Review of May 22 meeting with Pastors: Tuuri, Wilson, Hayes, and John Pontier from HOFCC/Hillsboro.

(and discussions with Pam)

I read from my email the pointed sections:

If there are any offenses remaining unforgiven in the manner, methods, or attitudes I had been using to appeal for resolution of what seemed like contradictions to me – I would like to pursue forgiveness for those before another year goes by. I do wish to change what needs to be changed to learn how to more lovingly and palatably deliver appropriate appeals for reformation in churches today.

...I look forward to your further rebuke, teaching, correction, and training in a more righteous way to accomplish our mutual goals.

I went prepared to try to separate the Content of what I was affirming (i.e. the "false accusation" of sin, idolatry, and crime) -- and the Method I had been using in communicating (i.e. harshness, inflammatory terms, etc.). We talked  about both.

Neither of us appear to have changed in our convictions about the goodness or badness of our present money/central bank system and other ways of using human law to justify stealing our neighbor's property.

They say they might not mind discussing the details of these issues with me some day, after I have shown more progress in loving my wife, teaching my kids, fulfilling my vocation, and not being such a proud, arrogant, rebellious hypocrite. We can't really blame them, because my failures in each of these areas are worse than they look. Neither them nor my family can be blamed for suspecting my sincerity in wanting to follow Christ, if I am not not making a better effort to do so in all the other publicly approved ways. If I won't demonstrate righteousness in the ways they do recognize, how shall they know if I am advocating righteousness in ways they don't recognize. And in these failures I have no excuse or defense, other than it seems like excommunicating me for trying to follow Christ in some areas might not be the best encouragement to please Him in other areas.

It was because I was seeing myself as sinner, idolater, and criminal and was getting resistance from my family in trying to turn from that -- that I appealed to the elders regarding these things at issue.

My hope would be that they can eventually teach me how to more effectively, by not using condemnatory and inflammatory language, persuade people, (especially my family), that transgression of the laws of God is sin , that thinking and acting as if the Created shares the same sovereign attributes of the Creator is idolatry , and that crime consists of those behaviours that God's Word requires every man, 20 years old and upward, to make sure gets punished (and what God will do the society if they don't). As it is, maybe the elders have taught me more effectively, these last three years, by expulsion than they would have by inclusion.

Their hope, is that I will stop thinking and talking about all these things for awhile, be nice, and trust God that things are not as bad and the Christian community is not as culpable for failures in believe and proclaim the rights of Christ in the area of money and public benefits as I think.

The concluding resolution, after some review of the same old themes we argued (or quarelled) about for 3 years, was that I would be meeting with Pastor Tuuri to work through the 7 "A's of Confession" to demonstrate my seriousness to take their advice and put more priority on family relationships and lessen the distractions of the zeal for Reconstruction.

They are still grieved that someone of such failing character as mine, would squander so much time on studying-out these supposedly uncertain/gray-area topics to try to appeal to Family, Church, and State regarding sin and crime related to receiving dishonest gain -- when it is so obvious I am spending so little time and energy loving and caring for my family. They mentioned a fresh offense in the report that I had questioned the Calvinism of a couple of brothers I have been talking to. See more below on this under the Questions.

Their unanimous recommendation (or stronger) is that I lay aside, for a season, wasting any mental energy on any thinking, reading, writing, and talking about certain unspecified topics. I'm guessing the suspected list will be: Biblical law, the evil contradictions of democratic principle, post-milleniannialism, honest measures in money and trade, capital punishment, kidnapping, property restitution for theft, and refusing to think it has been given to "Caesar" to redistribute wealth in the form of "benefits" our civil governments offer those who did not own, or earn, or produce them.

This will focus on asking my family questions, just spending time with them, being interested in them for their own sake, not trying to remold them into my image, beating them over the head with the beneficial consequences of obeying God's law or applying all of the Scripture to all of life (limited to the parts I am excited about at the moment). ....Generally trying to attend to the obvious and non-disputable responsibilities of my station, instead of using my pet themes, and my notion of their great importance, and the emergency of the moment -- as an excuse to leave normal family functions undone, or burdening other members of my family with things I am supposed to be doing. I'm afraid it will mostly mean not getting so behind out in the yard, trying to keep the grass mowed and the blackberries from taking over, and helping Pam in the garden.

It may be that they will be able to persuade me to do this, and that I may be willing and able to do this. If so, they propose an extended period of time where I wouldn't be corresponding with you or talking about these themes like I may have these last 3-7 years. Right now, I can't imagine myself not thinking about these things, as they are all so interconnected across so many life issues.

