Rushdoony on The Passover

(And a little follow-up.)

I have illustrated Stephen Perk’s view on the Passover: now, it’s Rushdoony’s turn.

Systematic Theology – Church
The Passover
Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

—<Quote begins>—

Give us strength, courage, faith, and hope, that as we face these problems and these battles, we may, in Christ’s name, power, and Spirit, be more than conquerors. We thank thee for the faith of men like Pastor Siliman{?} In Nebraska, and all who, like him, from one end of the country to the other, stand firmly in terms of the freedom of thy word and of thy church. Deliver them, we beseech thee, and give us a mighty victory against the powers of unbelief and of darkness. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture this morning is 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, and our subject is The Passover. “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

We have been discussing the doctrine of the church, and by now, it should be apparent that our approach is not modern nor institutional. We are not beginning with the three polities; Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Congregational. We are not beginning with the institution of the church. Before the church existed, there was God’s redemptive work and his covenant, which created the church. We must look at those things which, in particular, created the church and laid down the forms for covenant life before we can look at the institutional form. We have, of course, looked at government. The biblical premises of government in the church and out of the church, but we are looking there at something which precedes the institution, but must determine the institution. 

One more comment, by the way, on government. We have an interesting word: dean. The word dean comes from the Latin, and it referred originally to a man who commanded ten divisions. The church took it over, and it came to apply to an elder over ten men. Then, in the Middle Ages, it came to mean a man, who in a monastery was over ten monks. In a cathedral, it applied to any cleric who had ten pastors under his jurisdiction, and of course, the university took it over, and it was a professor who had ten professors under him. So, the very word “dean” tells us that the biblical pattern of government, by elders and by tens, has deep roots in Western life. It is ironic that something so basic has never been studied by any scholars, no work done in it at all.

—<Quote ends>—

The micro-second the secularist scholars sensed that there might be something Christian – read, something nasty – about the word “dean”, they instantly lost interest.

This is to be expected.

What’s truly interesting is the distinct lack of interest Christian scholars have in regard to the academic life and the Biblical root of governance.

It makes me wonder whose side they are on.

Government starting with tens, going up in scale to fifties, hundreds, and thousands, is far too localist and decentralized for any Secularist (and their submissive Christian allies in the fourth-rate Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries).

What they thirst for is a Mighty Master, a Philosopher-King, a God walking on Earth who will reshape the world in his image (and with the advice of his learned experts).

Not the Inferiors learning to govern themselves, and managing their own affairs, learning to interpret the Law and apply it to their own situation, free of the interference of their Betters. As Moses, following Jethro’s advise, taught his people to do.

 look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”

So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country.

Exodus 18:21-27, English Standard Version

Note that Moses did not place the people under a top-down hierarchy of experts – priests or warriors or whatever. The people rule themselves. Power flows from the bottom up, shaped by the Law of God.

And of course, Jesus did not institute any priestly guild to control access to the Lord’s Supper, or Baptism. That’s just the tradition of men: the properly certified priests were back in the temple, despising Christ and hating God… but careful to tithe their mint and dill and cumin, and perform every ritual precisely.

In the new covenant, the People of God are an assembly of priests and kings, men and women alike: children too. It’s about time every Christian learned to uphold their lawful duties and expand their lawful dominion properly in their own world, to the best of his ability, “properly certified” or not.

THAT is how the Kingdom of God expands.

OK, back to Rushdoony:

—<Quote begins>—

But now, to turn to our subject for this morning, the Passover. The Passover, as it developed, took a week, began with the Sabbath, ended with the Sabbath. Strictly speaking, the first day was the Passover day and the other seven were the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover began with a meal, at which Exodus 13:8 and many other verses tell us, children were instructed. It was the responsibility of the child to ask the question, “What is the meaning of this service?” and as we saw, the early church gave centrality to the child in the Communion service. Today, we have, unhappily, too many people who feel children should be abolished from church meetings. This is a sad fact. It is a commentary on our modern world. The Bible says, not only is the child to be present in family and organized worship, in the Christian synagogue, in the Jewish synagogue before it, but in the key services he is to ask, “What is the meaning of this that we do?” the question concerning the Passover, and also to raise the question, “What is the meaning of God’s law? Why was this law given?” and instruction is to be directed to the child as well as to the adult, because they are members of the covenant. They are the future of the covenant, the future of the church, the future of the state, of the family, of every area of life, and so the child has a central place in the life of the church. 

—<Quote ends>—

For a Christian community to even stand a chance of surviving, they must welcome children. Including at the Lord’s Table.

(I’m avoiding the word “church”, as I don’t want to confuse either the Body of Christ with some centralized survival-oriented bureaucratic institutionalized mystery cult or other.

One of those two groups above will last unto eternity. The other will not.)

—<Quote begins>—

Now, another basic aspect of the Passover festival, again pointed to the child. They were to search out the leaven in the house, and to eliminate the leaven before the Passover. So that the night before the Passover, the father was to take the children and go through the house with a lamp or a candle to search out the leaven. Now, of course, it was an obvious fact where the leaven, or yeast, would be kept. The housewife would have it in a particular place, but there was a symbolism there, a teaching method. So that the child was to know that all the corners of the house must have light shed upon them, and we must cleanse every portion of our life, of that which is corruptible. We have an opinion, in dispensational quarters, that leaven represents sin. It does not. It represents corruptibility. After all, some sacrifices, thank offerings, and peace offerings, according to Leviticus 7:13, for example, must be given to the Lord. The believer brings the leavened offering. What does this mean? What we give to the Lord is corruptible. It passes away. The buildings we erect, the works that we do, in time, they’re gone, but God requires them. We live in a world of time. We live, as it were, in a leavened world, and therefore, our leavened offerings have a very important and a place required by God in that world, but when it comes to atonement, man contributes nothing. It is God’s work in its entirety, and so, when the great festival of atonement comes, we are to put aside all that we do, and to put our entire trust in the Lord.

—<Quote ends>—

“What we give to the Lord is corruptible. It passes away. The buildings we erect, the works that we do, in time, they’re gone, but God requires them.”

That is probably the best defence for the existence of denominations and religious groups I have heard.

  • If a religious organization chooses to place the Kingdom of God above its own survival, it is worthy of its salt – tangy, tasty salt, by the way.
  • If a religious organization is oriented to serve God’s People and God’s Law-Word first and most, and prefers to dissolve and die than to to shift the focus from God’s authority to its own authority, from the protection/security of God’s people to the protection/security own membership? Again, its continued existence is a benefit, not a burden.

But in both situations, the religious organization knows its place: it is a servant, not a master.

If the religious hierarchy claims to be a master, if they oversteps their bounds, the Holy Spirit eventually walks away, and the religious husk is left to totter and disintegrate all on her own, complete with her huge rotting cathedrals and wealthy, shrinking, aging, childless congregations.

The morally degraded state of affairs in America and the marginalization of Christianity is exactly what you would expect given much of the theology, organization and practice of her churches.

Brothers and sisters, we as the Church of Jesus Christ, are not in the business of planting, advancing and sustaining mini-temples. We are in the the business of planting, advancing and sustaining Christian civilization. The Fellowship of Christian Reconstructionist Churches nails this on the head.

Churches: We Are Not Mini-Temples
Jordan Wilson

OK, back to Rushdoony, again:

—<Quote begins>—

Now, it is interesting and important that the scripture, for example Exodus 34:25, speaks of the festival of the Passover. Almost all the holy days in scripture are called festivals. The Sabbath is a festival, and we forget this fact too often. The word that is translated in our King James as festival, in the Hebrew, means a feast. It means also a dance. It means joy, and it means solemnity. How do you get that {?}. Our world “solemnity” has gained a sour connotation, but solemnity and joy in the Bible, a holy and important occasion, a solemn occasion is also a joyful occasion, because it is a festival of the Lord.

Now, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 has reference precisely to this Passover preparation, and he says, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump.” He is referring there to the custom, which all of them had grown up with, and which there is a little evidence it was continued in the early church before the Christian Passover, of searching out the leaven, to teach the children that we must cast out all things that pertain to our human pride, our human effort when we come to the atonement. It is Christ’s work and his alone that effects our salvation.

Thus, even in the great and holy festivals, of the Old Testament church and the New Testament church, children were basic. Instruction was geared to them, and to parents that they might instruct their children and their children’s children, and that they might be renewed in their faith and in their understanding of these things.

—<Quote ends>—

A childless church is a dead church, all things being equal.

Same deal if children are excluded from church – including the Lord’s Table and baptism – “until they can decide these things for themselves.”

The universe does not follow the will of Man.

The universe follows the will of God.

(Good thing too: if it was up to the free will of men, every single human that has ever lived, excepting ONLY Jesus Christ, would choose to go directly to hell, and then the lake of fire.

But God stands against the will of the men He has chosen for Himself.

And HIS will is decisive, not the will of men.)

He chooses His people, first. And he saves families whole, not just individuals. And He certainly does not exclude children, even infants, from the covenant: that has never been true!

(Merely implying that brings about the stink of hell, frankly.)

—<Quote begins>—

The New Testament, of course, is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the Passover lamb. Such verses as John 1:29 and John 19:36, 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Peter 1:19, and Revelation 5:6 tell us that Christ is the Passover lamb, that it is his blood that is the blood of redemption, the Passover blood. Now, it is important for us to note that even the Jewish encyclopedia recognizes the fact that the New Testament is emphatic on the relationship of Christ to the Passover, that he is the Passover lamb, by whose blood redemption is effected. It’s sad that when the Jewish encyclopedia recognizes that fact, too many Christians work to obscure it. The Passover celebrates the deliverance of the covenant people from Egypt, from slavery, from captivity. It represents their salvation from sin and death. It was an act of grace. Israel had been faithless in Egypt, and centuries later, Ezekiel reminds them in Ezekiel 20:6 that they had gone astray in Egypt and served the Gods of the Egyptians, but God had redeemed them in his grace and mercy. When we look at the Passover, therefore, we are looking at the great festival of redemption, of joy, when we celebrate our deliverance from sin and death.

Now, there is another festival in the Bible which is closely tied to the Passover. It is the Jubilee. The Jubilee begins with the proclamation which we have on the Liberty Bell. “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Passover celebrates salvation. The culmination of salvation is in world liberty, the deliverance of all the captives, the abolition of sin and death, the abolition of bondage, of slavery, of all problems. It means liberty. The biblical word for liberty is the same word as the word for swallow, the bird, a free-flying bird that is a free bird, and so the Jubilee means that we soar, we are free from all the impediments that sin and death have brought upon us.

—<Quote ends>—

God values liberty.

Marxist obviously don’t.

Secularists don’t… except when it means being free of God, His Justice, His Authority, and His Laws.

“Oh, if God would only Just Shut Up.


Muslims, like Marxists, have an open contempt for liberty. Especially for the liberty (and property, and lives) of the filthy kaffirs.

But the God of Abraham values liberty.

He values justice too. And not just for the believers, either.

—<Quote begins>—

The church thus, was created by God in terms of the Passover and the Jubilee. This is the focus. Christ is our Passover. Death passes over us and our sins are forgiven. As a result, because of the Passover, because Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us, we are summoned to go forth to possess the promised land, to dispossess the ungodly. This was the summons to the Old Testament church, and the Christian Passover is followed by the Great Commission, “Go ye therefore unto all nations, into all the world, and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all things that I have commanded you.” And the conclusion of this is the great Jubilee. “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever,” as Revelation 11:15 tells us.

Ezekiel gives us a vision in Ezekiel 47:1-12, of water coming out from under the altar, a stream of water, of living water, signifying that from the altar, from the sacrifice of Christ for our redemption, a stream is unleashed across the face of the earth, which, as it goes forth, grows wider, broader, deeper, until it covers all things. This is repeated, this vision, in Revelation 22:1-5. The river of life, at whose borders all things flourish. The work of salvation being done, Revelation tells us, all is Jubilee. The curse is forever gone, and his servants now serve him in perfect joy and in happiness. All is Jubilee.

—<Quote ends>—

As the prayer goes,

“Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done
on Earth, as it is in Heaven.”

—<Quote begins>—

I began by saying that our approach is not institutional as we come to the doctrine of the church. The church is an institution, there can be no question about that. It must be an institution, but if it is only an institution, it is not a church. It is, first of all, a response to God’s creative act, created by Christ our Passover, and by the Passover that preceded Christ’s Passover, created by God’s covenant, created by an act of redemption, and its culmination is to be the Jubilee. The church is an institution, but if it is only an institution, it is not a church. It is the Passover house, the Passover house. It serves the Lord to fulfill his purpose, which culminates in the Jubilee, and Christ’s works, “Where two or three are gathered together in his name,“ in every church great and small, to extend the Passover to all the world, to bring all men and nations under his redemptive blood, so that they may be delivered from the power of darkness. So that this world, which God created in the beginning and surveying, pronounced, “Very good,” may again meet God’s requirement, may fulfill his purpose and be his kingdom. Thus, the church is an institution, but it is an institution with a mission to all the world, and to every institution in the world, and to every person in the world in every of life and thought, to declare the word of the Lord, and to say, “Thus saith the Lord,” to enable men to be priests, prophets, and kings. As priests, to dedicate all things to Christ our Lord. As prophets to speak the word of God to every area of life, and as kings, to rule all things in terms of the word of God. This is the calling of the church. Let us pray.

—<Quote ends>—

An institution? Fair enough: if only because it is easier to serve others when your people are organized and trained. Just as it is in a well-governed family or civil government or business.

(Business being in part an institution governed by contract, not by covenant – a.k.a. a self-maledictory oath before God. But it’s still an institution.)

Unfortunately, there are always those people, itching to be served by others, and use the wealth of others for their own pleasure and glory. And perverting institutions to lawlessly expand their personal might and power — especially institutions with swords, but any institution will do — pleases sinners mightily.

Trust God.

Not institutions: every time they open their mouth, judge them against Biblical Law.

And not the Leader, either: be he father, or priest, or king. Weight everything they say and do against the Biblical standard, laid down by Moses and lived out by Jesus.

Unlawful orders can – and should – be ignored.

Same deal for president or scientist or expert, by the way.

—<Quote begins>—

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy grace and mercy has called us to be thy people, thy kingdom, and thy church, we thank thee for Christ, our Passover lamb, for the blood shed for our redemption, for the glorious promise of the Jubilee, and the assurance that our labor is not in vain in the Lord, that all things done for him will accomplish his purpose. Make us every joyful in thy calling. Make of our Sabbaths a festival unto thee, a time of joy and thanksgiving, and grant that day by day, we may bring to thee our leavened offerings, of thanks, and of joy in thy peace, serving thee with all our heart, mind, and being. Bless us to this purpose, we beseech thee, in Jesus name. Amen. Yes?

[Audience] From what you {?} the end, then this means that we, as Christians, have a right and a duty to attempt to take back this country and reconstruct it as a Christian republic.

[Rushdoony] We have a duty to recapture this country for Christ and the whole world, yes. It is a mandate. That is the meaning of the Jubilee. It is interesting that in the Jubilee, and in other sacrifices, that there were to be seventy sacrifices, symbolizing the seventy elders who were the leading elders, and symbolizing the totality of the nations of the world, and this was recognized from Old Testament times, so that all people were to be brought in under the Passover and into the Jubilee, and Revelation, which gives us a glimpse of that battle and the Jubilee, says that people out of every tongue, tribe, and nation are to be brought in.

