Will The Real South Carolinians Stand Up?

In my last post I established that it is impossible for a Christian to disagree with the "mere Christian" statement of faith espoused by Christian Exodus. In point of fact almost all of the Christian congregations and all of the historic Christian congregations in South Carolina have as part of their statement of faith each of the points listed on the CE organizational website.

Disagreement, while disguised in false terms such as "sect", really boils down to a difference of opinion over politics. Some make protestations related to questions related to if Christians should band together at all in an attempt to effect political change. These arguments too are false; if a Christian is allowed Biblically to vote then certainly they are allowed to fully participate in the political process, up to and including forming political parties and influencing the activities of existing parties.

So then, why are some pastors apparently unwilling to support a notion such as Christian Exodus? Could it be that they are truly unwilling to face the evil that surrounds us in the world? Is it possible that making commentary on the state of affairs in our world might perhaps hurt membership at their mega-church. Indeed it could, rocking the boat is never a popular activity in the beginning.

Let's look at the historic viewpoint of South Carolina Christians in this regard. I am not speaking of first of second generation transplants, I speak of the historic communities and their attitude toward government, morality and the role of natural law in public affairs. I wonder if we truly consider the values that these learned men and outspoken pastors proclaim mesh well with what we in South Carolina as a majority have always held to be truth.

South Carolinians have always been tolerant of a man living his life as he saw fit, within the bounds of moral public behavior. We have accepted Blue Laws that close down most stores on Sunday, not as an effort to force people to attend church but out of respect God who gave us government and liberty. We have accepted that liquor stores ought to close early in the evening, not to stop people from drinking but to prevent public drunkenness and disorder. We have always accepted that strip clubs and bars of ill-repute should be limited in their visibility, not because we think we can force people not to visit such places but because we do not wish a society where such things are prominent.

We have always valued family and community more than loyalty to some distant and remote entity. We have always respected the property rights of another man and stood on the notion that a man ought to provide for his family, that the government (particularly the Federal government) has little business in most aspects of our lives.

Have we changed so much? Do we really not believe these things to be true any longer? Do these things not serve in some small way to define us? Have we sold out completely to modernism and secularism?

I travel the state extensively whenever I am home. I have friends in several small towns. I simply do not believe that in those places we have changed that much. To those more concerned with figuring out how to convince some new industry to move to the state, or how to get the government to build a bridge or road to enhance their property value such simple and naive concepts as tradition and culture probably do not matter much.

I say that there is something profoundly special about being unique, standing by principles and living in accordance to a code of behavior. The things that have always made us a great people are the very things we seem so willing to abandon, all in the name of progress.

Progress can occur with principles intact. I suppose that is exactly what scares people so much about Christian Exodus. This group latched onto South Carolina because of our history and the culture is extant in the small places. Perhaps they were foolish enough to believe that we still cared about the important things. They have not moved to our state to take over or to bring a foreign notion of culture to our home. They came to join us, how foolish of them. They did not know that so many of South Carolina's sons and daughters had long since abandoned the heritage of liberty, morality and civility that our ancestors bequeathed to us.

There are enough of us still out there that cling to the principles our parents taught us. There are still enough good people in the state that know right from wrong. We know that things at the national and the state level are simply not right. We have the opportunity, in our lifetime to take back some of our culture. We can restore our local governments to the right path. We can reestablish the society in which we grew-up, let the rest of the world go as it will. In our homes, in our towns and out counties we can live free and morally.

If you are one of those declining few that still understand the special circumstance of being a son or daughter of the Palmetto State I challenge you to reconsider your apathy toward actually changing things, reconsider your blind acceptance of everything corrupt politicians tell you, consider that our government is ours for the making. We can work together to set the course right.

Christian Exodus Is Not a Sect

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

In Defense of Christian Exodus

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.

