Foundational Thoughts

Dear Christian Chicken Little

You’re scared and you don’t know why. You remain scared after so many years have gone by. And now, finally, after all these years, you are reading the stories: they differ in detail but the elements, the arguments, and the outcomes are eerily, unnaturally similar.

People (like you) who did what they were told, listened to Pastoral counsel, gave over profound amounts of personal transparency, and admitted flaws as a matter of doctrinal course.

People (like you) who found themselves required to obey counsel that was flawed, even catastrophically dangerous, or ridiculously heavy-handed.

People (like you) who bought into the Matthew 18 ethic as the essential conflict resolution process only to find that when called to account SGM leadership, replaced transparency with a stonewall of authoritarian posturing, ruthless character assassination, and a machine dedicated to personal marginalization.

People (like you) describe the aftermath with blunt similarity: profound confusion, heartache, and despair.

A variation of the same refrain lingers in the air melancholy and ominous. They are your words too: “I thought I was crazy….”

Your breath freezes in your chest: realization dawns bright and slashing like a knife across a matted wound: “I’m not alone!”

Yet what does this mean? What can it mean? The reality that there are others, many, many, others with the same story isn’t satisfying. It brings up so many pains, so many hurts, so many confusing feelings — feelings that you thought were long buried, long dealt with, but are most emphatically not reconciled.

The force of emotion is frightening. Have I really not forgiven? Am I still guilty before a Holy God for failure to live up to yet another standard? The experiences with Sovereign Grace Ministries was harrowing enough the first time around do I dare go back into that head space–that soul-crushing heart space? Maybe it is best to just leave well enough alone. Maybe it is best just to let bygones be bygones. Forgive and FORGET! Walk away. Don’t think about it. Besides, the fear, I can’t shake the fear.

The fear is sooo deep that the mounting evidence of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ catastrophic bankruptcy of judgment and practice still does not free you to utter a harsh word aloud.

You read the Bible for comfort and find only words of condemnation. You hear the pastoral voices drumming through your head, the accusations of sinfulness and pride, and pride and sinfulness. You measure your life against the SGM yardstick and find yourself endlessly short. You cannot throw away the yardstick because you accept the premise that it is a “Biblical” standard. Your ever-present, nagging, pressing, hurting, foreboding suspicion is that the departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries is ultimately a failure of yours, not a failure of theirs. That is what they told you to believe and that is what still dominates your mind.

Yet, you cannot find the path of reconciliation. If you could have, you would have. You loved them. You devoted your soul to the calling. You abandon yourself to the church passion.

If method existed to resolve yourself to the despicable treatment, you would have long since reconciled yourself ultimately back into their good graces. Indeed, you walk into every church with the desperate hope that all this will be SGM without the name and the oppression, only to find the people infused with every social ill SGM railed against. This seems to prove the assertion that every church has its problems: and the concurrent thought–maybe SGM isn’t really so bad.

Yet you cannot find the path through the suffered wrongs, the twists of logic, the exploitation of personal boundaries, and the subtle, soul-crushing condemnation.

You read the blogs and you shake and you weep for the tyrannies that you see on the printed page, and  for yourself. And you wonder why it happens. You wonder how it is possible. How can this evil persist? How can people let it happen?

And then you remember your own fear. Your own utter inability to say out loud what happened to you: to tell your story, to make yourself and your pains plain. You find your eyes traveling skyward in the silent hope that it is not really falling. And prayers laced with admitted sinfulness cascades across your lips. Hopefully, God will withhold his justifiable wrath for the list of sins attached to your soul. You hedge your bets, staying quiet;  if you refuse to call for justice and righteousness, that will keep you out of God’s mind, away from the path of the boogieman of bad.

So you sit inert in the torment of your fears. Filled with conflict between the injustice and your own impotence. Left to ask one question: how can someone (else) let this happen?

I’m going to tell you how it is possible. I’m going to tell you the fundamental reason, and it really isn’t all that complicated. I am going to point to the foundational thought of your fear. It is the heart and soul of Sovereign Grace Tyranny’s manipulation. It is the heart and soul of ALL Spiritual Tyranny.

