
Robert DeFord
About The Yurica Report Articles
Keep us posted. Many are reading...
Wendy Walshe
Why the Common Man Voted for
President Bush
The Family values taught him, growing up in the pre-1960's
insulated
him from educated know it all fools of today. I voted for President
Bush
last November, and will do it again to prevent condoning life
styles I
know to be wrong. Abortions used for birth control. Democrats
need to
separate themselves from the phony folks in Hollywood who were
anti-
everything in our country. If you hate America, Get Out. Go to
the French
or German, or middle east some where but out of here.
Bob Weaver
Election Issues
I love reading your assessment of on-going Ohio election
issues.
Please continue your great work. I'd much rather live in a democracy
that's truly a democracy.
Don't you think the priority item for our misguided legislators
should
be establishing a trustworthy voting system. I do.
Steve Wessells
Las Vegas, NV
Conquering by Stealth and
Deception,
“When dominionists
seek to privatize medicare and social security,
and deregulate corporate controls on whole industries, so that
the
poor and needy become poorer and needier, they have done it to
the Lord.”
_____________
What is it that you find so inviting about the secular humanist
notion of
socialism? Would it not be much better if we were to return this
country to
prosperity by getting rid of the false paradigm which we now
suffer under?
Traditionally, the churches and other religious organizations
were responsible
for minstering to the poor.
Before you mistake me as one of these Dominionist types, I urge
you to examine
the history of all of these socialist schemes of wealth redistribution
and the
Keynesian economic theory of deficit spending. The fascist corporations
also
have a hand in this with their global agenda of free trade, cheap
foreign labor and
increased profits.
This all has its roots in the failure of the government to keep
its nose out of the
free market system and allow the raw material producers, i.e.,
farmers and others,
to be paid parity for what they produce. There has always been
a domestic "trad
turn" which in effect keeps the economic engine of this
country chugging along.
Simple capitalism is not abhorrent since there will always be
a need for food,
clothing, shelter and other basic necessities. It is the materialism
and consumerism
fostered by the post-modern corporate and government symbiosis,
and fed by
the long over extended credit industry which has caused the entire
system to be
strained to the breaking point.
The crux of the entire issue revolves around the criminal cabal
of the interntional
bankers.
For more information, here is a book which provides the history
of our debt
based system,
http://www.acresusa.com/books/closeup.asp?prodid=754&catid=27&pcid=2"
The American Economic System SOLD FOR Debt and War.
You might also be interested in the author of the book, Charles
Walters, for
possible articles on this and related subjects. He would be a
good interview
and knowledgable beyond your expectations. He is also the editor
of Acres
USA, a monthly publication devoted to organic, regenerative,
sustainable,
biodynamic, eco-agriculture. Contact him at [email protected]
I hope I have given you a new direction to explore in fighting
this abomination
that is leading the entire world into destruction.
Regards,
Jim Betker
The Despoiling of America
And Why Antonin
Scalia Is Wrong About Romans 13
I found your article “The Despoiling of America”
while Googling the
phrase “the foundation of the world” during some Biblical
research.
It was the first time that I had heard of Dominionism. I was
interested,
and did a little more research on it, finding among other things,
a
video produced by Joan Boaker of TheocracyWatch titled “The
Rise
of Dominionism.” I am an active Christian and an interested
U.S. citizen.
I voted for George W. Bush as President in 2000, but against
him
(for John Kerry) in 2004, as I believe that the war against Iraq
is
unjustified. I have felt for a while that President Bush is working
to
fundamentally alter the United States government, but I had no
basis
for that feeling until reading your article. I believe, as do
you, that this
is an extraordinarily serious problem facing us and our country.
I have
emailed several friends and acquaintances with information about
Dominionism, asking for their opinion.
I believe in God, as perhaps you do. I believe that the Bible
is His
revealed Word, and it must be rightly-divided (2 Timothy 2:15)
in
order to have the true Word (references and quotes here are from
the King James Version). It must fit, and it must make sense,
even
more than our senses perceptions. Romans 13:1-4 appears to be
a
key section to Dominionists to support their view of Christians,
and I
suppose others, submitting themselves to Godly secular government
eaders (you quote and discuss it in your article). In context,
Romans 13:1-4
(and verses 5-7) have nothing to do with secular government.
First of all,
God’s Word is written primarily to His people who want to
know what’s
going on. People submit themselves to God because they want to.
The
Church Epistles (Romans through 2 Thessalonians) are written
to the
Church – read the salutations at the beginning of them.
“Let every soul”
implies permission, not commandment. The question is, who are
the “higher
powers”? Victor Paul Wierwille, in a study titled “The
Higher Powers of
Romans 13,” has set this as clearly and as lovingly as anything
that I
know of.[1] He says,
“Let every soul [every person, every individual] be subject
unto the higher powers….”
Usually this is interpreted to mean that the higher powers
refer to political
governments. This is not and cannot be true. It’s very clear
as we continue
the thought trend of Romans 12 that this first verse of Romans
13 is speaking
of the functions within the Body of Christ, the Church. God is
not talking
about the Congress or the President or the Supreme Court of the
United States or those with governmental authority in any nation’s
political
structure. The Word of God here is talking about the Body of
believers
in relationship to the higher authorities in that Body. Let every
soul, every
person, be subject unto the higher powers. The higher powers
are those
operating charismata, the spiritual abilities and assignments,
which God
has set in the Church to help the Body function properly.[2]
That is the
immediate context of this thirteenth chapter.
How can people say that all governments are instituted by
God? It is
absurd. It is crucial that the Scriptures are handled properly,
particularly
when people’s freedoms are at stake. I am not trying to
teach you the
Bible (well, maybe I am), nor argue about it. God’s Word
stands.
Those handling it are answerable to God Almighty for their works,
as
are we all. I thank God that people like you, and hopefully myself
and others, have the interest, ability and commitment to work
for the
good to stop this and to chart a better course for our country
and others.
Sincerely,
Ken Stauffer
___________________________________
[1] Victor Paul Wierwille, Order My Steps in Thy Word, Chapter
6
(American Christian Press: New Knoxville, OH, 1985). This book
is
available through The Way International Bookstore, P.O. Box 328,
New Knoxville, Ohio 45871.
2 See 1 Corinthians 12:27 and 28: “Now ye are the body
of Christ,
and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church,
first
apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that
miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”
My note.
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article