1. Will there children be better off in a secular or Christian society?
2. Is society really better off without some constraints on morality?
3. Who better to make laws, a Christian or a secularist?
4. Who better to vote with, Christians or secularist?

Shameless Request For Help

I am going to ask for a little help here.

First a disclaimer.

I realize that most of the folks in the world disagree with me. I realize even still that the few folks that read my blog do not agree with me always. I know this. I am going to ask for some assistance in something that I understand most people do not agree with.

Well anyway here it is. As you know I have supported Christian Exodus for the last year, essentially from the first months of its creation. The movement is misunderstood; the principles of Christianity and Constitutionalism are foreign to many. The notion of modern secession in the US (if it came to that) is completely alien; most people would deny that it is a legitimate political remedy.

I want nothing more than a forum for the group to express our goals, objectives and ideas. If once in the public forum our ideas do not carry weight with anyone so be it. I believe that there are others out there that will share in our vision of the world. I assure you we are not dangerous, crazy or a cult. (in fact the group is not a religious group at all but rather a political group of like minded religious folks from all walks of the Christian faith)

In less than a month an article will be published in GQ about the group. There have been several other articles before, after each article there is a buzz of interest and then things die down. I would like to sustain the attention long enough to properly articulate the message.

Recently we started a new blog. It is my hope that in the attention following the GQ article that many people will visit the site and learn a little about what we really believe. The problem is the blog is brand new, not indexed in the search engines and not on the blogsphere radar.

My request is simple. If you have a blog or web site place a link on your site on a high ranking (Google rank) page. Hopefully with enough links in the short term the page will get indexed properly. If you are inclined once the article in GQ appears write a blurb about our blog. It does not matter what you say, agree or disagree. If a minor blogstorm erupts in the aftermath so much the better.

If you really want to help ask your blogging readers to post a link, again it does not matter if they say we are crazy or nuts. Let the message be heard and then let people decide. This is really all I am asking.

I promise not to ask for assistance in the future and I promise to do my best to repay any kindness extended to me in this endeavor. (I also apologize for the shameless request for linkage)

the link
http://christianexodus.org/blog/coryburnell.htm

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Cory Burnell Online

Be sure to visit a new collaborative blog I am participating in with Cory Burnell and a few other Christian Exodus friends

Cory Burnell

I had the priviledge of speaking with Cory, president of ChristianExodus on the phone last night. I had visited the .org site and was very disturbed by some of the things I saw. I called and spoke with Cory's wife, I fired off several emails and late last night Cory returned my call.

My fear was, from the post on the forum, that this movement was about the craziness that the usual opponents claim. I found Cory to be the same reasonable, intelligent fellow that I perceived him to be from his writings posted on the SCLoS site and from his talk on Fox.

It seems that the organization is in the process of standing up a new web site. While this is being accomplished some nefarious sorts hijacked the forum. One particularly bad individual was impersonating Cory.

My support for this movement is redoubled now. There is nothing to fear, as the naysayers would claim, of any intention to install a theocracy. There is no indication that this is a cult. In fact the doctrine that Cory and I discussed is very reasonable and acceptable to anyone that believes in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. This movement is simply one of like minded folks. There is no intention to do anything other than install of form of government of and by the people.

This idea has merit and it can work. I challenge you to keep your eyes and ears open and endeavor to learn more about what this movement is all about. Secession seems to me the only real hope of restoring a Constitutional Republic in any place in North America.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Just when you think you are alone....

ArklahomBoy if my sort of fellow. He first brought my attention to a group that has great potential.

Everything on the Christian Exodus site is exactly what I have been "preaching" to anyone that would listen. To many this idea may seem radical. In reality the movement of like minded people to the same geographic locality is a hallmark of our history.

I will be watching Hannity and Combs with great interest tonight.

A son of the great and sovereign State of South Carolina I would welcome this movement and this idea to my home. I would hope this might spur the exodus of some of the more noxious and offensive carpetbaggers that have taken up residence in recent years!!

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid