Seraphim Rose on the New World Order

“In 1978 Fr. Seraphim contemplated the possibility of such a global system…Never has there been more talk of ‘peace and security’ than today. One of the chief organs of the United Nations is the Security Council and organizations for world peace are everywhere. If men do achieve finally a semblance of peace and security, it would seem to contemporary man to be a state like heaven on earth…The practical way to do this is to unite all governments under one. For the first time in world history such an idea becomes a possible goal in practical politics–a world ruler is conceivable now. For the first time, the Antichrist becomes an historical possibility” (Damascene, 697).

What Fr Seraphim is saying is nothing new. People used to laugh at those who said, “You know, world leaders really do want power. These guys really are corrupt. Maybe they do want world government.” People would laugh and say, “Oh that could never happen. What are you, a kook? World leaders do not really want that.”

Except that when you ask the elitists what they want, they say exactly that:

Admiral Charles Ward, former member of the Council on Foreign Relations, “The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have an objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States (and even more so, any religious, social nationalist country: Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Ireland–JBA). A second clique of international members in the CFR…comprises the Wall Street International bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government” (Rear Admiral Chester Ward, Review of the News, April 9, 1980, pp37-38, quoted in Fr Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, 697-698).

Fr Damascene goes on to mention,

With the establishment of the European Union, the creation of the Euro currency, the control of former Eastern-bloc countries by Western financial interests, the advances towards a cashless society, the formation of an international criminal tribunal by the United Nations and NATO, we see what appear to be the forerunners of such a one-world system. Some of these developments are not necessarily evil by themselves. Taken together, however, they help to set up a global apparatus which can make way for the rising religion of the future. Such was the expectation of Alice Bailey, who in 1940 wrote, The expressed aims and efforts of the United Nations will be eventually brought to fruition, and a new church of God, gathered out of all religions and spiritual groups, will unitedly bring an end to the great heresy of separatedness’ (cf. Alice Bailey, The Destiny of the Nations, p.52, quoted in Fr Seraphim Rose, 698). Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, expressed the same belief on the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations in 1995: ‘At the beginning the United Nations was only a hope. Today it is a political reality. Tomorrow it will be the world’s religion’ (Fr Seraphim Rose, 698).

It doesn’t get any more straightforward than that.  Further, I am not yet quoting the remarks by David Rockefeller who is quite open on the need for a supranational body.  While this is the domain of conspiracy-theorist kooks, there is nothing secret about it.  These remarks have been in the open for almost half a century, and have been actively pursued for about a generation on the political level.

Retractare: R. Scott Clark and Natural Law

I used to be a firm critic of Scott Clark’s natural law theory, but the more I read of natural law, the more I realize that they have as many variations as do theonomists. The more I read of his understanding of natural law, the closer I realize I am to his position. The following link from his blog shows just how close I am to his position, but there are still a few differences.  As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I think the real reasons that theonomist reacted unfairly to natural law is: 1) they didn’t understand the position, 2) then-current scholarship advocating natural law was terrible (think Norman Geisler’s dispensationalism and Roman Catholicism’s pop-Thomism), and 3) many of the critics didn’t have any coherent ethical position, which led Gary North to (unwisely) call it “natural law,” thus poisoning the well.  If you read North’s Westminster’s Confession, he labels all of his critics as natural law adherents.  Of the 16 chapters in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, maybe a mere handful advocated natural law (remember this is in the late 80s/early 90s where Reformed thought hadn’t yet rediscovered Reformed natural law sources).

There are other issues involved which I do not plan to deal with right now.  RSC is a Van Tillian; I am not (not in the apologetic sense anyway.  If Reformed scholasticism is true, and Turretin and Co., held to a principia form of epistemology which sort of coincides with the Common Sense Realism of Thomas Reid, then wouldn’t it be more consistent to go with principia over TAG?  Just thinking out loud.)   Further, there are other disagreements on ethics.  I am still nervous about the Klinean intrusion ethic.  While I’ve come to appreciate more and more of Kline’s system, I just don’t think intrusionism is logically or biblically coherent.

Back to Clark’s post.

He writes,

The Bible is not intended to be used as a textbook for civil policy any more than it is intended as a “playbook” for sports. That does not mean that God’s law does not apply to contemporary social and civil issues but it is not faithful to Scripture to use it in a way that it does not intend to be used. That is one of the great differences between the confessional Reformed appropriation of Scripture and the non-confessional.

I can agree with this on surface level.   Whether the Bible is to be used as such or not, any application thereof has to take in account of current situations which suggest how the Bible is to be applied.  In any case, I would certainly agree with him that facile applications aren’t helpful.   Applying God’s law takes wisdom, even kingly wisdom, and the average Christian America evangelical does not have this.

The law obligates civil authorities to preserve and pursue civil justice as God’s ministers but Scripture does not spell out exactly how that is to be done. The Apostle Paul did not prescribe civil policy to those civil rulers with whom he spoke but he did preach the gospel of the resurrection. Nowhere does the NT advocate a particular form of civil polity nor does it advocate specific civil policies.

I mostly agree. I think a lot of American Reformed need to realize that the Bible, outside of a few suggestions in 1 Samuel, does not mandate a Constitutional Republic.   That’s why Calvin and Rutherford were fine with limited monarchies.

I did write, “that some of us really do take the Scriptures as a guide to civil government and moral renewal for American society and not chiefly as the infallible and inerrant revelation of God’s saving work and Word in history. This episode is an example of the attempt to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions that are properly matters of liberty.”

I agree, but I want to add something else, and this might be my conspiratorial vein:  Simply quoting 2 Chron. 7:14 is not enough.  If you want to reform America, then you need to begin with what is wrong at the systematic, foundational level:  Trilateral Commission, IRS, Council on Foreign Relations, and the list goes on.  This suggests another problem with the Christian America folk:  there are problems in American government and simply electing Reagan II without addressing these problems is putting a band-aid on a tumor.

Let’s make matters worse:  America is too big.  I realize these points aren’t germane to Clark’s article, but they point out how woefully under-thought out the average right-wing Kuyperian vision is (and I hasten to remind readers that a leading Kuyperian, Ralph Reed, speaks at Bilderberg Conferences).

I have no confidence that, after the death of Christ, God has any specific, special relationship with any nation or civil entity. Your letter seems to assume that if a nation will obey God’s law, he will bless it materially etc.

This is perhaps where I offer mild dissent.   Isaiah 19 does say that nations will covenant with God.   Is there a 1:1 causal relation on material blessings?  Kind of.  Calvin in his sermons on Deuteronomy 27 held out the possibility that God will bless, but also reminded believers that we are mature in the New Covenant and sometimes God sends us difficulties as well.  It is a fact, I think, that the land rebels when covenant-breakers reign and sin against the land (we can probably even offer a natural law argument to the effect!).  If natural law is better known as the Creation Ordinance, with its own built-in teleology, the breaking of which is sin, then it stands to reason that sinful rulers will see a cursed land.

In conclusion I think I am largely in agreement with Professor Clark.  It must be admitted that the Reformers were natural law adherents and not merely in an incidental way, as Gary North maintains.  They worked it in their system (think of all the times that the Confession refers to the light of nature).

Did Dutch Theology have to go liberal?

Something I’ve always wondered: why did some of the most robust Reformed philosophical schools, which sometimes bordered on the theocratic, go liberal in Holland?  Now, the Anchorites will say that because they are Reformed and are dialectically destined to go liberal.  If the study were simply limited to Holland its step-children in North America (Grand Rapids, Toronto), it appears they would have a point.

However, Kuyperian onlookers have always narrowed their field of vision.    Francis Nigel Lee, however, suggests something else.  Calvinist South Afrika over the past 300 years (pre-Mandela) was very conservative and very Calvinistic.  So much so that it was targeted for destruction by Satan’s institution on Earth–the United Nations.

There’s an element  of Kuyperian thought that appears troubling, though.  It’s North American tendency towards statism has already been noted.   Kuyper’s view of sphere-sovereignty is often criticized in that while there is a separate sphere for the state, the fact of the matter is that the State can do whatever it wants and can transgress (presumably with impunity) into the other spheres.    Admittedly, Kuyper didn’t seem to have an answer to this.  As I reflect on the matter, though, this really isn’t a problem for Kuyper’s view: it’s just a sad fact of life, whatever your worldview paradigm may be (Gary North has his own response:  God places sanctions on criminal states and destroys them.  I agree.  Kuyper wasn’t clear on that point).