This foundational thought is the foundation for the Shamans of old, the child sacrifice by Molech Priests, the power behind the witches’ Evil Eye, the gargoyles of the Middle Ages, the underlying threat for the Charis-costal “Touch Not God’s Anointed,” the energizing force that kept David Koresh in the comfy embrace of adolescent girls and cult wives, without a word of protest from fathers or husbands. This foundational thought is the Demagogues of Dictated Good tool of extortion. This foundational thought is essential for the philosophical premise that Man is a sacrificial animal. This foundational thought is the lake that feeds the rivers of blood throughout all Religions in history.

Before I tell you what this is, I am going to tell you a story. I want you to know that this is no academic muse but a realization that was lived in the face of real life, soul-sucking pressure.

It had been three days since I’d last talked to my father. I am standing in the Potomac Police station and for the first time I let myself say my suspicions. “I think my parents have been killed.” I vividly remember how I started crying and how the police department went silent. I expected my parents to arrive at my house some three days prior.

What started as a few curious phone calls back to family and friends and parental cell phone, to account for their tardiness, slowly turned into an ongoing campaign to contact law enforcement in every city from their home town to my place in Potomac, Maryland. From calm, affirming conversations with my grandmother and sister and aunts, to endless prayers and frantic mini trips to check all the potential places they could have ended up.

Day three and four of their absence were grueling exercise in patience between updates and very long nights spent pacing the football field at Churchill High School praying for every good outcome and blessing I could think. But I had a nagging dread that I struggled to shake: something bad had happened to my parents. As the human mind tends to do, I started trying to create cause and effect with the unfolding events. The timing was too spooky to describe. I had very recently distributed one of the early copies of Blight in the Vineyard, detailing my interaction with then CLC/PDI pastoral “care.”

My commentary is scathing now, and so it was then. In the foreword of Blight in the Vineyard, I wrote these words to sum up my relentless critique.

Some will suggest that my frank, open commentary is just eloquent vindictiveness. The following begins my response.

“I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this, I am so far from being sorry, that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men, and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in his zeal, calls his adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil… The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers, that, go soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretense, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt, if it were not pungent? or of the edge of the sword, if it did not slay?”

Just a week or so before my parent’s disappearance, I received a letter rebuking me for my “eloquent vindictiveness.”  How could I dare speak against these “Men of great character?” It was the stiffest admonishment to date, a capstone on a list of judgments against my character and conduct, and another event in a growing list of church “friends” scrambling to the shadows deliberately distancing themselves from me, for fear that my “deleterious influence” and my disfavor would rub off on them.

My paranoia ran away with me on those long nights. Breathtaking fear gripped my soul. Was it true? God was disciplining me through events perpetrated upon my parents? My mind was a tidal pool of torment as I heard the words condemn me:  “God opposes the proud.”  Was I proud to reject the treatment that I’d suffered? Was I arrogant for presuming to take action and voice my criticisms? On and on the doubt and the questions churned inside me until finally I came to a resolve.

This is what I said. “I refuse to be tyrannized. If the New Birth, and the Adoption of Sons, and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient for you to speak to me as a man…if you have to kill my parents to get my attention, then you murdered your Son for no reason and humanity is lost. If you have a problem with what I did…you need to talk to ME!”

Actually, I shouted those words at the top of my lungs: dogs barked and doors opened.

God’s words came back to me that night: “John, your parents are fine. You will see them tomorrow. What do your fears really say of me?”

I know… the irony here is too much: an overt advocate for rational objective truth claiming a conversation with God. But hey, that is no more ironic than advocates of Kantian philosophy bemoaning the lack of intellectuals in the world, or Calvinists railing against the lack of moral character in humanity.

Day four waxed long, as minutes refused to become hours. Police were beginning to coordinate an effort between  jurisdictions across three states; a hunt was about to start in earnest. I was on the phone with law enforcement when my parents walked through the door.

