The Walls of Mystic Despotism

Friday June 25, 2010 • 3 Comments 

The Walls of Mystic Despotism

I dares ya ta’ step across this line.

- Bugs Bunny

Click here for audio

I had thought to let this series of posts go, (June 12th, 12:20 a.m. to June 13th, 2:43 p.m.) on Women and Children First, offered by self-identified Mike Doherty. My reasons were equally divided across a few thoughts. First, I am working on another article tentatively called “Crisis Management” and didn’t want to get distracted from research. Second, in my mind, Mike Doherty’s words speak for themselves, and I expect that the savvy Spiritual Tyranny readership sees the implicit failure in Mike’s demand. Third, I have addressed many of the stock defenses of tyranny over and over and over and over and over and over. Fourth, I anticipated this was just another drive-by blogging; people say their piece and move on. However, Mike did return for a couple more shots at me, my character, my lack of deference to him, some foreboding proclamations about biblical authority, and a general: “What are you talking about?”

One must wonder if orthodoxy forbids classes on reading comprehension, because detractors seem not to grasp my specific criticisms in context to the atrocity of rape, and my unrelenting critique of the doctrine of apostolic covering being taught to American Christianity:  its catastrophic failure to deliver on its self-declared social contract.

Several articles have been written detailing this issue, The Very Important Thing of Blog Apostleness; Women and Children First; Family Member Tomczak Responds; Frauds, Papists, and European Religion, plus numerous sub-comments on related posts. How then my detractors can toss up their hands and say “I just don’t understand what you are saying” is a mystery. The same thing happened with Paul Balluff and his wife, which I detailed in two related posts: Paul Balluff Lessons and Paul Balluff–the Final Lesson. They are but a few in a list of people who more vocal at condemning tone than manifest bankruptcy of action.

Somehow I’m the ungracious one. Evidently when I point out ANY failing, it is a lack of humility and a failure to extend mercy because “We are all just sinners.” When they demand my justification and rail against what they see as my character flaws, it is … what exactly? Where is the chapter and verse to justify calling me sickening? How come I don’t qualify for the expansive exercise of everyone being a sinner? Eeeeaaahh … what’s up with this, Doc?

Of course there is a huge BUT coming: not to be confused with a gratuitous posterior.

However, >snicker< after my initial ambivalence, I realized that underneath Mike’s comments is a very important issue: using “scripture” to shield against the critical review of tyranny. Something is seriously wrong when anyone can, with a straight face, use bible verses to diminish tyrannical outcomes, justify imposed suffering as a failure of doctrinal precision, and trivialize unequivocal, objective judgment as mere emotional ranting. Scripture can never be something to HIDE behind; yet historically, this is exactly how tyrannical governments and their partners in crime, the Mystic Despots, have used it. I reject the notion that one needs chapter and verse to resist tyranny. And one certainly does not need chapter and verse to lay siege to the Walls of Mystic Despotism.

Eeeeeeh, watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful, pachydermous, percussion pitch. Or maybe better said, I’m ready to writerly rumble. So let me begin with the end of his first post on Women and Children First, June 12th, 12:20 a.m. (Mike, you shoulda taken dat left toin at Albe-koi-kee.) Here is the last paragraph:

“I commend Heather for her comment. It was nice to read an intelligent, humble, well-thought-out and graceful statement, as opposed to the sickening, divisive, and uncharitable comments that I’m sad to say make up the majority of this blog. Grace and peace to all of you through Christ Jesus our Lord!”

Mike “commends.” I guess that is important. For those of you just tuning in, Heather is more than the average rabbit-hater, oops … poster on Spiritual Tyranny. She weighed in heavily on Family Member Tomczak Responds. She took me to task on my tone, only without Mike’s hero worship. She agreed with my comments just not my methods. Maybe Heather is flattered by Mike’s approval, and then maybe not. She is a wordy sort and can speak for herself.

But whatever…

Here is what I want you to see, Dear Spiritual Tyranny reader. The assumption is vast and revealing. Notice what Mike is doing: he implicitly thinks that his judgment, his bible understanding, is THE defining measure of the conversation. As he becomes increasingly more agitated by my unwillingness to dance to his drumbeat, this expectation radiates from every paragraph of each subsequent comment.

He makes a stock offer to intellectual broadmindedness—that he could be corrected in erroneous belief—but this is subterfuge, an effort to demonstrate some prescribed cultural humility. The truth of the matter was his parting comment (June 13th, 2:43 p.m.)

“Don’t bother. It’s obvious neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything. You haven’t even been able to muster up the energy to even tell me what you’re trying to say, or even correct your spelling. So I’ll just bow out here. I have church in a few hours and I’d rather not have this pointless conversation in mind when I’m trying to worship God. Thanks for the stimulating conversation and for having so little respect for my viewpoints as to not even address them. Don’t bother replying, I’m officially unsubscribing from this particular waste of time.”

Gee, ain’t I a stinker?

As an aside, what kind of person takes a spelling mistake as a personal slight?

Whatever… this is a revealing admission considering the leading criticism was that I had made no effort to respond. Which means, by definition, I had not tried to persuade: if I’m not talking, I’m not aiming an argument at your head. His parting comment is framed against the very pious action of worshiping God but this sanctimony is subterfuge to justify the declaration of his true state of mind: intellectual recalcitrance.

So this begs the following questions. What could underlie such absolutist thinking? What must someone believe to act with such manifest obstinacy? What must one believe about life to frame every action in terms of a bible verse? In a world filled with sinful men whose minds are corrupted by selfish depravity, who live to please themselves, who need help to live holy, how can such certainty ever be found?

This can only stem from one glaring presumption:  that all things them = all things Bible.

Notice this from Mike’s first post June 12th, 12:20 a.m.:

“That to me, is the most damning evidence against the entire anti-SGM movement. Scripture is rarely held up as an example, and when it is, it’s usually taken out of context.”

I bet you say that to all the wabbits.

Critics who try to quote scripture are misled souls executing contextual interpretive failure: critics = unbiblical. Conversely, notice how pervasive the biblical vindication for those he defends: even when church leadership fails, they are like everyone else, just sinners in need of grace. Even their “failure” is scriptural.

Now turn your attention to this paragraph in his first post:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) So why are you treating it as a hindrance to your cause? How about Romans 8:1? James 5:9? 2 Timothy 2:14? Phillipians 2:1-3? Do you perhaps ignore these verses because if you followed scripture then you would have to extend grace and offer rebuke in a manner that please God rather than just ripping SGM apart and pleasing yourself?”

When someone starts proof-texting their overarching assertions, realize they are laying the foundations for Mystic Despotism. The verses are the bricks. The mortar is an inevitable appeal to interpretive authority a mere breath away. For example, in the above paragraph, it is true that scripture is profitable for the list offered. That is the proof text I’m intended to concede. This is Mike’s effective reading: since scripture is profitable, the source of all rebuke comes from specific bible passages—everything else is forbidden. So MY rebuke is in error because it is not specifically cited with chapter and verse. Now watch how he frames the argument in the last sentence:  “…because if you followed scripture then you would have to extend grace and offer rebuke in a manner that please God rather than just ripping SGM apart and pleasing yourself.”

Beyond the presumption of a mere man claiming to know what pleases God, the rest of his last sentence is Kantian philosophy superimposed over Christian ideals and largely irrelevant. In context, true self-absorption would be to shut my mouth and let the tyranny persist, and just pretend that the carnage does not exist. But notice how the bricks and mortar fit together: for me to disagree with his proof text is ultimately to disagree with bible authority. If I reject his synthesis, I reject BIBLE.

Any number of Exegetical and Hermeneutical problems are woven deep into stringing these passages together to establish a doctrinal point or dogmatize a specific Christian practice. But for the moment let’s pretend that Mike is right. Let’s pretend that the verses above require a critic to narrow his comments to a specific tone and method. Let’s pretend that some men in Christianity are protected from specific words. Let’s pretend that the bible advocates an oligarchy immune from certain types of criticism. Let’s pretend that we have absolutely sourced our ‘scriptural’ conduct.

Here is the problem. To justify applying that standard to ANY modern day preacher, teacher, or mendicant requires making an EXTRA biblical assertion: NO ONE is listed as the sole rightful heir of scripture. For any modern day man to presume eldership, or pastor-ship, or presbytery-ship, or apostle-ship or any other ship, they must adopt interpretive methods that let them rationalize presuming to claim the elite oligarchy criticism protected class for themselves.

