The Apocrypha: Bridge of the Testaments - Robert C. Dentan Seabury Press (January 2000) Topic: Bibliology, Hermeneutics, & Exegesis; Non-Canonical & Disputed Writings Summary: Intorduction to the Apocryphal/Deutero-Canonical writings of the period between the time of the Prophets and the New Testament Rating:

Studying the First Century Greek culture has become increasingly popular amongst Christians today. Many want to know just what St. Paul was up against and how the early church survived the Hellenistic cultures.

The Apocrypha helps us to know this very thing: just how God’s people came to be what Jesus was brought to rebuke. The Apocrypha helps us to know the foundation of early Christianity as it pertains to its growth out of the Jewish mindset and culture.

As Robert C. Dentan states in his short book The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments (1954), “neither time nor thought was standing still” during the 400-some years between the Testaments. Dentan reminds us that the difficulty many of us face when connecting the thoughts of the Old Testament to those of the New can be significantly diminished through the study of the Apocrypha.

This book gives a fabulous introduction to the Apocrypha by outlining its background and purpose. In the first couple chapters Dentan explains how the Jews inherited the culture of the Greeks thus resulting in the translation of the Septuagint; and how the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) not only included the Apocrypha but that it was the authoritative and primary source of Scripture for both the Jews and the early Christians. With slight qualifications, the Apocrypha consists of those books, or parts of books, which are found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Denatan is inclusive to many interesting comments such as the fact that the Jews, according to Arestias legend, held the Septuagint to be inspired just as the Hebrew text was inspred. According to the legend the Jews put 72 translators into two different cells to have them translate the law, finding that the translations of both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint were nearly identical.

Dentan clearly demonstrates how the main theme of the inter-testament period was that of the conflict between Judaism and Hellenism. He quotes I Macabees 1:15: “[many Jews] made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant; and were sold to do mischief” and details this history with clear and concise commentary. Dentan draws heavily on the Macabean revolt and how the soon-to-be Pharisees joined this revolt as a last ditch effort for the survival of God’s people. He does not hesitate to comment on the influence and motives of Alexander and how he was not only a tyrant but a “missionary” of the Greek culture; a culture that prevailed over much of the Jewish culture. This is really an amazing snapshot of God’s sovereignty and how God was paving the path for the Gospel. It’s as if God was allowing the Jewish culture to be given over to another culture, to open the doors for John the Baptist’s arrival.

The time of Macabees was a crucial point in Jewish history, as this book demonstrates. But the book also explains how the rest of the Apocryphal books also have their significance to God’s plan.

The three Canonical books of Daniel, Ezra, and Esther all have Apocryphal additions that are thought to be written to influence the Jewish culture. Susana, a prefix to Daniel, is a story about the trial of two elders who were attempting to trick a beautiful woman into submission, but their trickery failed as Daniel interceded the court to prophecy the elders to be lying, saving the maiden. It is said that this story was written to strengthen the current courts of the Jews.

First Esdras, a type of Greek version of the OT book Ezra, contains the story of the Three Guardsmen. This story brings value to the concept of “truth” as one of the three guardsmen whom petitioned the king to speak of the most valuable asset on earth spoke of truth to be that great asset. This guardsman, Zerubbabel (the same Zerubbabel spoken in Ezra), received the prize from the king to rebuild Jerusalem.

Dentan also speaks of the apocryphal book Esther, which is a Greek expansion of the canonical book, and ironically brings in more religious content than the canonical book.

In Chapter Four he describes the two romantic tales: Tobit and Judith. He states that the theology and ethics of the books is based not so much on the Old Testament Jews as it is the Judaism in which Christ grew up in. He says it gives a picture, in a form of good fiction, of Jewish piety. Tobit is made out to be a godly man whom helped with proper burials of the countrymen slain by the Assyrians. He goes blind in an accident while serving and prays to God that his life would be taken. Meanwhile, in a distant kingdom, a girl by the name of Sara was being harassed by a demon that killed every man she was betrothed to. She had prayed to God, at the same exact time in which Tobit prayed, that God would take her life. God answered the prayers of these people by sending Tobit’s son to marry Sara, and provided his son with a cure to drive the demon away, as well as a cure to heal his father Tobit. The story exalts alms giving and marriage, and gives a very exciting and joyful ending.