As I see it, as I have been taught by the Biblical teaching ministry of Reformation Covenant Church these last 24 years, my avocation (if not vocation) should be to pursue Reformation: in begging the Christian Brother and pagan, alike,  to be wise and kiss the Son -- in accepting His ecclesiastical supremecy and imperial super-national sovereignty (which can only mean trusting and obeying His word, including the Mosaic law He promised would remain the occupational standard throughout this age [Mt. 5 "whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."]). This will mean not accepting or approving the claims of the civil leader or voter who claims ethical equality with God in defining his own crimes and punishments, or claims ownership of labor or property that God has not given him, or central bankers who claim to create something out of nothing.

It should be to pursue Covenant, in that our functions, especially as men in Family, Church, and Law -- are to be in obedience to the covenants God has initiated with mankind, and especially that of our union with Christ through His finished work and being seated with Him and our responsibility to be co-ruling with Him from His heavenly throne, not primarily by means of the sword, as with coercion, but by means of His Word, (HisWord, that Hi-Sword) that goes out of His mouth and conquers His enemies in this world, both of the flesh and spirit. One of the things I have seen is that the necessity of reconstructing an honest money system will raise the question of -Whom will we trust? In every trade, there must first be a giving on the part of one party, before there is the giving of the responding party. In that gap, there must be trust, and God has given us the Oath of the Covenant in order that men might function in spite of a fallen world and old sin natures. Jesus showed that our Yes, and No is just shorthand for the full-form acknowledgment of God's right to define ethics (As surely as Yahweh lives...) and our acceptance of His just judgment if we violate His rule of law (May God do to me and more also if I fail & etc.). Right now, trading partners do not trust each other as much as they put greater trust in the Banking sytsem to keep the other guy honest in the trade, or to force refunds if there is failure in trust. Yet the Banking system is the most dishonest of them all, stealing from all under the light of the sun for hundreds of years through fractional-loaning, fiat-currency, and monetezation of debt.

In order to do this, to advise the magistrate, to equip the family, to reconstruct honest trade, to repair a contradictory, foolish, and destruction educational system in this country, there are no other possible remedies than to  herald the Son of God, according to the Word of God, through the practical administration of the Local Church. She is the steward of the oracles of God. People perish and civilizations corrupt and collapse - because She falters in Her proclamation of the Good News that the Savior has saved, and King has begun to reign in a much more glorious and effectual way throughout the earth since the Session of Christ on His heavenly throne. This News is not that God the Son has not always been law-giver, judge, and king of all nations, but that now, since the Son of Man has been given authority and power over all borders, languages, and cultures for all human history -- it is the humbled and sinful saints of the Most High who administer His reign on earth, primarily by their obedience, example, and teaching of all nations how to observe everything Christ taught (and now teaches through the Holy-Spirit) from a completed canon of Scripture.

Soooo.....as long as I am willing to restrain and muzzle my enthusiasm over the Church's central role of Covenantal reconstruction leading to a crucially-needed Reformation....then I am welcome to come back and fellowship at Reformation Covenant Church. I would be sad to leave the freedom I have had to discuss these things at the other churches I have been attending, and to lose the privilege of seeing other brothers in Christ become as won over to these principles as I. 

Here are the standing questions I am supposed to quit asking:

1. How do I become a Christian now, after the Elders have instructed the congregation that I was destined for eternity without Christ (hell) due to being cut off from Him and His people by excommunication? When you look at the tenets of Calvinism: predestination, definite atonement, total depravity, perseverance of the saints, unconditional election, and irresistible grace – don’t we have to conclude that if I am found in an unsaved state, that I was never a Christian till yet? Apparently the normal way of becoming a Christian will now be set aside. Instead of believing in the Person and Work of Christ and being sovereignly regenerated by the Holy Spirit, Shall I now be rescued out of the domain of darkness and be translated into the kingdom of Light on the basis of the elder’s decision that I have succeeded in abandoning an obsession to talk about the implications of Christ as King in accordance to the RCC Confessional Statement?  It was even maintained that the excommunication would be rescinded if another Trinitarian local church's Session should renew my fellowship with the Christian Community. I do understand and agree with the idea that Christians can only be responsible for outward evidence of faith and obedience. If I do not look to them, as if I am acting like a Christian, it is their responsibility to exercise church discipline. I just don't understand how any elements of my position are contrary to the church confessional statement.
2. Why should I have been excommunicated for faithfully pointing to the Biblical idea of the sinfulness of being partner with a thief, and accepting the bribe of dishonest gain – which I learned from RCC Elders' 20 years of teaching, as well as the ministry of other pastors in good standing in our denomination (and outside of it, not to mention pagans and Muslims)? Should these other Bible teachers be censured as well for slandering the Bride of Christ? It seems like these things are obvious violations of God’s law, which the RCC Confessional Statement says we affirm is the standard. Why am I singled out for censure for pointing out that this "want of conformity or transgression of the Law of God", is sin as the Westminster Standards maintain?
3. Why should I have been accused of falsely accusing men of idolatry, when they are clearly thinking and treating creatures as if they inhere the attributes the Bible claims for the Trinity alone (like creating something out of nothing, and annihilating something back to nothingness - or sovereign ownership of people and their property)? I am referring to the practical ownership/control that has accrued to international bankers by means of their faux "creation" of the world's money through loaning at usury
4. Why should I be censured for trying to point out the Christian responsibility to believe and represent the Biblical view of the practical 4-facet ownership of the Son of God/Son of Man, of all things, by virtue of His creation, laborious redemption, inheritance/gift of His Father, and winning it in a Fair Fight (binding the Strong Man and plundering the "god of this world" of his goods) -- and the delegation of stewardship of body, labor, land, and gear -- to the Family as the primary covenantal institution (workman worthy of his wage/thou shalt not steal) instead of the Group Ownership inherent in Church-as-Owner, or State-as-Owner concepts which are native to the Roman church, fascism, socialism, Marx/Engels Communism, and fiat-money/fractional-reserve banking practices?
5. Who is the perjurer? I am going to have to align myself with one party or the other. I tend to favor Elder Dennis Tuuri's earlier teaching -- that when the civil government taxes for functions never authorized to it by the Word of God, that that confiscation of property is stealing, violating the family ownership of property that God ordained from Genesis onward. The Partner with a Thief principle has the implication that when we profit from that "legal" theft, we also become culpable for the theft. Other teachers like R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and other pastors in good standing in the CREC like Doug Wilson, RC Sproul Jr. emphasize that this (perhaps unconscious) approval of the government/group ownership of wealth cannot be reformed until we repent of that theft, and the hypocrisy of it that will prevent us from getting the wealth-transfer laws changed. Over the years I have made as sure as I knew how, that Pastor Tuuri really has changed and now refuses to see any violation of God's law in accepting things like subidized education and subsidized banking services. If I am wrong in my position, then, by Biblical laws of perjury I should be liable to reimburse all the tax payers double for all the wealth "legitimately" transferred which I was accusing my defendents of stealing. I guess if it is not stealing, then I wouldn't need to reimburse the "victim" tax-payer, since his earned/produced property did really belong the benefit recipient after all. Since I could not afford a fine this huge (I was accusing generations of world Christendom of this sin and crime, not just locals), I triangulated as many sources as I could think of on this topic, employing all the Bible, logic, and history that I could to confirm my position. If Pastor Tuuri has better supporting evidence for his postion, I am very sorry that he hasn't shared it. It might have persuaded me and I may have missed out on 3 years of wonderful singing, and risked my eternal salvation for nothing. If you are familiar with RJ Rushdoony's sections (8th Commandment) in Institutes that address this topic, you might share my temptation to imagine Rush meeting him outside the pearly gates, and turning him over his knee before they let Dennis in to heaven. I shouldn't be so flippant here, the real links between these ideas and the mass murders, wars, and human suffering they have caused through human history does make this a life-and-death issue. None of us can escape the responsibility to appeal to our leaders in church and civil government to be "able men, men of truth, who fear God, and hate dishonest gain".

Deu 19:16-21 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, (17) then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. (18) The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, (19) then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (20) And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. (21) Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

It is not like we have an option:

Lev 5:1  "If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity; 

======

6/20/12

Went to sit down with Dennis to work through the 7 a's of confession.

"Are you ready to work through your confession?", We talked about possibility of reconciliation with family, church, and resolving my alledged non-Christian condition. Is it how I went about it, or is it the position I took.

Why did you initiate this?

Pastor Pontier has been an encouragement on the crucial need to reconnect with the family, and restoration with church seems to lie in the path of that, is there any way to do this? 

Discussed the pointlessness of attempting reconciliation of church and family unless and until I would repent of the principle of refusing dishonest gain/partner with a thief. Must repudiate calling it wrong to accept government benefits (banking services/education/anything not authorized to the civil government by God), and ask forgiveness for doing it.

I reviewed the other view of excommunication, where the outed member is considered elect, but in rebellion that requires temporal discipline, that pushes him out from under the church's umbrella of blessing, out into Satan's kosmos where he will be subject to increasing disciplinary cursing until he either dies physically, or changes his mind.