I’m not going to address if those interpretive methods are right or wrong. My goal is to show how interpretive methodology is directly related to Spiritual Tyranny and the Walls of Mystic Despotism.

“You don’t have enough scripture to back up your criticism,” which also gets said like this:  “You’re not forgiving, so your criticisms are un-scriptural.” And also like this:  “You are going against the clear teaching of scripture…”

When those of Mike’s doctrinal pedigree say “scripture,” they are really staking a claim to the standard of interpretive judgment: their interpretive methods are right because their interpretations are expressions of authority. No matter what lip service is paid to intellectual broadmindedness and reasonable consideration, they are daring you to cross a line in an argument they are positive they would win.

Notice this exact equation in Mike’s broadminded concession to some theoretical spiritual abuse. He concedes the general probability of leadership failures because in thirty-some years of existence, the statistics lean towards sin. Here is what he said:

“I freely admit that such spiritual abuses may have, and probably did, occur. While some of these complaints are merely the unwillingness of some people to submit to what I believe is biblical authority, I have no doubt that in it’s thirty plus year history, mistakes have been made, situations have been mishandled, and yes, sins have been committed.”

I want you to notice the start of the second sentence. The complaints about abuse are “merely the unwillingness… of some… to submit to … biblical authority.” This is Mike’s way of saying that pain would not exist if people would just submit to what God wanted. The equation is bible = authority. The source of the complaint is a failure to adhere to the standard of scripture.

Hmmmm…..  Where have I heard this mindset talked about before? This is why I love it when these guys post. They make my case over and over and over. I wrote about this very mindset in To Reform or Not to Reform. Here is what I said:

      …they think the problems lie from without. You have failed to make their job a joy. You failed to adhere to a sound biblical teaching that they are morally on the hook to defend, advocate, and enforce. The hurt feelings, the spiritual collateral damage, the individual pressure that arises out of conflict with them are merely signs of selfishness and sin and the natural consequence of failing to embrace the higher truths of their sound teaching. In light of eternity, how could these momentary light afflictions be of any real consequence?

      If you only understood that you don’t own you. If only you understood that you have been mandated by God to submit the entirety of your SELF to their care, the conflict would not exist. You don’t own you, so how can you object to a violation of your personal boundaries, aspirations, wants, and desires? It is all sin, and they are doing God’s work by standing in the way of your determination to carry out your sinful self.

Herein is the greatest lever of Mystic Despots’ argumentative and autocratic power: the ascription of bible authority to their specific mandate. The fact that THEY wield bible authority is the given. The loose algebra offered is: Scripture = Authority = Orthodoxy = the standard of judgment = (THEIR) government = (THEIR) force.

Mike raised the issue of orthodoxy in his comments on June 13th, 1:45 p.m., and while he was not detailing the doctrinal algebra above, he presumes the equation. Well, except (maybe) for the force part. I added that to reiterate that Government is force…. always.

OK, here I go with the timid little woodland creature bit again. It’s shameful, but…ehhh, it’s a living.

>snicker<

What is orthodoxy? Well… very good question, and in another work I will dissect what it really means, but for now, we will take the loosely accepted definition: that which has been believed by everyone, everywhere, always. Well, that is not quite right, because sons of the Protestant movement say orthodoxy and mean the authority of the Reformed Tradition and that body of “unerring” interpretation, as opposed to Catholic Orthodoxy, or Eastern Orthodoxy, and a host of other orthodoxies spanning 1,800 years of church history.

Now notice what this does to any bible content conversation:  those who claim authority have enormous argumentative power. They can dismiss any reading that deviates with traditional theological conclusions and demagogue the interpretive high ground. How dare you offer an “un-scriptural” interpretation? This is an outrage! I demand an explanation. The overt criticism is, to disagree with me is to disagree with authority, which is to disagree with orthodoxy, which is to disagree with greater minds than yours, which is to disagree with time-tested truths, which is to disagree with the Bible, which is to disagree with God—Heretic!

That is a lot of pressure. Who wants to be a heretic? Well, the accusation doesn’t have the same weight in the modern age, with bonfires being out of vogue, but people are still hard pressed to suffer a name that implies bad, bad earthly things and even worse eternal things. So, to hedge their spiritual bets, preempt the label, and gain credibility, they dance to the historic drumbeat. And herein is the problem. To gain credibility means to adopt the assumptions of the historical debates. Those assumptions are deeply embedded in the interpretive methodology handed down from intellectual father to intellectual son until we have a Monkey See Monkey Do Orthodoxy.

And here is the dirty little secret that virtually no one has the nerve to say out loud: The Bible does not drive “what everyone has believed, everywhere, always.” Interpretive methods based on specific historical assumptions determine orthodox belief.

Let me say this again with an illustration. Many attempts were made at Catholic Church reform before good ol’ Martin was born. But “orthodoxy” for some 1,500 years said that the Pope determined the MEANING of scripture. (Catholic Orthodoxy STILL affirms this doctrine) Said another way, papal authority was the interpretive method. Until the “orthodox” interpretive method changed, papal understanding remained the standard for all biblical discussion because the Pope was in charge of MEANING. So, in as much as reformers were compelled to concede papal authority to define meaning, they could not escape papal conclusion.

This is why the battle cry “Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone,” was such a formidable counterargument to papal authority. It marked an absolute shift in interpretive methods by leveraging the leading Enlightenment concept ushered into Christianity by St. Thomas Aquinas in the late 12th century–the Aristotelian predicate that Man can understand the world around him, and that includes the Bible. (Scripture Alone is meaningless under the Platonist/Augustinian world view that dominates Christianity since the mid 4th century.) This was the essential intellectual departure from the papal interpretive monopoly that made all subsequent Reformation doctrines possible.

Here is the heart and soul of the Reformation conflict. Scholastic Disputations Against the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences was really a catalyst to a much deeper, longstanding disagreement: the source, practice, and methodology of Papal Authority. The Reformation’s theological battleground was over the issue of inspiration, authority, tradition, and revelation. In other words: whose interpretations reign supreme to justify tyrannical practice? It is to this issue that Martin Luther wrote the following:

     The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.

     Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal.

     Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the scriptures but the Pope.

     Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope.

     (Modern History Sourcebook : Martin Luther’s  Address To The Nobility of the German Nation, 1520)

Mike’s comments reflect an implicit expectation that is anecdotal for the exact same set of papal assumptions. Reformation Theology shills are posing as historic papists posturing as the MEANING police, and in many ways, this situation is worse. The Papacy was confined to one man at the top of the pyramid, and that placed some limitations on the nature and scope of tyranny.

But all any Reformed Theology aficionado has to do is start saying: “I am Orthodox. Submit to my authority! Submit to my authority!” Abraca-pocus! Poof! Instant doctrinal justification: now all comers to the interpretive throne need to justify themselves against their authority. They utter one word and they become the elite oligarchy criticism protected class. Carrots are divine… You get a dozen for a dime… It’s maaaa-gic!

I addressed the concept of Dictated Good in detail on the post Defining Insanity. As stewards of Dictated Good, they are uniquely qualified to claim for themselves all deference. Bully for Bugs, they are the authority, you are not—they dictate, you don’t. This presumption gives them absolute power to build a wall around all interpretive conclusions and any subsequent practice. And heaven forefend that bonfires become a fashionable expression of church authority, we’ll all be screaming: “Stop steamin’ up my tail! Whataya tryin’ ta do, wrinkle it?”

Call me Loony Tunes if you want…

But if one lets them hide behind their walls, the Meaning Police will exploit those on the outside with impunity. They rely on everyone’s bible insecurity in concession to historic interpretive methods. But this path condemns counterarguments to the flaws and failures deep within the historic interpretive assumptions. By conceding their right to measure accuracy, people set up the historic conclusions as the default standard, which really elevates historic understanding in modern minds to biblical infallibility. From here the argument is lost: one cannot challenge doctrinal failures because one has accepted the ideas that created the conclusions.

So when these people start chanting “scripture, scripture, scripture,” realize they are chanting “orthodoxy, orthodoxy, orthodoxy,” believing they have played the ultimate ‘biblical’ trump card. They mean to say that nothing else is scriptural, which is really code for: “We don’t reasonably consider anything that isn’t traditional interpretation handed down for the last 500 years.” They flaunt their intellectual recalcitrance like a badge of purist qualification, emulating the spirit of their intellectual forefather:

     “This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand scripture; I know all of that very well already.”

