Thoughts, ponderings, opinions and occasional rants and screeds on a myriad of topics that pertain to the South and South Carolina - our liberty and the dream for the Republic our forefathers envisioned.
— The Three and Twenty Fire Department is soon going to have a brand new tanker.Sen. Jim DeMint’s office recently announced that the fire department would be receiving a $190,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security’s Assistance to Firefighters program. The fire department will also chip in another $10,000, according to Three and Twenty Fire Department volunteer fire Chief Tommy Keaton.
My Fellow South Carolinians,
I invite you to consider for a moment the recent disparagement of Christian Exodus within the pages of our local papers and on our local radio talk shows.
I will admit, the idea seems radical, and on the face of it the notion seems dangerous. Dangerous if we accept the secular hobgoblins we are presented.
Let us address those hobgoblins - the idea that this is some perversion of our Christian Religion into a political movement hell-bent on establishing a tyrannical theocracy complete with the reintroduction of the burnings at the stake.
The description of Christian Exodus as a "Christian sect" or any other such similar term is patently false. Consider for a moment the analogy presented first by C.S. Lewis of the hallway with doors. He described "Mere Christianity" as extant within that hallway; his description of the term included all of the basic tenets required to comprise mere Christianity. In his description, denominations branch off from the hallway and diverge into more dogmatic theology, but Christianity cannot exist without a connection and adherence to mere Christianity.
Lewis did not endeavor to elaborate on ecclesiology, that is the realm of the space behind the doors along the hallway he describes. He does go to great length to establish that to exist within the hallway a Christian must accept that Natural Law is real, and focuses his definition of Mere Christianity on "the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times". These beliefs, uncolored by man-made dogma and edicts are essentially the Christianity of those that followed Jesus and those that worshipped in the early church. Lewis' definition did not advocate a return to such simplicity, rather he stated that Christianity is simpler than our Churches have defined it.
Would any of us deny that Mere Christianity must have existed before the Church? The Apostles had Mere Christianity before they went off to fulfill their charges. No matter how adamant we might be about our own particular style of worship, the belief system of our denomination or our definition of various points of ecclesiology would we deny that there is a possibility that there are other Christians other than the ones' we worship with on Sunday morning? I hope this is not the case.
Christian Exodus cannot be a sect because its own statement of faith is extant within many of the doorways leading off of Lewis' hallway. Read them for yourself. There is nothing of a distinct sect within a belief in the trinity, the full deity/humanity of Christ, the fall of Man, The Substitutionary Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of Christ, Salvation by Faith Alone in Christ Alone, The Physical Return of Christ or The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture.
In fact, if one were to exclude the inerrancy of the Scripture portion (a point that was not applicable to the earliest Christians) these points comprise the tenets of Mere Christianity. This is what the early church believed and this is generally accepted as "the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times."
Who then can righteously argue that the brand of Christianity held out by Christian Exodus is that of a sect? In fact the CE statement of faith is less a statement of dogma and more a tent under which all real Christians can agree to stand. CE is a political, not a religious organization and as such it does not desire to advocate a particular dogmatic stance. It seeks political change.
Nobody can make these points if they stand within Lewis' hallway or behind one of the doors leading off that common ground. The contention people really have with Christian Exodus cannot be with their position statement on Christianity or the notion that this group wishes to establish some new form of Christianity via political means. Contention comes in the shape and form of the groups intention.
Nobody, in America, would deny any number of like minded groups the right to cooperate and collaborate. Our very system of government demands the right to free association. We see this all around us, secular groups cooperate all the time. Who complains that a secular group is trying to "take over" government when they form political associations - beyond a few brave pastors?
Do we honestly believe that a group that sees human reason and secular values as more worthy to self-associate and cooperate than a group that merely wishes to vote and act according to Natural Law? Our political parties owe no allegiance to any principle other than pragmatism - is this principle better or more noble than adherence to Christian morality and values.
Many proclaim that Christians are to be just good citizens and participants in the governments of the world. Those that hold this view fail to fully explain just what they mean. Should we vote? If so who should we vote for? Should we refrain from voting for candidates that proclaim that they are Christians that will seek the guidance of God? Perhaps voting for such people would be pushing our beliefs too far. Why would a person say it is ok to actually vote but then say it is not ok to cooperate in the political process? Why is voting for someone that enacts laws ok but it is not ok to vote for people that will enact specific laws? Do you see the logical fallacy of such arguments? We are either a part of the political process, with all of the rights and privileges of every other group or we are not. Why should we self-restrict ourselves from participation. The phase "I see no Biblical justification" for this is often used, the people uttering such phrases never bother to offer Biblical justification for Christians self-restricting ourselves from influencing the process.
This sort of thinking would make us all patsies to a system we have decided to only partially participate in. Our own Declaration of Independence acknowledges that nations and governments exercise just power and legitimacy from God. Our own SC Constitution recognizes God as the provider of our liberties and for the ordination of our form of government. If we actually mean those words, then God has provided us with a representative republican democracy; if we then choose to not utilize the systems he has provided then the shame is upon our own foolishness.
Enough of all of this disparagement and nay-saying regarding the Christian nature of Christian Exodus. It is in fact a "Mere Christian" political organization. Some people in South Carolina may disagree with the political motives, but no Christian can righteously disagree with the statement of faith.
More to come soon on the political aspect of this group.
El Cid
Heidi Cenac wrote a piece in the 10 February Anderson Independent that simply must be repudiated. Read the entire thing and then come back for analysis.
The story begins "objectively" enough -
Some people read the Bible and some people use the Bible.
This is of course a true statement but it is an odd way to begin a fact based article.
Local ministers and religious experts are concerned that Christian Exodus might be the latter.
This would imply that all or most local ministers and religious experts share this view. I wonder if Heidi asked all or most of these people after they were fully informed of what Christian Exodus is all about and what they really envision for government in South Carolina. I doubt that she did because I doubt that most ministers in Anderson fully understand these things right now. Any opinions they could possibly express would be based an upon incomplete understanding of the facts.
As an example of the ignorant views she solicited we have -
Tom Ritchie, pastor at Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, said he has difficulty finding scripture that suggests Christians should take over government.
This is an ignorant response because Ritchie is suggesting that CE desires to take over, that phase implies some tactic other that the utilization of legal precedents. It is a strong term, it connotes negativity. If we applied the term, as used in Ritchie's response, any time one political party achieves a majority we might say that they have "taken over". In reality all Christian Exodus seeks to achieve is a majority in the various law-making bodies. The application of the phrase "take over" is better applied to a coup, something outside of normal legal channels; this is not why CE stands for. He continues:
“I think it’s pretty tragic and pretty frightening stuff,” he said. “If the people of Anderson allow it to happen, we probably get what we deserve.”
So according to Ritchie, if a majority of Christians in Anderson elect lawmakers that observe natural law and respect liberty then the county will get what it deserves. I must question what alternative Ritchie would propose? Would he rather see agnostic, atheist and heathen lawmakers legislating based on secular values? Does he propose that this is a better alternative?
What is truly frightening is the notion that anyone that seeks higher guidance in lawmaking is somehow inferior to someone that relies entirely on human reasoning.
And of course then there is Dan Olinger from Bob Jones -
Those in conservative Christian circles are worried about Christian Exodus’ implication that the church should use the power of the state to enforce biblical morality, said Dan Olinger, a professor in the seminary at Bob Jones University in Greenville.
“We want to be good citizens and participants, but we’re not really interested in using the iron fist of the law to compel people to everything Christians should do,” Mr. Olinger said
Here again we find someone answering a question unrelated to the issue at hand. Ms. Cenac never even attempts to establish that CE desires to "do anything like compel people to do everything Christians do." Why then print a response to an unproven accusation? By printing this response the article implies that it is a known fact that CE does wish to impose some sort of theocracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But let us take Mr. Olinger to task for his statement all the same. A careful review of history clearly demonstrates that for most of American history and all of Western history morality has indeed been regulated by law. It is true that we have ever so slowly slipped from an adherence to natural law to secular law. This fact alone does not make the trend a correct course of action.
The preamble of our own Constitution recognizes the fact that man alone is not supreme. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
One wonders how we could be grateful on one hand but disobedient on the other. Mr. Olinger suggest that Christians should be mere participants in what ever happens. But if we take his own words, "good citizens and participants", is it not logical that voting, and maybe even voting together for Christian leaders, is not reasonable?
Let's just break this entire thing down. Christian Exodus is nothing more than a group that intends to build a voting bloc. The method is unique in the American but not solely so - it has been done before (successfully in Kansas). Critics make large deal of the fact that CE wishes to return the county and state to a legislative stance closer natural law. People act as if this is something new, or perhaps something old that was tried and failed.
The questions that any Christian in South Carolina ought to seriously ask themselves is this.
(Anderson Independent) Area officials learned about responding to hazardous materials and weapons of mass destruction incidents this week during a class put on by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with Federal folks coming into our county to do, well anything?
Last time I dusted off my copy of The Constitution I failed to find any authority for the Federal Government to run anything called the Department of Homeland Security. I guess that authority must me listed on the secret copy kept by the Federal Government that also authorizes them to do things like spy on regular folks.
I do not buy the flawed argument that this sort of thing helps our poor local guys better prepare for major incidents. Again, last time I checked the folks of Anderson County have not invaded anyone or did anything else to threaten any terrorist - that is the Federal government, it is their problem. If that bunch wants to make enemies and fight wars, let them. Anderson and South Carolina need have no part of all that nor should we live in fear of the Federal Government's enemies.
It seems the new Anderson County Economic Development Director Heather Simmons Jones has been on the job for a mere few days but has already warmed up to the idea of adding another tax to the good citizens of the county.
Among the various projects she is batting around in bringing sewer service to the S.C. 24 exit 11 area. Of course to actually make this work the road and bridge must first be widened - to the tune of $130 million.
Lee Luff (Anderson Area Chamber of Commerce) and Holt Hopkins(Transportation Director) are all for this notion and will push again for a 1 cent sales tax in 2008.
Mrs. Jones said of her new job and the possibilities in Anderson - "It's like an economic developer's dream."
That maybe true Mrs. Jones but the short-sighted vision you and other progressives in the county are holding out as a dream is to many decent folks little more than a nightmare come home to roost.
The Greenville urban outgrowth that the progressives see as opportunity many see as blight and the visible represetation of cullture dying.
James Howard Kunstler describes this blight thusly -
Just returned from a road trip to a couple of small towns in Minnesota. The spectacle of chain store sprawl along Interstate 94 from Minneapolis to St. Cloud is an amazing and appalling sight, a late-stage cancer of the landscape. It isn't any different or necessarily worse than thousands of other sprawl corridors around the nation, but it portends a destiny just as dark. On the whole, the public does not apprehend the danger it represents to our future.
He uses another term to describe this - it begins with cluster.... I will not complete the rest but it is an accurate, if profane, description.
This nonesense is occuring all over America - why must we encourage it here? Back in the 1970's when Harold Smith, Jim Beson and Cecil Bracken worked to bring water services to the Powedersville area did it occur with county funds? Was there a sales tax to encourage the project? NO. In fact the project only worked because enough existing citizens joined together to incorporate the water company. This was "Just-in-time" growth.
The idea of "building it and they will come" looks good on paper - the result is however something much less appealing.
Anderson will, and should grow. It is the nature of things. However, we have a real chance to shape the nature of that growth. Reacting to percieved immediate needs while fundementally ignoring that which is important and permemant is wrong - it is the product of a failed ideology. Progressivism has and will never produce anythg of great or lasting worth.
If Anderson County is to have a sales tax let it serve the purpose of reducing another tax - not as a means to expand governemnt. Reduce or eliminate property taxes and let the citizens of Anderson be truly free to own their own homes. A sales tax for any other reason than the reduction of a current tax would simply be wrong.
Perhaps Joshua is correct and folks like this ought to read a little Wendell Berry before attempting to fundementally change the nature of a place and the people that call that place home.First reading of an ordinance to permanently suspend the Blue Laws was approved Tuesday night by the Anderson County Council. Blue Laws prohibit residents from buying anything other than groceries or medicine before 1:30 p.m. on Sundays. (Anderson Independent)
I cannot imagine why such a proposal came up in the first place. Even if you were to theoretically remove the notion that the Sabbath should be respected, not working on Sundays is a cultural thing. It is a time to spend time with that which is really important. Working and making money are means to an end; in the culture I grew up with family were infinitely more important - even to all of my unchurched neighbors. From the story above we find the answer.
"I'm a Yankee," said David Allan, a Liberty resident. "You can get rid of all the Blue Laws you want to. If a business wants to be open, they should be able to stay open. If they want to be closed, they should be able to stay closed."
I am generally in agreement that government ought not attempt to legislate morality - at least not on small things. I am for individual freedom and responsibility - however as a paleoconservative I am fully willing to accept local government encroachment on individual rights if that encroachment protects longstanding community traditions and the local culture. In reality this "encroachment" does not in any way offend individual rights. In the current example a fellow like David Allan never has to live or work in Anderson County - he does not have to even visit. It was his option to come to Anderson. When you move to a place you should be willing to accept and attempt to integrate into the local culture - in this case family and faith have traditionally been more important than profit. Mr. Allan you might have done well to figure that out before you came down our way.
The fact is it is ok to slow down the pace of life a little - take time out to focus on what is really important. These are the traits that have made our culture so great - it is a shame to sell all of that for a few extra hours at the Wal-Mart!
In a letter dated October 30, the SC Law Enforcement Division (SLED) informed the County of the successful results of its annual review of Anderson County’s Homeland Security funds. Read more...Well the discerning among us have to ask the question...why on God's green Earth does Anderson County need any funding from the Department of Homeland Insecurity? Make no mistake these are Federal dollars with Federal strings attached--
Anderson County has received $1,137,587 in Homeland Security Grant funds since 2003.The requirement to hire a CPA is but one of the more obvious "strings". What is not so obvious is the control and infringement upon our good county and her duly elected officials; most notably the office of high sheriff.
[...]
All FEMA and Homeland Security grant monies are also included as part of the County's annual external audit. In particular, the amounts are included in the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards. The County's commitment to following General Accounting Practices and Procedures also includes employing a CPA within the Emergency Services division.