Depends on what you think a Christian is. Maybe I hold too much with the old Baptist, personal salvation principle, but reformed in the idea that God determines election, but others just have to treat according to the evidence. I do not look "saved" to them, because of contradiction of principle on ownership/ethical authority.

(I know we are both content to fellowship with other Christians that hold horrible theology. Like thinking a human soul is sovereign in casting the deciding vote regarding his regeneration [Arminian]. Like thinking President, Congress, or Majority have more ethical sovereignty to define law, than the Lord Jesus Christ seated now on His heavenly throne, who will judge all men for time and eternity [antinomian].)

Traded arguments briefly on the - Partner with a thief issue. Pastor Tuuri reminded me I was wrong to imply any moral fault in the Church being clueless about offering God fraudulent money; and my accusations against an elder receiving tax-supported educational services. I guess, since an elder like this, doing something the Christian community approves, -- can't be sinning, so therefore the property being transferred is not being stolen. Not stolen, means that the true owner of the property being transferred is either the civil government(group-ownership of taxpayers), or the beneficiary (in this case, the elder's family). He mentioned that these sorts of things are legitimate because too much money was taken away earlier (assuming taxes are too high, illegitimate, or are stolen), so, to attempt to gain redress/reimbursement by taking some of those benefits back - offered by the Oregon Higher Educational system (assuming we are getting back less than we lost) -- is still universally-approved good justice anyway.

However, even Pagan Law recognizes that a thief cannot pass on title to property when he does not hold title. Nothing you obtain, that has been stolen, can become yours. The one from whom it was stolen from still retains title. 

I wonder if our efforts for redress wouldn't better be  spent in preaching the Gospel that Jesus is Messiah. If Messiah, then Lord/Redeemer/Creator of all land and labor -- which must be delegated, assigned, and managed according to His will, if we are to expect blessing. Never has He deeded to Caesar the land, men's work of increase, authority over trade, or possession of all property. In that light, tax on property , tax on work, and tax on trade (sales tax) is not the right or possession of civil government or taxpayers. I think we both agree that this pass has come about, voluntarily,  because popular opinion, in rebellious foolishness, considers human civil government to be the "divine" creator, owner, and guardian of property and prosperity -- instead of the God of the Bible

He said, I have been confused between analogies and true equality. That there are grey areas, there is not a sharp dividing line between theft and non-theft. Apparently he means that property doesn't just belong to this person or that person, with an absolute, stark, sharp line dividing the two. These things are not clear to people and we cannot apply black and white ethical culpability. It is not clear about whether it belongs to the producer, the government, or the recipient of government "benefits". We can make analogies but we cannot say this equals that. Just be cause a=b, and b=c, doesn't necessarily mean a=c. My thinking it too sharp, too impersonal. This is why nobody likes you, why you are all by yourself.

He reiterated that after I had presented all my best evidence, all arguments applying theonomy to property in labor, money, and property -- they looked it over and said they didn't agree. I asked why I was being considered as speaking out of my own authority (setting myself up as a standard over everybody else), when I was just pointing to these other sources outside myself: historical experience, authoritative Bible teachers/economists (specifically Rushdoony, Doug Wilson, RC Sproul Jr.), Biblical passages - whereas, they were just saying from themselves (without trying to present adequate counter rationale, evidence, history, or Biblical application). Just, "We think you are wrong."

So who is speaking out from themselves, from their own authority?

That Rushdoony, et. al. were not here to explain themselves, that he was sure they would not support the applications I was making, that their life actions were not consistent with my applications. How about we call up Wilson/Sproul and discuss this. OK, What if we do and they disagree with you, John. If they side with us, what will you do?"

I wanted to say I would do the normal thing, and compare who was giving the best, most consistent explanation of Bible, history, logic -- and accept what seemed true. Not sure how clearly I expressed the idea. What would you expect him to say, if, out of fear for his job and making tons of people mad, a pastor in that situation might tone-down their previous statements?

I pointed to the need for Reformation, that I thought the urgent need was so similar to the Scots/English reformation times where king and pope competed for God-worship (men and women were murdered, dispossessed and enslaved for not acknowledging the king held ethical authority to define all crime and punishment -- even over church leaders and policy). He said, that was then, now the area most in need of reformation for the Church to focus on is Community. I'm thinking this is certainly more compatible with common-ownership ideas that must, of necessity, underlie Pastor Tuuri's position on money, banking, and accepting dishonest gain / being partner with a thief.

He was grieved to say he wished he could be glad we had met, but he was not, and the meeting had kind of a non-ending, just a good-bye.