—<Quote ends>—

It’s long past time that Christians took God, His ownership of Earth and Heaven, and His Law-Word seriously.

—<Quote begins>—

Any other questions? Yes?

[Audience] I wanted to thank you for what you said last week. You {?} training taking {?} for their responsibility in the future of leaders, and I wondered whether you could share, {?} I was trying to explain what you said afterwards concerning teaching boys the right attitude towards girls when they’re small, because that’s been helpful in our family this week, to get the right balance.

[Rushdoony] Yes, that is an important fact and it’s been lost in the last thirty or forty years, but it used to be that boys were very strictly disciplined to be protectors. That was a part of their headship, and they had a responsibility to protect their sisters from any kind of mistreatment, or abuse, or disrespect from any other boy, and a man was to have that same responsibility. I’ve often mentioned in the past the fact that scripture does speak of the covering that a woman is to have and how, on the frontier, respectable women, good women, wore a hat. They wore a bonnet, very commonly, on the Western frontier, and this meant something, that they were under the protection of a godly man, and every good man who saw them in any situation was expected to aid them. Now, even in Antiquity, in the Roman Empire, this kind of thing prevailed, because Paul says this is known, this kind of standard, among the pagans. A prostitute was forbidden to have her head covered, because it was claiming a protection she had forsaken. So, the necessity is that, as Christians, we train our boys, very early, to realize they have a duty to protect their sisters, a responsibility, and that God requires this of them.

—<Quote ends>—


I don’t believe in the patriarchy. But, I do believe in the strong protecting the weak.

Even better, though, for the weak to be taught to fight and stand up for themselves. That way, they can protect their lives and liberty even when the strong are absent.

Just as they should.

—<Quote begins>—

Any other questions or comments? Well, if not, let us bow our heads for the benediction.

Dismiss us now, our Father, with thy blessing. Give us joy always in thy service. Bless us as we deal with our children and our children’s children, and make us triumphant in Jesus Christ. In his name we pray. Amen.

—<Quote ends>—

Amen, and Amen.

About those Submissive Christian Intellectuals…

It should be noted that Christian intellectuals were always in a perpetual state of cringe before the Pagan philosophers and the power of the King, until they decided to get into a state of perpetual cringe before Kant and Darwin and the power of the State.

“You worship what you fear.”

And who these Christian Intellectuals fear most isn’t God Most High.

Note that the behaviour of the Christian Intellectual is in direct opposition to the example of the apostles and missionaries before the Roman Empire and its unlimited claims of total power.

(Claims strongly backed by those pagan philosophers, BTW).

Before Augustine developed the doctrine of the Trinity to derive from it our modern individualism, his master and mentor, Ambrose, bishop of Milan, told the Roman Emperor Theodosius, “You don’t even have the right to enter a private home without permission. What makes you believe you can enter the house of God.” It was in response to a threat by the Emperor that he would personally come and seize Ambrose’s church. Such talk to an emperor was unknown in the pagan world; but a Christian bishop had to talk this way, because his faith told him he had to disobey earthly powers in order to obey God.

God doesn’t equate power with government. To the contrary, in God’s economy, the fundamental and most important level of government is self-government: the individual works to fulfill his purpose in God’s plan of dominion and redemption, under God. The greater the power, the less government God entrusts to it. The King of the Universe, Jesus Christ, came to serve, not to boss people around, and thus gave the ultimate example of godly government. Government must be self-government first and foremost; because God is glorified not in mighty empires who toss people around and send them to their death or tax them to oblivion, but in the “little people,” everyone of which work on his calling before God. Man can be part of the society but man doesn’t have to be part of it in order to be human; contrary to Aristotle, man can be alone and still remain a human – as long as he is in his place in God’s Dominion Covenant of subduing the earth to the glory of Christ. And that Dominion Covenant will be fulfilled by individual, self-governing men working under God, in covenant with one another and in mutual, voluntary submission to one another.