They were indeed fine. My mother said that for three days she’d had a nagging thought to call me but the cell reception at Gettysburg national battlefield prevented a signal, and she’d forgotten when they’d been near a land line. Ten years ago, to my parents, cell phones were a curios extravagance to be kept turned off at all times. As it turned out, my father’s memory of meeting times and dates was dramatically different than mine…or my sister’s or my grandmother’s or my aunts, for that matter. My Grandmother had a lot to say about that later.

“What do your fears really say of me?” Excellent question this. One that I have spent the last decade, give or take, unraveling in my own mind.

Main Entry: ca·pri·cious
Pronunciation: k&-‘pri-sh&s, -‘prE-
Function: adjective
1 : governed or characterized by impulse or whim: as a : lacking a rational basis b : likely to change suddenly
2 : not supported by the weight of evidence or established rules of law -often used in the phrase arbitrary and capriciousca·pri·cious·ly adverbca·pri·cious·ness noun

3: determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason; “a capricious refusal”; “authoritarian rulers are frequently capricious”; “the victim of whimsical persecutions”

Dear Christian Chicken Little, here it is. The source of the fear and the starting point of all Spiritual Tyranny–The gods are capricious. Shamans the world over, since the beginning of human existence, have sold this idea to the masses. Demagogues of Dictated Good use divine capriciousness as their primary extortion tool.

Only one way exists to deal with people: Force — Ideas or Violence.

The force of ideas is the power to persuade, to aim an argument at someone’s head. Assuming they are capable and interested in thinking, truth has an amazing capacity to bear itself out.

Violence is the point of a sword or the point of a nail, robbing a man of his choices, ultimately robbing his mind, his capacity to think, rendering him vacant, empty, mute, and robotic, without consent or embrace. Extortion is really force, aimed at a valued hostage.

In spiritual matters, the force is always the disposition of divine pleasure and the hostage is always the future state of one’s soul. Refusing to obey the shamans is always met with roaring, hazy coercion, or quiet foreboding implication. Demagogues of Dictated Good love to let their flock stew in the terror of their own minds, filling in the disaster and retribution by the endless gremlins of bad. Demagogues of Dictated Good predict all manner of misadventure at failed compliance to their considered opinions. They beam magnanimous smiles as reports of disaster affirm their assertion.

God help us when the Demagogues of Dictated Good join forces with history’s Hitlers drunk on bloodlust and despotism: combined, they use fire and sword to enforce “GOD’s” will. The result is the carnage of the Aztecs, the immolation of  Witches by the Catholic Church, or the endless string Islamic adolescent suicide bombers.

To appease the  capricious God, Man is laid with his throat bare for sacrifice. Mystic Despots proclaim Human life cheaper than trees. Mystic Despots use force to subordinate Man’s well-being below the lives of snail darters, or snakes, or cats, or whatever other twisted figure he chips out of stone to compel humans to prostrate before.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, your fears, your torment hinges here. You believe God is capricious: that He does not deal with men rationally, with knowable intentional purpose, but perpetrates upon them pain, and suffering, and hardship, beating them about the head and shoulders for daring to aspire to…much of anything. You believe that God only deals with man by force. You believe that His primary method of communication is piteously drubbing man about the head and shoulders with the circumstances of life.

You are inclined to object, telling me that it isn’t capriciousness but mystery:  “His ways are above our ways; His methods past finding out….” He loves us, whatever the great mystery of His knowledge, His purposes and motives are love.

Yes, I know. Capricious implies that God is unloving. Mystery makes it sound so much more benevolent. But that intellectual distinction is really no distinction at all: it amounts to the same thing. “You don’t understand me!” Whack! “You are sinful” Whack! “I love you!” Whack! “You are confused!” Whack!

Capriciousness eradicates cause and effect wisdom and understanding. Capriciousness destroys the concept of values and obliterates a standard of measure. And so does the fictitious appeal to God’s manifold mystery.

It is in this valueless, cause-and-effect vacuum that the Destroyers rise. The Destroyers are the Demagogues of Dictated Good. They thrive because YOU believe only THEY can bring order to divine will. Because YOU believe  THEY are uniquely qualified to point out the cause-and-effect of God’s intent. Because YOU believe they are the REAL source of value.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, your fears, your torment hinges here. Until you believe deep down in your soul that God fully intends for you to know His intention and wishes you no ill will, that He conceives no arbitrary harm against you, you will forever cower before Him like a medieval villager before the Gargoyles.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can preach endlessly of hope, and freedom, and faith but the words will fall dead on your ears.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can point out to you that proportional justice i.e “… an eye for an eye…” is a God idea. I can point out to you that specific justice i.e. “… if an Ox gores a man, you shall kill the Ox…” is a God idea. And yet many of you read my thoughts about my parents suffering for my temerity and genuinely believe it a reasonable execution of divine justice and judgment.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can point out that “God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble…” doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with submitting to a pastor. And you will not hear me.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can tell you that the Gospel was the proclamation of an anointing that set people free from sickness, pain, emotional bruising, economic bondage, and raised the dead; that the function of the New Covenant was for the express purpose of giving all of humanity access to the Blessing of Abraham and the Covenants of Promise. But when you hear the word Gospel, your mind speeds down the path of the cult of death that has become the worship of the cross. To your mind this means that we are all, like Jesus, sacrificial animals.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can tell you that man’s natural state is pleasure and blessing and you will cringe at the temerity and selfishness, and wonder how long God will allow me to persist in heresy.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I can tell you that the Destroyers have always risen as a result of your LACK of Ego. They rise when men are not fully defined selves with the ability to identify wants and desires and aspirations, with the expectation that naming them too God, their Father, aids and abets the fulfillment of the very same. They rise when men Lay Down their Minds and quit defending themselves. You will hear my words and think them full of all manner of presumption, too wonderful, or too selfish to be believed.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I could try to explain the error in the doctrines that make God capricious, but your eyes will glaze over with yet another theological conversation and you will justify your lack of intellectual focus because a capricious God does not really need rational  understanding or any explanation for His actions: so why does it really matter? Your excuse notwithstanding, that does not change the fact that a choice stands before you.

The same choice that has been before humanity from Adam’s rebellion till now: how does man deal with the fear that plagues his soul? Run and hide–try some feeble effort to cover up? Or run to God and see how He fixes the problem. I can say this with certainty. Man was not a sacrificial animal then. He is not one now.

I am not offering a panacea. No single magic prayer exists. Utopia, a place without hardship or life’s challenge, does not exist.  One cannot escape the rigor of life by bunkering in a church, submitting to a pastor, or reading my blog posts.  An entire air castle has been built in your mind founded on one premise. No quick fix to your fear exists, because the fortification is built deep in your soul.

Dear Christian Chicken Little, I am only putting my finger on the source, the foundational premise.

If God is NOT capricious, that means He IS interested in making His will, His purpose, His intentions known. From this foundation, it is profoundly easy to destroy the house of cards the Demagogues of Dictated Good have built.

So maybe start with a prayer, low and quiet, of your own timid choosing.  Or maybe you start with what I said:

“I refuse to be tyrannized. If the New Birth, and the Adoption of Sons, and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient for you to speak to me as a man…if you have to kill _________  to get my attention, then you Murdered your Son for no reason and humanity is lost. If you have a problem with what I did… you need to talk to ME!”

Dear Christian Chicken Little, then run outside to see if the sky is falling. I promise you it will be right where you saw it last.

Read More
Foundational Thoughts

Defining Insanity

By John Immel

Defining Insanity (Click here to listen to an Presage Publishing MP3 Audio production)

All tyranny requires these elements to be successful.

************

The following is from Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, by Alexander Strauch.