The reason it appears to go “liberal” probably happens along these lines:  1) a young Kuyperian seminary student chants that Christ is Lord over all (which is true).  2) He wants to apply his theology to politics.   3) He is contacted (made?) by high ranking members within a political party.   4) He accepts, thinking he is applying his faith to politics.   5) He then wakes up one day and realizes he is speaking at Bilderberg Conferences.

Kuyperianism needs to be buttressed by a robust, Scottish-Puritan-theocratic worldview or it will go liberal.

Review of Orson Scott Card’s Empire

I read this on Natalie from Birdbrain‘s recommendation.

Just pretend for a moment:  imagine if I said that a book, based on a video game, written by a Mormon who specializes in science-fiction, and is as heavily didactic as a Dan Brown novel, would actually be a very good and thoughtful book?  You would (rightly) say that I am mad.  Yet I am not.

The fact that Orson Scott Card actually managed to pull off this stunt–never minding his necessarily bizarre Mormon worldview–demonstrates he is a fiction writer of the highest calibre.  I’m not going to reveal too many of the details, but will rather highlight several major themes.

Demonstrating himself to be intellectually superior to Fox/CNN, Card points out that the “red state/blue state” divide is a myth.  It is actually a divide between urban/elite/academia versus rural/suburban/religious (for all of you who keep laughing at me and agrarianism, keep in mind that California, from a geographical perspective, is overwhelmingly conservative.  It’s simply the three Sodoms on the coast that make it liberal”).  The whole backdrop to the novel is “civil war.”  What this divide means–and is something I have noted for a long time–is that the next civil will happen between cities and counties rather than between North and South.

Card does a good job in showing the lunacy both of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.  At first you would think he is stereotyping the Left and the Right.  He isn’t.  Just watch Fox or CNN.  Card’s analysis, while on target, misses the target in the end, though.  I’ll explain below.

Does Card Base a Character off of George Soros?
I wonder how many conservatives picked this up.   Soros is the uber-rich financier who has bankrolled every leftist cause for the past 20 years.  Technically, neo cons are opposed to Soros (though they cheer when he tries to destroy Christians and traditional societies in Serbia and Russia).  Anyway, I think Card based a character off of Soros and it was a brilliant move on his part.

The Writing Style
Card does everything correctly.  His characters have fitting names yet they avoid allegory (unless there is some deeper meaning behind making the main character a war hero and an ethnic Serb.  No doubt neo cons are enraged).

The Inadequacies of the book
I know from Card’s blog that he is a neo con and a Zionist.  Sadly.  While he does tone down the Zionist rhetoric considerably, it emerges from time to time.  My main problem with the book is that he actually thinks there is a true “conservative-liberal” divide.  Yes, he is right to reject the red-blue divide, but he still thinks that (neo) conservatives and (neo) liberals are actually opposed to each other.  While he hints that powerful people up top may may play both sides against each other, he leaves it at the level of “accidental side plot.”  He does not see, unlike C. S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength, that the main point is that powerful people (either CFR or Bilderbergs) are playing “republicans” and “democrats” against one another.  This artificial opposition serves to mask what the Bilderbergs are really doing.  You want proof?  Point out to both sides that the leaders of Republican and Democratic parties are actually funded by men with connections to National Socialism and openly espouse many of their tenets–and see how you are laughed at. Yet conservatives cannot account for the fact that McCain and Bush (not to mention Obama) openly supported (enforced?) the bailouts.   That was fascism that would make Hitler blush.

I don’t expect Card to know that the members of the Council on Foreign Relations openly control Republican Party members (this stuff isn’t even secret anymore).  Nor do I expect him to know that the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations allowed ex-Nazi Party members to bank with them in the 50s through the 70s. This stuff is public knowledge but most people don’t want to admit it.  Still, Card should have known at least that someone is controlling both sides.

But don’t let that dissuade one from reading the book.  It really is a well-done piece.