Judith is another fictitious story that drives home an ethical concept of God’s people, although, Dentan does not describe it as such. He describes it as a heroic story that is very “nationalistic.” It is nationalistic but it is also ethical, and reminds me of the story of Rehab as well as the story of Jael, Heber’s wife. This woman, Judith, feels that she must deceive the Assyrians to allow God’s people to conquer the nation. She prays to God that he would forgive her of the deceit she is about to commit and then carries out her plan to sneak into the Assyrian camp as a spy to eventually assassinate the general of the army with a prayer filled slash to his neck, severing his head. Dentan does not hesitate to mention the Psalm sang for Judith as well as the prayers she continually offered, but he does not mention how she was justified in what she was doing; a debatable topic, yes, but nonetheless, in my opinion, very important to comment on.

In Chapter Five the book comments on I and II Macabees. He says I Macabees is not as exciting as II due to its lack of supernatural element, but as we spoke of earlier in this review, I Macabees, according to this author, contains vital information about the Hellenization of the Jews and how the various Jews rose up together to conquer the wrath that accompanied the Hellenization. Dentan describes II Macabees as a more religious account of I Macabees, mentioning things such as spirits, angels and the resurrection of the dead. It is said that it is not a continuation of I Macabees but just a differing perspective of the same events.

Chapter six describes the wisdom books: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremy, and The Prayer of Manases. Dentan describes Ecclesiasticus as not very religious, dealing with many subjects making it difficult to follow. He quotes a bizarre verse that says, “The son of man is not immortal” (17:30). These books of wisdom do parallel some theology of the canonical books but do not seem to offer anything essential to the faith, in my opinion.

Chapter Seven reviews the importance of II Esdras in that it, like Revelation, is an apocalyptic book. The book does help us to anticipate the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and it parallels Daniel. But Dentan does not describe it as a huge help to Revelation, but neither does he describe it as contradicting Revelation.

The last chapter recaps the highlights of the book and the importance of the Apocrypha in a very short yet concise fashion - a nice conclusion.

I highly recommend this book. It is an essential to all that desire to understand the roots of the Christian faith.

The Vatican is about to release King Henry VIII plea to the pope for divorce. The timing is very interesting! Why now, after the 500 years locked in the Vatican? Perhaps this has to do with the ecumenical dialog.

There is a natural progression of sanctification within modern Christendom that if properly understood can be used for a substantial growth increase of the Church at large. The problem is that there are few Christian leaders within the ‘beginning stages’ of this growth paradigm that will allow such a growth pattern to manifest itself upon the flock.

I am of course speaking about the fragmentation of Christendom via Protestantism. Each Protestant denomination, including the so-called “non-denominational” groups are in some way a split from an older more historic group, eventually finding their roots back to the Catholic Church (Roman, English, Eastern). Each of these Protestant Churches has a certain degree of “Catholicity” within their group. The least Catholic of the groups would likely be the house church Charismatics. Their liturgy is down to almost nothing at all, except for some comments by lay people and some singing of folk songs, following a study on the Bible. Other Protestant groups such as the Presbyterians have a higher form of liturgy, with some reciting of creeds, maybe some hymns, followed by a traditional type of sermon. An example of a Protestant group that is fairly close to the Catholic Church would be the Reformed Episcopal Church. They are much like the Presbyterians but with weekly communion and an ecclesiology similar to the Catholic Church.

If, say, a Christian wanted to progress naturally through America’s denominational fragmentation they could start in the house church, move to the Evangelical church, then to the Presbyterian Reformed church and finally to one of the Protestant Anglican (type) churches and then maybe to the Roman church or other Catholic church that has an ecumenical relationship (or desire to have one) with Rome. I say that this is the natural course because this course contains theological progression. Some grow very progressively but some do not and so do not fall into this same path. The goal of one that is within the lowest of churches should be to jump right over to the Catholic Church (be it English, Latin or Easetern) but there are a number of obstacles one must deal with to move progressively from any church.