Shared Leadership should not be a new concept to Bible-reading Christians. (page 36)


By definition, the elder structure of [Church] government is a collective form of leadership in which each elder shares equally the position, authority, and responsibility of the office. There are different names for this type of leadership structure. More formally, it is called collective, corporate, or collegiate leadership. In contemporary terms, it is referred to as multiple church leadership, plurality, shared leadership, or team leadership. (page 39)

The challenge with excerpts is whether they really capture the overall point the author was trying to represent while being an effective referent for subsequent commentary. Alexander Strauch spends a full chapter discussing his take on the origins for “Bible” governmental collectivism. However he arrives at this conclusion–whatever his logical progression–I believe the quotes above fairly captures Strauch’s thesis of Collectivist theology: church government is executed via group.

Christianity is at a pivotal place in history. In some locales, we seem to be taking the world by storm. In other locales, we are profoundly irrelevant: not quite reviled but hardly embraced. But in most every place, the Church is struggling against what appears to be a profound social chaos. Through most denominations, in some form, this question is being asked: “Who is in charge?”

The motivations for asking the question vary. For some, a better form of government will enforce corporate conduct; the very loose logic being, if we get our polity right, people won’t sin. For others, a change of polity will resolve leadership abuse; if the sheep are being beat, give them voting rights and the crook will stop swinging. Then, there are those terrified church leaders looking for some form of spiritual CYA; if an apostle is at the top of the polity pyramid, then we are “covered.” And still others want to order the ill-informed and uneducated Am Herratz: the great intellectually unwashed; sheep are stupid and need a smart shepherd.  

As generalities go, the above four are the driving force of the modern quest for “Biblical” Church Government. All of these motivations converge at a common crossroad: who bears the liability for the rigor of life–the individual or the collective? Said another way, are the masses incompetent or not?

It is no accident that one of Strauch’s leading rationales for collectivist government is the need to order the ill-informed, uneducated Am Herratz. He is hardly the only person promoting the “sheep are stupid” idea. In Pass the Mint Jelly, I addressed this stupid sheep need a smart shepherd nonsense. Incompetent Masses is one of five radials for the web of tyranny.

Never forget this truth: the form of government is irrelevant if the philosophical foundation for the government is tyranny. And all tyrannical governments start with the premise that the people need help getting it right. Throughout the United States, an ever-increasing refrain is indoctrinating the Church into the historic group think. The lessons of antiquity show this has ominous implications.

To cover their governmental objectives, many who advocate Church collectivism use words like precious, helpless, loving, feeding, leading, disciplining, straying, and caring. The implication is we are all a bunch of infants; naive and pure, and needing mommy’s loving touch. This is the Brady Bunch interpretation that sounds churchy and wholesome, but it’s really just marketing and packaging. In another breath or three, these same folks will talk of human depravity and unremitting sinfulness, and complete inability.

These Divine Nannies bemoan their plight: oh, if only the people knew how much they need our hands to guide them to right ideas and right actions. But in a twist of vicious magnanimity, these Nannies place the cause of our rejection on a state of wayward, wretched sinfulness. We need them to dictate GOOD because we can never really know how bad we are. This means the disease is the cause and effect of Church government.

This logic boils down to people are incapable and need someone to babysit.  But this begs the question: who should that be? If we are all wormy, morally bankrupt people, and that bankruptcy produces moral and ethical incompetence, who then holds the reins of government? Who has the power to use the monopoly of FORCE to compel people to a given end?

Alexander Strauch argues that government structure answers the question. He advocates a flat organization, a group of interconnected, mutually accountable leaders…But most people realize that a truly flat governmental organization ends in utter stagnation. Strauch, of course, grasps this reality, knowing that without a single voice to direct action, it is impossible to organize mass conduct.

However, the moment a group begins to identify one guy at the top of the doctrinal and spiritual food chain, it starts to look like a pyramid. And that governmental structure is the hallmark of Papacy. If you are a good Protestant, avoiding the appearance of Papacy is an important goal.

So how do we have a non-pyramid…uh…pyramid? How do we pay lip service to egalitarianism yet have someone make command decisions?

The concept “First Among Equals” is gaining some traction throughout the hinterlands of modern Christian thought. This term has a Latin translation that sounds impressively academic to imply some authority. It is part of Greek political theory that has been dressed in a Miter and Simar and been smuggled into the reading of various bible passages. I discussed the source and implication in Toga Induced Christian Tribalism so I won’t rehash those things in this article.