And this is what the anti-Christian elites of our day are afraid of. In fact, this is what the anti-Christian elites of any era have been afraid of, and have hated with all their hearts and all their minds, and all their policies and regulations and legislation. Self-government plus voluntary mutual submission – even among unbelievers – eventually works for the Kingdom of God; because there is only one God Who can directly and personally lead and guide every single individual through His Holy Spirit, without leaving His place as the King of the Universe. The political elites can’t do it; they can’t work through self-government; they have to work through destroying the individuality of men in order to be able to rule. God can rule perfectly effectively through free, independent, self-governing individuals. And the pagan elites of our day know they can’t beat that. And they are scared of it.

The Modern War on Self-Government
Bojidar Marinov

But returning to those forever-failure Christian Intellectual Leaders.

We have uncovered the core reason why: total unbelief in the power of God, total belief in the power of the State, and a belly-crawling longing for the approval of their sneering Betters.

You worship who you fear.

But there are other, institutional reasons for their abject failure.1 Not the core reason of blatant idolatry, but still worthy of note.

From How John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Hijacked American Higher Education by Gary North

—<Quote begins>—

Gary – recently you’ve mentioned changes in legislation in the early 1900s regarding medical licensing and PHDs. Each time you point to the Rockefellers as the force behind the legislation. Any suggestions for books explaining their motivations (why) and their tactics (how)?

(linked snipped for privacy)

I regard this as one of the most important neglected topics in modern American history. It is rarely discussed.

As with almost everything these days, the best place to begin any investigation of a topic is Wikipedia. The topic hinges on one organization: the General Education Board. It was founded in 1902 with Rockefeller money.

When you read the accounts of it, the accounts focus on the use of the money in the American South. This was part of Rockefeller’s vision of taking control over the American South, because public schools in the South were not that common. He fully understood that the use of textbooks produced mainly in New York City, and written from the point of view of American nationalism, was crucial to changing the outlook of Protestant voters. That was a very important aspect of his thinking.

The reason why he was so concerned about this was that he was being advised by a liberal Northern Baptist former minister, Reverend Frederick T. Gates. Gates was a flaming liberal theologically. He was in revolt against traditional Baptist theology. He became Rockefeller’s major advisor in the area of charitable giving. He was, in short, Rockefeller Senior’s bagman.

A decade earlier, Rockefeller had put up a lot of the money to create a new university: the University of Chicago. It was Baptist in name only. He was Baptist in name only. He had a vision of changing the minds of college-educated Americans. From the beginning, the University of Chicago was a first-rate institution. It was comparable to Stanford University, which had been started a year earlier.

Rockefeller, unlike his rich peers, had a real vision of what to do with charitable resources. He understood that he could influence the educated elite. No rich man was more self-conscious than he was in pursuing reforms in higher education as a means of changing the outlook of the American elite. He knew he was up against resistance, and he knew they would have to spend a lot of money to weaken that resistance.

The General Education Board had a secondary agenda. This was the crucial aspect of the organization. Gates understood that higher education in the United States was overwhelmingly church related. The professors on the campuses were recruited from the clergy. Many of them were retired clergy.

Scholars who had been trained in Germany, some of whom had received the PhD, wanted to transform American higher education by substituting the PhD for the clerical collar. The most famous individual who made this decision was Woodrow Wilson. He became president of Princeton University in the same year that Rockefeller founded the General Education Board: 1902. Wilson was one of the first recipients of an American PhD. He earned it at Johns Hopkins University, which was the first American institution to grant the PhD.