     (On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Vol. 47, Part 1, third paragraph, Martin Luther, Translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press & Augsburg Fortress  1971.)

Real conversations about church reform are necessarily about interpretive methods, because church structure and practice are built around interpretive conclusions. So if your interpretive method demands authority as justification, the fight is inevitably about who is qualified. There is no such thing as out-authoritating an authority, because he with the most FORCE wins.

This is THE problem with doctrines that create Dictated Good. Dictated Good requires FORCE to achieve. Men must be compelled to get the right answer because objective truth does not exist. Or maybe better said, man’s corrupt nature prevents him from knowing objective truth–which amounts to the same thing. Historically, the guy with the greatest will to use the biggest bonfire won the argument of authority. In the modern age, forcing is limited to social manipulation—at least for now. So for the moment, the conversation merely degenerates into endless scripture stacking and recriminations about Christian authenticity.

For those of you who have suffered spiritual tyranny, this is why when you went to reason about ‘scripture,’ the response was character assassination and accusations of spiritual sedition: you failed to “submit to authority.” No matter the pretense, no matter how broadminded the façade, the conversation is never about bible content. At the root, it is really a fight over who is qualified to dictate and if they are the ones with the office or the historic pedigree, it ain’t you.

The result is trench warfare with the historic lines dug deep into the bedrock of a substance that does not seem malleable. Rodney King says, “Can’t we just all get along?” And the handwringing and argumentative mea culpas begin, scripture stacking done, argument over, status quo is sustained, spiritual tyranny persists. Never once were the Mystic Despots hiding behind ‘scripture’ made responsible for their intellectual passivity, logical slights of hand, doctrinal outcomes, or their impiety.

They get all the benefit of authority but none of the responsibility of their authoritarian outcomes. As long as they can make a claim to orthodoxy, make a claim to “scripture,” all relational breakdowns and ministerial failures are due to the vagaries of “we are all just sinners.”

Everybody else’s bad ideas, bad doctrine, bad theology, is directly responsible for bad actions. But their ideas cannot possibly be at the core of their bad actions. Human failures are not interpretive failures but rather the logical extension of depraved humanity. The truths stand apart eternal and affirmed by the universal failure of humans to live up to a standard they are condemned to fulfill.

This is a masterpiece of demagoguery. The castle is fortified against any assault. Leadership has, with great adroitness, drawn walls around themselves. Up till now these walls have protected them so that no one could hold them responsible for their tyranny, whereby people are enslaved.

     First: If it were proposed to admonish them with scriptures, they objected that no one but orthodox theologians (sort of) may stand in the stead of God, for it is the job of commended leadership to correct leadership.

     Second: If pressed with external scrutiny, they insist that such conversations can only be motivated by bitterness, gossip, and slander which disqualify the criticism and frees them to summarily refuse review from anyone not submitted to their authority.

     Third: All tyranny is attributed to the vagaries of human sinfulness, the humble efforts of good but failed intentions, and morally equivalized by “we are all just sinners.”

Shhhhh…. I’m about to defy you.

The walls seem formidable and the leadership calls down lightning like Elmer Fudd’s unrequited love. But the dirty little secret is they don’t really have a spear and magic helmet.

I guess it is about time to use a little ‘stragedy.’ Dear Spiritual Tyranny Reader, I knight thee Sir Loin of Beef!

Charrrrrggggeee!

Well, what did you expect in an opera? A happy ending? 

 *****

No rabbits were harmed in the production of this article, but all impressions were mangled. We offer many apologies to Mel Blanc.



Frauds, Papists and European Religion

Monday March 29, 2010 • 37 Comments 

By John Immel

Click here for the audio

This article is a continuation of a conversation on Family Member Tomczak Responds.  What follows is my unrelenting determination to hammer this point down with nails.

Some have attributed my tirade to fury… that notwithstanding… the thing I am specifically critiquing is the fraud in the whole apostolic submission and authority doctrine and the sub-theme called “covering” that is being trotted through the United States.

There is a general cry emerging in American Piety: our leaders abuse us.  Any number of outlets have emerged, voicing a litany of abuse, perpetrated by leaders of many doctrinal persuasions and flavors of Christianity.  Some Churches under discussion are national ministries, others are local mega churches, some are mid-size interconnected community outreaches, and some still are small town gatherings.  While the problem might not be in every location and in every denomination, the theme of leaders leveraging bible ideas to exploit and dictate their congregations has come to the forefront.  The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse and other resources addressing the same issue are becoming staples in Christian reading lists.  Believers feel the need to doctrinally arm themselves against their leadership.  As a trend in American Piety, this is a bad, bad sign.  My goal is to illustrate the theme is no accident; it is the logical outcome driven by specific ideas.

As I have said in other places on my blog, SpiritualTyranny.com, there is method to the madness.  I do both inductive and deductive argumentation; meaning I use the specific tyranny of groups, people, and leaders to make an overarching observation about methods, means, and tools of despotism.  This tempts people to believe one of two things:

  • That what I have to say does not specifically apply their exact situation.
  • That this blog only exists for my wrathful pleasure against select men.

The original post Family Member Tomczak Responds was written to address the second temptation.  Further comments on that post were made along these same lines.  While I appreciate the source of the observations, I need to redirect the attention back to my ongoing effort to use examples of specific tyranny to make an overarching point.

There is something profoundly wrong inside the national ministry called Sovereign Grace Ministries as every emerging stories illustrate on sundry outlets.  And for reasons yet to be detailed, no one who claimed for themselves “Apostolic” title has raised a voice in protest.  This is specifically curious in Larry Tomczak’s case.  As a founder of the movement and a self-proclaimed apostle who has openly advocated submission to his authority, one is compelled to ask: where is the covering?

I have detailed this issue in three separate posts: The Very Important Thing of Blog Apostleness, Women and Children First, and Family Member Tomczak Responds.

This is my fourth and NEVER-ending effort to shine light on the implicit fraud deeply embedded in this doctrine.  The elements of this doctrine have vast implications.  The train is coming down the tracks, the whistle is blowing, and American Christianity is skipping along its merry way.

But before we dive into that, let me back up a minute…

There has been some question as to my relationship with Larry Tomczak, thereby implying that I am unqualified to address his actions in context to some ongoing Spiritual Tyranny.  There is probably an article in here somewhere addressing the assumption that all commentary is somehow born of nefarious personal motive, but that is a different conversation for another time.  For now I will say this: my familiarity with Larry, personally, is irrelevant.  And that is also true of any other apostle teaching this body of doctrine and failing to deliver on their own standard.

I am not talking about Larry Tomczak the dad, or the friend, or the family member, or Larry Tomczak the sincere, or Larry the nice guy.  I am talking about Larry the “Apostle.”  I am talking about Larry the professor of doctrine, a teacher of Christians, and the founder of PDI/CLC/SGM.  I am talking about the colossal hoax in the doctrine displayed for all to see.

For those of you who don’t know, the doctrine of covering or oversight says that Christians are obligated to bring their minds, time, gifts, talents and resources to Apostolic Central Planning in exchange for a spiritual/governmental protection.  The bottom line of this doctrine is: “Believe what I tell you without question, and give me your money.”  What kind of protection do you buy with that price?  What is the specific manifestation of that oversight?  These are very, very, very good questions.

Larry and a host of other protectionists teach what amounts to little more than Protestant Papacy–select men given a dispensation to be God’s representative on the earth.  They stand in the stead of God, mere stewards of His truth, dictating his will, overseeing your conformity to the Kingdom.  Don’t worry about what you will do in the kingdom, they will tell you.  No reason to think much, they have your back.

And just like the Papacy of old, they advocate Christian docility while the tyrants and thugs plunder at will.  These apostolic cons say they are uniquely qualified to cover the sheep because sheep are stupid and need someone smart to defend them…

But…

when it comes time to do some shielding, they wring their hands and dither about.

These apostolic frauds demand obedience to authority, but like all despots only use that authority on the very people that are there for protection.  (Which every story mentioned on Family Member Tomczak Responds abundantly illustrates)  When faced with a threat from those with the means and will to create destruction, they toss their hands in the air and tell everyone to smile and pray.  And here is the point: these apostolic frauds preach a social contract that is glaringly one-sided.  They claim for themselves all the power and benefit of authority with no responsibility to a specific outcome.

I want that job.  I want to be able to mandate that everyone must believe what I say and do what I command.  And then when it all goes to hell I want to be able to say: “God is just allowing you to be tested to reveal what is inside.  God is Sovereign!  The Devil attacking!  It’s your lack of Faith!  Blah blah blah blah.  And oh, by the way, tithe to me you God Robber!”

I want THAT job.

Actually, no, I couldn’t look that conman in the mirror!

Here, NOW, in the microcosm that is SGM is an opportunity to show forth the function of this covering.  And where are these wondrous covering apostles?  What are they doing in all their submission and authority glory?  They pound the pulpit, openly advocating bring everything to Central Planning; they will breathe all manner of woe and evil portents for NOT submitting to Apostolic authority.  But now in the face of tyranny, in the face of rank Mystic Despotism, the only sound in the room is …. Crickets.

This silence can only mean one of two things:

1. These Apostolic vunderkins are in intellectual, theological, and philosophical solidarity with SGM method and practice; meaning they don’t object because they agree.

2. Their doctrine is fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud!

I am not backing down here.  There is no compromise.  There is no middle ground.  There is no “they’re just a little confused.”  There is no such thing as “I don’t think God will use them.”  By doctrine, they are saying this IS their divine charge.

I will never practice Rodney King Christianity: no, we can’t just all get along.  Tyranny is based in philosophy.  It is no accident.  Tyranny is on purpose.  Tyranny seeks to compel people to specific ends.  Tyranny is death and destruction.  You don’t trip into tyranny any more than you trip in to sex.  People make very specific decisions and advocate specific ideas to get to both outcomes.

Okay… breathe, John, breathe.

….

….

….

I am going to wax brainy for a minute, so that maybe you can see the much, much bigger picture.

Salvation is of the Jews, but modern Christianity is a European Religion.

It is no accident that we are seeing a resurgence of European Religion concurrent with a tidal wave of European Collectivism.  The religious/governmental courtship starts decades before the tyrannical marriage begins in earnest:  and the honeymoon period ALWAYS ends in a bloodbath.  European history is a portrait of romance between these dysfunctional bedfellows.

The leading element of European Religion is Religious Monarchy, also known as Oligarchy, also known as Papacy.  This governmental model was aided and abetted by Platonist/Augustinian depravity justifying all manner of tyranny for the cause of the “Gospel,” which really meant for whatever political, governmental, and social purpose the church was advocating at the moment.

For two millennia religious strife and destruction has washed across the face of Europe fueled by the ideology that man does not own himself; man is a ward of the state.  History shows forth the tide of destruction THAT philosophical assumption creates in the hands of Monarchist, Oligarchs, and Papists (Marxists, Collectivists, Fascists, and National Socialists).

With virtually no clue of the fruit of our chosen course, American Christianity is tripping down the same European Religious despotic path, patting ourselves on the back for having finally gotten Christianity right: after all these years and all the supposed chaos we are finally back to what God really intended.

Our leading “thinkers” are really historical shills repackaging and resurrecting doctrinal justification for Protestant Papacy in modern American Piety.  This is no easy feat because American intellectual heritage was founded on ideas that resisted European Mystic Despotism.  And American Christianity had at its root the assumption of intellectual freedom, and an utter distaste for collectivist doctrines.  So to achieve the outcomes of old, they have dug back into history and revived the historic Platonist/Augustinian assumptions to justify doctrines of Dictated Good.  These doctrines place one man–or a group of men–in seats of power to compel right action.

Because we have driven thinkers from our midst, no one is present to resist the ideological and theological disaster.  As a result American Christianity is a basket of intellectual schizophrenics advocating ideas that are mutually exclusive and wondering why the outcomes do not improve.  We pound the pulpit proudly for our return to European Religion, and in the next breath insist that God founded this country and Christians wrote the Constitution, never once realizing the two outcomes are diametrically opposed.

The European Religion we are now laying claim is the very autocratic-oriented religion those Founding Fathers abandoned.  Or maybe better said, it is the very religion the Founding Fathers created absolute barriers to its predisposition towards Mystic Despotism in the United States.

The result is inevitable.  Just like our religious forefathers, the American Church is aiding and abetting the rise of political tyrants.  The American Church is doing what the European Religion has always done when History’s Hitlers start beating the drums for hope and change.  They become the leading force of pacifying the populace in the rise of every fascist, despotic state in the last 500 years, stifling resistance … until it is too late.

There is a reason that Marx called Religion the Opium of the Masses.  There is a reason why Hitler courted the Catholics and the Lutherans–in the beginning.  The easiest way to persuade the people that they shouldn’t fight for LIBERTY is to tell them they are ineffective in God’s Kingdom if they don’t play nice.

I suspect people find this a dizzying irrelevancy: a massive leap from the modest conversation on a blog to history of European Religious Collectivist tyranny.  But it isn’t.  We are on a disastrous course.

Larry and a host of others are anecdote for a graver ill.  They are symptoms of a horrific trend   in American Christian thought.  I don’t care that they don’t know.  By their own submission and authority-covering doctrine, they are SUPPOSED TO KNOW!  I don’t care how sincere they are; we don’t get credit for sincerity when the tyrants come to pillage and plunder at will.  And if the parable of the Talents shows us anything, it is this: mere good intentions are penalized harshly, results are rewarded absolutely.

I going to hammering away at the implicit fraud of this doctrine to highlight the charade that is being perpetrated on Christianity as a whole.  One element of that Charade is the doctrine of Covering.

The doctrine of covering is little more than spiritual protectionism.  We would see its function immediately if they dressed in cheap suits and said: “Yo! Paullie, can you believe this %&*#^%@ guy?”

“Ya Tony, make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

“Okay, it’s like this.  See, four large a month and maybe we’ll keep bad things from happening.”

These thugs can only exist in an atmosphere of implied chaos and pending violence.  The moment anyone has the means and the will to commit ACTUAL violence, they vanish like rats.

And when they vanish, they leave a vacuum.  Protectionism makes believers terrified and therefore passive.  Many people discuss their lifetime of FEAR after exposure to these doctrines.  This is NO accident!  This is on purpose.  This is by design.  This is a political tool to cow the body politic.  Or in Church parlance: The Body of Christ.

Passive people become empty people, primed for whoever will fill the void of their mind.  The doctrines of Protestant Papacy are really doctrines designed to pacify the body politic.  They are teachings designed to strip away the means and method of resistance by undermining your moral clarity to resist ANYTHING, let alone tyranny.  Christians are heading for disaster because we have been primed to be compliant.  We are being conditioned to believe that our spiritual function is conciliation, pacification, and appeasement.  If we are a fountain of sweetness and light, somehow the world will get the point and be a better place live.

Modern preachers are once again laying the ideological foundation that turns Christianity into a socially benign religion.  Their motive is based in their inability to lead with the power of their ideas.  They need authority to bolster their impotence.  They need a compliant church body so they can survive ideas they cannot repel.  But the Protestant Papists’ unwitting outcome is they have indoctrinated cultural and intellectual submissiveness.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, a passive body politic was a core function of European Christianity in the medieval Three Estates.  The social organization of medieval Europe was enforced by the SAME Mystic Despotism.  The same Mystic Despotism justified the Divine Right of Kings by insisting that all government was intended by God’s hand and therefore, all acts of despotism are just the way of a sinful world and what can you really do?

Long before Neville Chamberlain sold the world a hippie bumper sticker “Peace in our Time,” the Catholic and the Lutheran Church taught the Volk of the Weimar Republic deference to tyranny’s rise.  Church leaders told the people it was their job to watch the flock and defend against the bad, never once realizing they were teaching their charges the philosophical foundations for Hitler’s National Socialism.  And like all protectionist thugs, they vanished like rats as Europe burned and the bodies were being reduced to ash.  Too late to rally the people, to teach them the moral clarity to resist the tyranny.  Impotent European church leaders wrung their hands and blamed the destruction on man’s great sinfulness.

A man who has no sense of history has no eyes or ears.

Here is where we are, Dear Spiritual Tyranny reader, at the crossroads of tyranny.  We cannot insist that we are a force of liberty in the world if we practice tyranny within our own walls.  We cannot fault the world for destroying freedom if we cannot stand firm against our own fabricated doctrines that subjugate the minds of men.  We cannot call ourselves salt and light and dare to wield a sword if we cannot sustain the moral clarity to condemn the fraudulent Protestant Papists pretending covering.  If they don’t have the gonads, or the plan, or the ability, then it is time we sent these spiritual thugs in their cheap suits and Jersey accents packing.



Next Page »