By Strauchian logic, Church leadership is a plurality of Elders who need an Uber Elder to give a unique and focused vision. Since the Elders are theoretically subject to the same inability as the rest of the masses, they need someone to hold the reins on their faults, failures, and foibles. The group of “Equal Among Equals” provides accountability, a sort of collegial checks and balances. And one guy, the “First Among Equals,” ascends to the top of the non-pyramid…uh…pyramid. He gives the group cohesive leadership, setting the course and vision of the command team. A first guy oversees the collective leadership, who rules the collective body.

Is this the right way to organize Church Government? Actually, it doesn’t matter to me if this is a right or wrong structure. I am going to address something much more fundamental, the true source of all tyranny. Since I don’t care about the structure, today we are going to assume that it is true. I am going to let the Protestants offer their non-pyramid…uh… pyramid: Church government is a collective–elders, pastors, leaders–headed by a “First Among Equals.”

(Feel free to insert your structure as the default.)

All right… Are we clear on our assumptions?

Oh, goody. Now for the fun.

Who makes up that collective? Who gets to make up the “Equal of Equals”? How do we know who they are?

Those who are qualified?

That is what I thought you would say. And I’m betting a small amount of money that some of you have a list of qualifications in mind. Strauch offers this list:

· Character

· Service

· Gift

· Calling

· Well-liked (?)

· Passion for the job

There might be others. It doesn’t matter to me because I am asking the most fundamental question.

How do we KNOW?

Remember, Sheep are stupid and Shepherds protect sheep. So, how do we KNOW in the midst of our stupid sinfulness?

God appointed the “Equal Among Equals”?

Okay, fine…God appointed them. But how do we KNOW He appointed them? 

Let’s assume that God came down out of heaven, had a bunch of men sit in a circle and said:  “Duck…duck…duck…the Butcher… Duck…duck…duck…the Baker… Duck…duck…duck… the Candlestick Maker…  You three in the tub. Thou art “Equal Among Equals.”

Okay…wait…the problem with what I just said is: “God came down out of heaven.”  This is an absurd way of illustrating this equation: The group exists because God ordained it; God ordained it because the group exists. The premise to justify the group’s existence presumes God’s actions were so utterly objective that His intended outcome cannot be argued. But God didn’t come down out of heaven and the group’s existence is not evidence of divine intent. There is no objective event where God played Duck… Duck…Governor.

Therefore, Man had to decide who rub-a-dub-dubs in the Church Government tub.

How does man decide?

Historically, we’ve drawn lots, held elections, upheld succession, accepted revelations, waited on tables until Uber Preacher pats us on the head to confer our goose status. (Duck, duck, goose… get it?) And if that doesn’t get a guy in the Church Government tub, he passes out business cards until everyone believes “Thou Art First Among Equals.”

If none of the above works in picking those in the Church Government tub, the only thing left is to watch Sesame Street. ”One of these things is not like the other…one of these things does not belong…”

Yeah, me and Big Bird.

Which is the right method for picking the guy in the tub? I don’t care any more than I care about government structure.

Whatever the method, PEOPLE had to DECIDE how to arrive at the conclusion. For people to decide, they needed a set of values to measure group inclusion, or by Strauchian logic, quantify who was part of the subset of “Equal Among Equals.”

Value judgments require the ability to define GOOD. GOOD then shows what puts the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick Maker in the same tub. Said another way, people need to know “GOOD” before they can take moral action and then they must be able to take that action. If man cannot act on GOOD, his understanding is irrelevant.

“GOOD” and “moral action” goes hand in anthropomorphic hand. Unless one can define “GOOD,” he does not know how to act. Or maybe better said, he does not know if his actions are good or evil.

How does man get his understanding of GOOD?

Only two options exist:

1. GOOD is objective.

2. GOOD is dictated.

The first option requires that man has the faculties to arrive at objective, measurable, knowable GOOD. Man has the ability to observe the world and grasp what he sees. His faculties are sound and under his control. He can fathom cause and context. Man can extrapolate effect and project the outcome and take corresponding effective action. This is the source of all value.

From this foundation, man can grasp that the two questions, “what is GOOD?” and “what is truth?” are the same question. And, of course, the answer is Truth/GOOD gives EVERYTHING value. From this base, man can take action and measure the content of those actions because truth is entirely within his grasp in every meaningful sense.

Like I said, “GOOD” and “moral action” goes hand in hand.

The second option says that man is an irreparable moral and intellectual cripple. Whatever GOOD may be, man has no capacity to arrive at GOOD apart from direct intervention. Because man is so innately depraved, man can never grasp GOOD–to will or to do. This depravity disqualifies man’s grasp on reality in every meaningful sense. Man’s depravity drives him towards an inevitable self-destruction that is caused by cosmic forces beyond his every capacity to fathom.

Said bluntly, man is insane.

From this foundation, the logic is simple. Because man is insane, the definition of GOOD must be provided by an authority. The authority intervenes in man’s self-destructive actions imposing restrictions on action to save man from himself.

What authority? What imposed restrictions?

These are excellent questions. The answer depends on WHO is the authority. Since authority defines GOOD, moral action is the product of the authority. Authority dictates values and man is obligated to emulate them like a street mime: vacant, empty, mute, robotic, without consent or embrace.

So if the authorities are Mullahs, the imposed restriction is Sharia Law. If the Catholic Church is the authority, the imposed restrictions are the canons of the Church. If Oliver Cromwell is the authority, the dictate was the eradication of Christmas and Easter Festivals (among other things). If the Branch Davidians are the authority, it means the leaders can take all the women and female children for sex.

Which one is the right expression of authority and imposed restriction? Good question. Since man is insane, he cannot tell which representative of authority is better than the other. He can make no judgment because insanity prevents him from gravitating toward GOOD.

Does anyone else see the problem with this as the starting place of defining GOOD?

Oops, uh, dumb question. That assumes the insane man reading this blog post can reason. Okay… for the rest of you who accept that man is fully capable of arriving at GOOD, all by his lonesome, you see the problem, right?

The world is full of men claiming to represent THE authority. Which one is right? How does one authority outweigh another authority? If world events are any indication, the answer is whoever is willing to commit the most bloodshed. One authority dictates “GOOD,” all are condemned to embrace the standard–or perish. There is no such thing as an objection because objection is the specific function of deception.

(This is why so many men seeking to rule attack the mind. They attack the mind through guilt. They NEED you compliant. They NEED you to believe you are immoral to defend yourself. )

Notice this: Demagogues of Dictated Good like to pretend they are mere servants of a higher reality as if they are innocent bystanders in the cosmic presentation of truth. As if divine powers hold a celestial draft, SOMEHOW they got saddled with the stewardship of revelation. To misdirect our attention, they like to insist that the revelation is the “authority” and they are mere servants to the revelation. Don’t fall for this intellectual slight of hand. These “mere servants” are really claiming to have a dispensation from insanity that subsequently qualifies them to steward, which really qualifies them to dictate.

Like I said above: “Value judgments require the ability to define GOOD. GOOD then shows what puts the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick Maker in the same tub.”  SomeONE still has to define a good revelation from a bad one. This requires that someONE has rational faculties capable of defining GOOD and then taking subsequent moral action.

How can this be if all men are irreparable moral and intellectual cripples? The next progression for their intellectual hedge goes like this: We are all flawed. Therefore, to prevent individual error, we will join a group for checks and balances.

(As if Groups of people cannot be wrong.)

We like the idea of checks and balances. We like the idea so well we let the Demagogues of Dictated Good get away with two evasions.

How did the group arrive at the substance of ethical action? SomeONE had to identify it. SomeONE had to measure GOOD action–the qualification for joining the authority group.

Demagogues of Dictated Good say that man has no ability to identify “Good” but he can know it when the Group possesses “GOOD.”

Uh…if a man cannot measure his own moral action, how can he measure a Group’s moral proclamation? What, because the group members agree on the definition of GOOD, that makes it so?

Hahahaha….

It is insane to suggest that a GROUP of insane people are qualified to define moral action because they are a Group. This makes the means of “accountability” proximity. The folks in the asylum are not less insane because they are in the same geographic location.

“No, no, no,” you say. “The individuals bring their various strengths to offset the others’ weakness. This offers checks and balances.”

Yeah, this is a rich fiction. First, there is no such thing as a moral or ethical “strength.” Pervasive depravity prevents any such thing. And the very argument shows forth the intellectual fraud by appealing to the very dispensation from insanity I am pointing out.

Second, if authority dictates “GOOD,” there is no need for check and balance. Whatever Authority dictates IS good.

Let us dissect this, because it is important to understand the evasion. If Authority dictates GOOD, what then are we checking? The accuracy of the Authority?

Checking implies the ability to curtail some kind of action. But Authority defines GOOD and dictates action. What action needs to be curtailed? Or maybe, here is the better question: who has the authority to STOP the action? If they had the authority, wouldn’t it be their decree being emulated?

See, here is the rub. The dictated actions ARE GOOD. If Authority says: “Kill the Infidel,” the action of killing is GOOD. If Authority commands, “Stone homosexuals,” then warming up at the bullpen is GOOD. If Authority says, “Take from the rich and give to the poor,” then stealing a man’s substance by force is GOOD.

If Authority dictates GOOD, what are we balancing? In context, balancing implies a rational objective standard; the ability to weigh both sides of a moral equation. How did we see the need to offset one side of the teeter-totter with more weight? Man is insane, how CAN he balance?

Whatever action Authority proscribes is GOOD. There is no just or unjust action as long as the action is in obedience to the authority. So, authority commits no unjust action. Injustice, oppression, exploitation–all assume individual rights; they presume individual freedom. Individual freedom requires an objective standard of free action. And it presumes the capacity to “…observe the world and grasp what they see. His faculties are sound and under his control. He can fathom cause and context, extrapolate effect and project outcome.”

The Demagogues of Dictated Good–the collectivists–eradicate the concept of individuality. Individuality cannot exist when Authority defines value. Man is merely a commodity in the ultimate expression of authority. EVERYTHING is sacrificed to the highest expression of Authority. Truth/GOOD = authority, and authority = truth. Value is dictated. Moral action is irrelevant because actions are dictated.

This progression has always led to rivers of blood, and terrible destructions, and profound abuses, and unrelenting spiritual tyranny all in the name of God and his Glory. Even a casual evaluation of Medieval history, the height of Christian governmental collectivism, is replete with examples of tyranny perpetrated by the hands of the collective, corporate, or collegiate leadership.

How could it be otherwise?

The whole house of cards is built on the assumption that insane men can grasp GOOD and dictate GOOD to other insane men.

And…uh…THAT…is insane.

So, this question arises: why would people so openly advocate insane doctrines that relentlessly produce the same outcome of death, disaster, and destruction?

The Gospel according to John Immel 3: 1-3 lays out the path to finding the answer.

1) All people act logically from their assumptions. 2) It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale, they will act until the logic is fulfilled. 3) Therefore, when you see the masses of people taking the same destructive actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause.

The reason for the insanity is simple. Those who advocate governing philosophies founded on the human depravity and the subsequent necessity of Dictated Good need you to abandon YOU. They need you to believe you are beyond defense. They need you to believe you have no moral worth to protect. If you will accept this premise, they know you will lay down your greatest tool of freedom. You will abandon thinking.

THAT is why the Demagogues of Dictated Good never give you tools to THINK. Or maybe better said, they will give you tools to think like they do, but diverge for a moment and be accused of spiritual sedition. They must bury your rationale under the unrelenting accusation of heretic to distract from their own crumbling intellectual house of cards.

The moment people start THINKING, they cannot be tyrannized. Thinking people will not willingly be forced into dictated actions. Thinking People understand GOOD and MORAL action and resist spiritual tyranny with every fiber of their being.

Thinking defines the insanity. Go and do likewise.

 

 

Read More