One of the provisions for receiving a grant from the General Education Board was that the college or university had to add faculty members who held the PhD. The free money from Rockefeller was irresistible to many universities. He knew it would be. So, there was an active attempt on the part of the recipient institutions to find PhD’s who could be added to their faculties. Rockefeller knew that he would not have to get a lot of these institutions to make the transition. He knew that he would be successful if enough of them began it, and then the other institutions would feel compelled to compete for the supposed prestige of hiring PhD’s. This would increase the demand for faculty members who held the PhD.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. replaced the father as the head of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1917. In 1921, he replaced Gates with the brother of one of the members of the board, Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick. The brother was Raymond Fosdick. Junior had known him for a decade. He was Rockefeller’s agent at Versaille Peace Conference, He and Jean Monnet worked to create the League of Nations. He believed that this would be an organization which would push for centralized world government. After Wilson failed to persuade the Senate to ratify the Treaty and bring the United States into the League of Nations in 1920, Fosdick came back to the United States and set up his practice as a lawyer. He only had one employer for the rest of his life: Rockefeller Junior.

Fosdick wrote the only authorized biography of Junior, which appeared in 1958. He also wrote a history of the General Education Board, which appeared in 1962.

Rockefeller Sr. fully understood that the two major institutions that had to be changed in the United States were the colleges and the churches. He put up money in 1908 to establish the Federal Council of Churches, an organization which became the National Council of Churches in 1950. It was liberal theologically and liberal politically from the day it was founded.

Both the father and the son gave tens of millions of dollars to seminaries for training future pastors. The book about this aspect of Junior’s giving is The Rich Man and the Kingdom.

John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was self-conscious in what he was doing. He was self-conscious, because he was advised by Gates. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was equally self-conscious, because he was advised by the Fosdick brothers.

After World War I, most colleges and universities began to hire graduates of universities who had been granted either the PhD degree or Masters degrees in some academic subject. The influence of pastors on faculties declined rapidly. This had been Frederick Gates’ goal from the beginning.

The story of Gates and the Fosdick brothers is a story of the enormous influence that a highly placed advisor can have on the thinking of a very rich man. They had this influence over the two Rockefellers, father and son. The willingness of both Rockefellers to put their money where their mouths were, which meant putting money where their advisors’ mouths were, gave them enormous leverage over American Protestantism. They were liberals, they were self-conscious, and they were enormously successful.

—<Quote ends>—

Sometimes, evil wins.

Not forever, not comprehensively, not definitely.

But those are real and meaningful, if temporary, victories of the snakeheads.

The millions and millions of murdered men, women, and children of the Marxists are indeed truly dead. The smashed potential of Germany and Russia, China and India stays smashed.

The aborted are going to stay nameless and forgotten until Judgement Day. The ashes of the European Jews quietly dissolve into nothingness. The enslaved millions stolen from Africa never did return, and the betrayal of the American Indians remains to this very day. And the Old American is as dead and gone as the Kingdom of David and Solomon.

Sometimes, evil wins. And, if their victory is large enough, the good people die first.

But their victory will be temporary, if Christians put their foot down.

Regardless of the mass rapes and mass murders of the Romans, or the Nazis, or the Soviets (update that to “Russians”).

Or all the other lawless man-worshippers and power-worshippers out there.

1Reasons other than the mere existence of seminaries and priestly guilds: which have nothing to do with what Jesus taught or Paul instructed, but a lot to do with the will of men and their relentless drive for centralized power and control over God’s people.

Note, for example, how the Calvinists lost their influence over America after the seminary system was instituted, losing it to the Methodists and Baptists… and how these now-centralized power pyramids are losing their position to the nondenominational Charismatics and Pentecostals.

God tolerated this pious-mouthing, man-centred power-priesthood for a while.

Now, He does not.

As the Catholics could tell you, by the way.

One way or another, the power-elite priests are going to go the way of the power-elite kings… and the turn of the power-elite experts, legal and medical, is coming up.

Smash the guilds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.