Here are a multitude of obstacles to ponder upon:

1. The lack of publication within the Catholic Church - Evangelicals publicize like crazy. From the very beginning of Protestantism we have found that they love to print, and print they do well! Websites, books, flyers, videos; you name it, Evangelicalism has embraced it.
2. The heresy of the Evangelical teachers - This is a big one and I thought hard about placing this in the number one spot. Many Protestant teachers condemn Catholic churches as works-based apostate churches. This is ironic since Protestantism itself has far less “grace” to offer than the Catholic Church. The Protestant relies heavily upon intellectual formulas which is a huge form of works-salvation.
3. The lack of apologetics within the Catholic Church - This is rapidly changing and I would guess that the rise of logic and rhetorical argument within the Catholic Church will eventually smother the Protestants completely. But this could take several generations! One day the world will see that the every-man-for-himself church is just that: every-man-for-himself…and not for each other, the very thing that Christ calls us to be: “one accord,” which can only happen through the continuing succession of the episcopacy. God elects bishops and He uses them to transmit His revelation. If you do not believe this then you do not believe in the Bible itself since the canon itself (the Bible) was instituted by the bishopric.
4. The lack of faith in the believer - Many Christians feel that if they leave their current denomination for the next closest to the ancient Church they will somehow burnout and fall away. But this is antithetical to the gospel itself. All throughout the Scriptures we see how unless one is willing to sacrifice both relationships and material wealth, one cannot be fit for the kingdom. Christ goes as far as saying that one must even be willing to leave their own mother and father for the kingdom. Leaving relationships for the Catholic church that would not otherwise stick as relationships should not be to difficult to do. If those people love you, they will hear you out and possibly follow you home.
5. The feeling that one is called to “reform” - This is a common one amongst leaders and usually at the expense of not only their own personal sanctification but also that of their family’s. Many of these so-called reformers are merely spinning their wheels in hope that God will use them to help their current denomination. But if there is no clear avenue for reconciliation to the historic church, why risk your soul? Unless some significant ecumenical opportunity seems eminent, then why bother? You are likely not going to pass this calling on to the next.
6. Lack of Education within Protestantism - This is common amongst leaders. Many of the Evangelical Protestants do not require formal study and so this prevents them from becoming more traditional. But there are now many different ways to study other than attending and living at a traditional campus and it is expected that these avenues will become widely accepted as time moves on.
7. The desire for authority and autonomy - The higher the church the more likely the requirement of submission to authority. Every Protestant has a submission/autonomy problem to some degree. It must be overcome. But it is not easy to overcome, especially when the Protestant’s leaders have been telling the parishioners that each of them is an authority unto themselves, calling “every man a theologian” and “our sole authority rests in the Bible.” Statements like these puff people up to where they have no desire at all to follow the God ordained office of the bishop or priest.  

There are many other reasons why people do not grow from one denomination to the next. I have merely attempted to grasp the popular reasons. Schism is sin and if your church has no desire to unite with the historic church then perhaps you should consider growing in to the next phase.

The bishop’s mitre is a symbol of authority. It is not so much a symbol of the tongues of fire at Pentecost - a popular explanation I have heard. That explanation never settled well with me and so I began researching a bit. I have no substantial source to quote but from what I have gathered the bishop’s mitre did not originate from the tongues of fire, rather it originated from the crown of the state!

That’s right. Prior to modern times the bishops of the Church, during various times, shared the authority of the emperor. It was from this that the Church formed the mitre: to resemble the crown.

If the mitre was designed to represent the fire of the Spirit, it would likely have been instituted long before the medieval ages. The mitre can certainly represent the fire of the Spirit today but if we are going to be true to the Church, in all her history, we must come to reason with this very important symbol of faith and acknowledge its purpose.

The bishop’s mitre is almost a snapshot of Catholic political theology, both Eastern and Western. Modern Catholic theologians may be attempting to distance themselves from this theological notion of the bishopric, but they have over a thousand years of theology to combat against - a fight that will likely not be won by the modernists.

Since the times of the post-Constantine Church, bishops have stepped in to govern societies when secular leaders were unable. I believe many bishops are still able to do this. And there may come a day in the not so distant future that this will become a reality. I would much rather have a solid man of God govern my state than some moral relativist any day, especially in days of corruption.

The interesting thing about this type of what I like to call “Vatican City” theology is that it is really never forced upon the public square but rather it is massaged through situational ethics. The Church stands strong on certain issues in hopes of the state receiving these ethics. The Church works on the state one step at a time. And if the state ever falls completely apart due to its resistance to the Church, the Church steps in to lead. I believe this is the future of our country. I believe that it will eventually fall completely apart, and the only thing standing will be the Church. There is much Scripture, history and reason to support this. It’s bound to be drawn out much more in times to come.

There is much to be said about situation of the abortion doctor being killed on Sunday. He was killed in his church right as the worship service started. Was this man a Christian? Was the killer just in what he did since the doctor was committing a mortal sin and an historical (but not current) crime? Why would God allow such a thing to happen in church?

First of all, the doctor was indeed a Christian. Christians are people that have chosen to follow and worship Christ and have thus become baptized. Christians can indeed committ mortal sin! All throughout the Bible we can see witness to “carnal” believers and “tares” of the kingdom.

It is great that people like this can become a part of the Church! It gives them opportunity to repent. But this man…this man was not repenting in this area of his life. He tortured over 60k babies to death and refused to change, all the while worshiping Christ in a Lutheran church.

The church he was worship at is a liberal church. Yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron but since the Lutherans have succeeded from the historical Church they must be considered a part of the Christian community; a fractured and defective christian community but nonetheless a part of the Church.

The unfortunate part of this doctors situation is that he chose to be a part of a liberal Christian community and not a part of the God’s Church where he would have surely been discipled and even bared from communion until he repented of his mortal sin. But God stepped in and ended this man’s life before he was even able to partake of the communion. God allowed this man’s life to be taken. This man reaped what he sowed! All throughout the Bible we can see how we reap what we sow and also how God disciplines us for our sin (Hebrews 12).

The most loving thing that we can assume about this man is that he once committed his life to Christ and because of this commitment God allowed him to destroy himself so as to be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:5).

The Killer

Was the killer justified since the doctor was killing children? The reason why the killer was not justified and that he is indeed a murderer is because he acted on his own authority. Neither God nor any authorities from God commissioned this man to kill the doctor.

One cannot begin his own kingdom in his living-room! One cannot one day just walk out of their house declaring that he is both king and soldier. As Romans 13 says, the authorities that be are “ordained” by God. Creating ones own kingdom is contrary to what God has established.

Now, if there were a revolution, backed by the Church and supported by the public, for their to be formed new communities and new laws (succession from the Union, for instance) then, the doctor could be executed - if that would be the penalty that the appointed authorities declared. But there was no revolution with no appointed authorities, thus the man acted in rebellion. According to the authorities, he committed murder and so we must stand by the authorities on a strict existential basis.

Two Realms

There are two realms colliding here: the spiritual and the existential. In the spiritual realm, the sixty-thousand abortions were all murders. In the existential realm, the abortions were not murders because the law says that they were not.

But this doctor chose to be a part of both the existential realm as well as the spiritual realm.  He was committing murder in the spirutual realm and trying to get away with it in the existential. But it caught up to him…in a church!

As I have mentioned in a variety posts in the ‘Political Theology’ section of this site, proper ethics simply cannot be instituted in the state without the authoritative guidance of the Church. Here, we find an article claiming that Britain is desiring a more Catholic society! The question is: Do they want traditional Catholicism or some sort of quasi-Catholicism? Even the writer states in the last paragraph that a Catholic-based society will only work by taking “the whole package.”

Borrowing ethics from the church whenever one feels the need to will leave the borrower with a huge deficit of solutions. When one particular Christian ethic is embraced another particular Christian ethic is needed in order to maintain the cause. This is the way Christian ethics work. They build upon one another, creating solution, thus resulting in empire and dominion. But dominion is what the enemies of Christ do not want and so we see the enemy constantly attempting to give throtle to ethics that they cannot steer, thus wrecking entire cultures.

What the liberal left seems to be grasping at is a piecmeal society appart from the Church. But the Church is not to be whored out! As St. Paul says, if you are going to livewithout Christ, live it up in abomination and fullfill the flesh but if you are going to live in Christ, live in the fullness of him (paraphrased, of course).

Taking ethics from the Church and applying them to society will only work if one continues on that same ethical path by actually advancing the spiritual value of the ethic. We cannot, for instance, give to the poor without mentoring the addicted and abused in order for them to properly use the gifts we give them. And of course we cannot mentor without an ethical standard that contains spiritual authority, since ethics are spiritual laws. We can also use the example of the ‘institution’ of marriage. We want people to become “married” but we do not advance the spiritual element of this institution, which is the binding of the married people and the Church (monogamous marriage began with the Church). When two people become married to each other they inherit the ethics of the Church. Their union is guided by Christ’s ethics, not to mention, Christ’s everlasting love. Secular marriage, outside the Church is simply another ethic that has been stolen from the Church and made a mockery.

Without Christ’s Law there is moral relativism (ethics fluctuating according to how relative they seem to each individual). This means that any tribal or barbaric religion can claim their standard and apply it to society. Take a hard core barbaric custom such as aborting children (began with Roman pagans and perfected by the Nazis), mix it with a tad of Christianity to appease and…whala, there is your cultural standard. This nonsense will never work and until Christians begin to realize this and begin to stand for God’s Law, our country will continue to fall.

To be a soldier, as St. Paul says in Romans 13, is to have a noble calling. God, indeed, calls us not to be pacifists but to be victors! This means that men will take the call to bear arms.

In the Scripture below we can see where Christ first spoke to the apostles about not carrying a sword, but nearer to the time of his crucifixion he spoke to them a new call. He called them to actually sell their garments to obtain a sword. Christ was certainly not calling the disciples to physically fight rather than minister but Christ was likely speaking these words prophetically to those, such as St. Paul, that would later take heed of his command.

The kingdom of God is not founded by the sword as Islam is but the kingdom of God is founded by the revelation of Christ and its distribution through preaching and sacrament. This commission simply cannot be accomplished without the protection of the sword. Again, see Romans 13 where St. Paul explains that the sword is not bore in vain.

 I am of the mind that we all have some of the monastic call within us as well as the civil call. We all need to support both types of ministers: men of the cloth as well as men of the sword. This may look different from house to house but one thing is clear: Christ does not call us to be pacifists!

My two oldest sons and I visited the General Patton Memorial Museum (great place!) just the other day and learned that one of the very popular books that the soldiers in WWII carried was the 1928 Book of Common Prayer/Hymnal combination- the compact book to the left. To the right of the picture is the larger hymnal/prayerbook combo. If anyone has one of those larger prayerbook combos for sale, please let me know.

After traveling to St. Columba’s Anglican Church in Lancaster, California, the next day, we learned from the subdeacon there that General Patton was a devout Anglican.

I wonder if the band members of Pink Floyd were raised Anglican. There is a good chance since they were raised in pre-liberal England. Nice song. Hope you enjoy!

News from The Ohio Anglican

God Calls a Faithful Servant Home

It is with sadness and joy that I have learned of the passing of the Reverend Doctor Peter Toon on the Feast of St. Mark last. I am sad in the fact that Orthodox Anglicanism has lost one of it’s greatest defenders and thinkers; and joyed that he shall serve the Lord in a new and greater capacity in the company of Heaven.Dr. Toon had been a champion of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer for it’s structure and conformity to the classical Anglican formulas and was able to deftly critique the shortcomings of the 1979 book. I encourage you to visit the Prayer Book Society website and download Dr. Toon’s writings and learn more.

 

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=9879
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10326
http://continuinghome.blogspot.com/2009/04/rev-dr-peter-toon-rip.html
http://pbs1928.blogspot.com/
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/04/peter-toon-1939-2009.html
http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2009/04/revd-dr.html
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22155/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22156/
http://www.anglicancomment.com/?p=551
http://apostolicity.blogspot.com/2009/04/rest-eternal-grant-unto-him-o-lord.html
http://gladtobeanglican.blogspot.com/2009/04/dr-peter-toon.html
http://pbs1928.blogspot.com/2009/04/death-of-dr-peter-toon-saturday-april.html
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2009/04/rev-dr-peter-toon-obituary.html

Icons, a part of the Catholic faith that have been very misunderstood by many people, are a sure way to cleanse the mind and heal the soul! Certainly, there have been a number of abuses with the use of icons but this does not make icons unorthodox. Let’s take a look at reason, Scripture and even a bit of tradition (history) to see that icons are extremely useful for the Christian walk!

First, icons have been used as early as the first century. When the Christians worshipped in the catacombs, while hiding from the emperor’s men, they drew icons on the walls.

St. John of Damascus wrote,  “we are led by perceptible Icons to the contemplation of the divine and spiritual”  (PG 94:1261a).  This is an important quote of one the early fathers, in that it gives solid reason for icons. Icons shape the mind! Icons do what words take many pages to do. Icons can be a very powerful and concise way of communicating the faith: through image. See what the Psalmist says about images, in general:

I will set no evil thing before mine eyes - Psalm 101:3

Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word. - Psalm 119:37

Evil images construct an evil mind and so it stands to reason that godly images construct a godly mind. Purifying the mind is done through many different graces of the church and icons are certainly one of these graces. When one gazes upon icons and crucifixes one seers these images into their mind, in turn helping one combat against the evil images they encounter within society.

Allow no sleep to your eyes, no slumber to your eyelids. - Proverbs 6:4

He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, He who despises the gain of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes, Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes from seeing evil… - Isaiah 33:15

The Scriptures urge us to give discipline to our eyes so that we may be holy. Again, it stands to reason that we should put holy things before our eyes.

Regarding those that say we pray to icons: Catholics do not pray to icons. There is no worshiping of the icon. Catholics pray in the presence of icons. Some call this veneration. Now, there are some Third World cultures that may seem like they are worshiping icons, and if indeed they are, then they are in sin. Christians no more worship icons, then Americans, for instance, worship the American flag. Like the flag, it is what the icon represents that is important.

Doesn’t the second commandment forbid the worship and bowing down to images? The context of the second commandment was that of pagan images - images that represented foreign gods. If the second commandment was referring to any image, then Moses would be guilty for creating the symbol of healing and many of God’s people would be guilty of even creating the temple images, which God commanded them to make in the first place.

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23

On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29

On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36

St. John Damascus says:

“Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.”

‘Distributism‘ is by far the most ethical, economical structure available to mankind. Check it out!

Here is the document publicized by Janet the Napoleon Napolitano that targets Christians and other conservative Americans as potential “extremists.” If after reading this declaration you still think that we conservatives are “conspirators” or paranoid in stating that our rights are being drastically infringed upon, then please seek psychological and spiritual help. Or, better yet, see if you can locate someone that made it through the Holocaust. They will explain to you how millions of educated people were once deceived into believing that Hitler was no threat to their well-being.

I find it amusing that the declaration includes “end times prophecies” as a potential threat to our safety. End Times radicals have never been a threat to society. They have only been a threat to fascist government organization. They typically stay to themselves while awaiting for the apocalypse.

With a document such as this, persecution will be completely justified when the desire to censor Christians arises. Lord have mercy…on the liberals, that is!

It seems like every other conservative radio commentator these days is spouting off something to the effect of how evil socialism is and how Obama is a socialist. Well, Obama is not a socialist! That’s right. He is a fascist and here’s proof:

so·cial·ism (sōshə-lĭz′əm)
 n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

fas·cism (făshĭz′əm)
 n.
1.  Fascism

 a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
 b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

The difference between the two ideals above is that within fascism, the economy is controlled by more of a means of racism or other “personalized” motive. Whereas in socialism the general economy can be controlled by a number of different motives - motives that may not be unethical.

America has always been more of a socialist country. One may say, in regards to comparing America to the definition above, that Americans are not being censored, to which I say that you are deceived by the liberal media. Liberals have been known to be hardcore censors. If you are unclear of this, simply compare Fox news to your local liberal news channel. The current liberal administration censors like crazy. They also favor certain races by instituting laws such as “Affirmative Action.” And did not Barack Obama recently say that America is not a Christian (or even Jewish) nation? Just recently, Obama’s homeland security pick, Janet Napolitano, initiated a law that places conservatives like you and I, who oppose Barack Obama, gay marriage and abortion, on “watch lists” for terrorist activity. Governing motivated by genral hatred, racism, censorship, atheism, etc? Smells like fascism to me! Please keep reading.

In many ways, America has been a socialist country ever since its foundation: There has always been an organized group of people that have determined what money goes where and how it is to be spent when it gets there. There has always been someone pulling the strings behind the curtain. Perhaps the difference between a literal “socialism” and a socialism perceived by today’s American is that the perception today is that of a more visible control. Perhaps the curtain is being lifted and no one really ever wanted to see the socialistic control - similar to the classic children’s story, “The Emperor Has No Clothes.”

One may disagree with the explanation above, claiming that we had a wider variety of choices in earlier days than we do now. But this does not constitute socialism for the modern man. Our limited amount of choice in America today has simply been brought on by resource - the lack thereof. We have run out of resources (or, resources that we are not allowed to tap in to, such as oil).

We cannot continue to grow in material goods when there is simply a limited amount of resources for a growing populous. More and more people continue to move (both legally and illegally) to America and we for some reason believe that resources can remain the same as they ever were. Insanity!

There must be some kind of control. There must be a body of people that controls the amount of equity each culture in America receives.

In early American times, there was really no so-called “capitalism” - a word created to prevent people from thinking about what was truly happening in the economy. In early America, the culture was constructed so that God-fearing men were able to prosper; although, this did indeed extend past the God of Christianity into the god of Unitarianism. Nonetheless, people that lived a religious life were able to prosper because of the certain laws that were placed in certain areas of the culture. How is this not socialism by the definition above?

The government has always dictated the way one prospers and the government has always dictated how one is able to keep this prosperity. They have always retained the right to take away what has been acquired. They own the very property that you live on whether you like that or not. If, for instance, you do not pay your tax to them, they kick you off of their land.

When a group such as the Obama administration says that they want to “distribute the wealth,” what they are saying is that they want to give to lower classes based on unethical motives of atheism, secularism and pacifism (to say the least). Giving to lower classes can be a righteous thing to do, but giving to lower class people that are certain to use the giving against the givers, is absolutely insane. Or, perhaps it is brilliant! Because once the unethical recipients become the majority and lose control of themselves, the governing body now has justification to gain complete control, declaring communistic societies - societies based on unethical standards by unethical people.

The movie Knowing, with Nicolas Cage, might be worth taking your spouse or friend to see. It has a certain Christian twist to it that will leave you inspired and satisfied. The ’gift of prophecy’ is intertwined within the film, as is the pastoral call, the salvific call and even the Tree of Life. There is reference to angelic beings but they wash it up a bit by making them look like aliens. Overall the movie was really good. There were definitely some corny parts and the acting was not top notch but it was nonetheless entertaining.  

Not every man and woman is able to live a life according to what they consider to be the most proper ethic. In fact, I would argue that modern times make it almost as difficult to live an ethical life as did early church times, just on a different level of sustainability.

So how does one know if what one does, say, in regards to something like their practice of manhood or womanhood, is ethical? Well, if the majority of people in the world structured there lives like you do, what would this world look like?

Would there be many (or accomodations for) children in the world? If there would be, what would they be like? Would people have a certain calling of either celibacy or marriage? Would any work get done? What type of work would it be? Would it be foundational and ethical to our well-being? How would society look, in general? Could society operate for more than a couple generations the way that you live?

America’s economical framework has snowballed many industries into absolute monstrosities. The health insurance industry is one of these industries. It has become one of the leading authorities in the nation, yet we never elected them to be so. They simply “capitalized” on a fundamental need for all people: health care!

Rather than giving your money to a corrupt system that will never pay back what you have contributed; rather than giving your money to a company that supports a variety of unethical medical practices; rather than submitting to the Obama administration, give your money to other Christians that are in need, as Christ commands us to do.

Samaritan Ministries is the alternative to the health insurance industry and seems to be quite a noble cause. Rather than sending your monthly payment to a supposed capitalistic company, you send your payment to other Christians in need of medical help. Imagine that! Sounds like a true community, doesn’t it?

Give them a call at 877-764-2426 and please mention that I recommended them to you.

It looks like New Hampshire is making gay marriage legal. This is what happens when you take a sacrament and allow a “government” to administer it.

Homosexuality is not natural. This is proven in the very way that the human body is designed. The male and female bodies are designed to compliment each other in order to procreate. This creates a ‘normality’ within our culture and anything outside of this is ‘abnormality.’

Abnormalities are fashioned from the beginning of ones life. There is no proof anywhere that this particular abnormality is genetic or even chemical. But even if it is genetic or chemical, this discovery would not support that homosexuality is normal, it would simply mean that we have identified the biology of the abnormality. Just because an abnormality can be identified by science does not mean that it is no longer abnormal, that it is no longer harmful to the human race.

The abnormality of homosexuality forces cultures to form around its twisted concepts, changing things such as clothing styles and even architecture. Distinct masculinity and femininity in all design takes a back seat to a twisted sort of masculine/feminine mixture of neutrality. Before you know it, an entire city can be built to accommodate this anti-family standard; not that homosexuality is the entire driving force for the anti-family standard, but it is certainly one of the major driving forces.

Homosexuality is a mental illness; it, just like all other mental illnesses, is a behavioral abnormality. I believe it was not until November of 2006 that the Pentagon deemed homosexuality as not being a mental illness. Psychiatrists and counselors prior to the 60’s believed it was indeed a mental illness, but it appears that the conservative doctors are now outnumbered and the liberals have influenced the state.

 T.S. Eliot articulates our call within modern times:

The Universal Church is today, it seems to me, more definitely set against the World than at any time since Pagan Rome. I do not mean that our times are particularly corrupt; all times are corrupt. In spite of certain local appearances, Christianity is not and cannot be within measurable time, ‘official’. The World is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and save the World from suicide.

- T. S. Eliot, Thoughts After Lambeth (1931)

The above paragraph closely relates to our current situation in America. Democrats are attempting to build a society that has some Christian ideas such as caring for the poor and the environment, but they refuse to accomplish these goals through the means of the Church. It is as though they are committing national suicide by insisting on their idealistic way or no way. The ushering in of the radical Barack Obama demonstrates this.

The Church holds the keys to the kingdom of God, which includes the Law of God. No country can successfully govern without the law of God. Every country that has attempted to do such a thing has utterly failed, as the United States is presently doing. The only reason why we have made it thus far is that in early American times the Church  was very connected to the state. But after time, especially after the 19th century, many liberal Americans began to capitalize on Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, “separation of Church and State;” a concept first introduced through the Constitution, declaring that America could have no offical religion.

For almost one hundred years after the Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, many of the states in America continued to use the Church as their means of ethical structure for society. In fact, many states still had their own churches and paid the Church pastors. Massachusetts was the last state to cut ties to its official church, in 1833.   

As Eliot implies in the quote above, today’s culture is striving toward more of what Rome was after: an agnostic type of state religion that retains a relativistic sense of morality for the sake of material gain. It will fail, as he says, but we who are already advancing the kingdom of God within the areas of culture, will be there to receive this blessed window of opportunity to minister to the public and steer the country to true freedom in Christ.

In life, it is virtually impossible to be neutral and not to be influenced by external elements. Those that say they do not partake in various traditions of the historic Church only bind themselves to modern tradition of pluralism. In light of this knowledge, Anglicans follow a spiritual/theological calendar! After all, we are a spiritual people in real time and space.

You can find the Scriptures and prayers for each season and specific day of season in The Book of Common Prayer, here.

Advent: Advent represents the “coming” (advent) of Christ. We are to participate in this advent through prayer, fasting and corporate worship. This is the fourth Sunday before Christmas day. Advent is the beginning of the Church year and anticipates Christmas: Christmas is the celebration of the incarnation of God through Jesus the Christ.

Epiphany: Epiphany is the arrival of the wise men to Christ. Epiphany starts January 6^th and continues to the beginning of Lent. The Biblical foundation of Epiphany is in the Gospel of Matthew 2:1-11.

Lent: Lent is a 40 day event (Feb. to March) of fasting in imitation of Jesus’ experience in the wilderness of temptation. It is a time of preparation for Easter.

Easter: Through Easter we focus on the resurrection of Christ. Easter ends when Pentecost begins.

Pentecost: Pentecost is the celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit. This is done 50 days after Easter on the Jewish day of Pentecost. 

Trinity Tide: This begins on Trinity Sunday and continues to Advent. This season reminds us of the various experiences of Christ and what he taught.