What Lack I Yet?
TimeWatch Editorial
March 20, 2017
The recent budgetary proposals that have been presented by the administration, have awakened a definite awareness of the fact that, what appears to be a cold hearted attitude to those who are less fortunate, is in reality, based upon a theological position that has long existed. If you will recall those friends of Job who came to visit him in his time of distress, had totally embraced the theological idea that such suffering could only have been the result of some great sin that he had commited. During the time of Christ, the disciples demonstrated their conviction of this belief in the book of John chapter 9.
John 9:1 And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.
John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Of course, the same attitudes were applied to those who were poor. After all, it was believed that poverty was a sign of ungodliness, or at the very least a lack of blessing. This same belief system has been perpetrated by the pervasive Prosperity Gospel that is delivered to those who are told that the more they give to the preacher; the more they will be blessed.
This kind of thinking runs much deeper that you might imagine. One of the rising philosophical positions that has begun to invade the thinking of the religious right is something called Reconstructionism. According to the Free Encyclopedia, Christian Reconstructionism is a fundamentalist Calvinist movement, founded by a man named Rousas Rushdoony that has had an important influence on the Christian Right in the United States. Reconstructionists advocate the restructuring of the United States as a Theocracy and the restoration of certain biblical laws said to have continuing applicability. The interesting thing about Rushdoony is that his belief system spreads itself across the entire of society’s morality. For instance, in his book, “Institutes of Biblical Law” on page 251 he says the following about slaves and slavery.
“The (Biblical) Law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognizes his position and accepts it with grace." R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 251
Of course, Rushdoony is not the only believer of this kind of thing, there are now many other “thinkers” who have articulated the philosophical structure of this system which they plan to implement. Men like Gary North who is also an author, and in one of his books entitled “Christian Reconstruction” attempts to defend the horror of what these writers have to say about his belief system. On page 9 of his book he says the following.
Probably the most infamous attack on Christian Reconstruction was "Democracy as Heresy," published in Christianity Today, (February 20, 1987), pp.17-23. The misrepresentations of the "Democracy as Heresy" article are too numerous to list. A single example, however, will give you some idea how bad this article really is. On the first page of single example, however, will give you some idea how bad this article really is. On the first page of "Democracy as Heresy" the author asserts that Reconstructionists would abolish democracy and reinstitute slavery. But nowhere does the author define democracy for his readers, and it is only later in the article that slavery is defined, not as "chattel slavery," as was practiced in the United States, but as "biblical slavery" (Exodus 22:3b). "Biblical slavery," more appropriately described as "indentured servitude," would "allow impoverished persons to labor away their indebtedness, or criminals to make restitution." Gary North, “Christian Reconstruction” page 9
The language used by Mr. North appears to be rather harmless; however the Biblical principle of working off a debt had strict guidelines, which guarantied freedom at the end of the payment. The implementation of this system during the early immigration to America was marred with abuse and misuse. First, let us look at the definition of indenture. According to the Free Encyclopedia:
“An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed period of time. The employer is often permitted to assign the labor of an indenturee to a third party. Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit or to meet a legal obligation, such as debt bondage. Until the late 18th century, indentured servitude was very common in British North America. It was often a way for poor Europeans to immigrate to the American colonies: they signed an indenture in return for a costly passage.” The Free Encyclopedia
But you might just be aware of the fact that today, we have not come too far away from the early years of fraudulent transportation of “workers.” We see in the transportation of workers who pay large sums of money to be brought to the United States, only to discover that they will not receive the jobs they have been promised or worse yet find themselves subject to degrading roles in society, the same devilish greed of the past. Every now and then, those doing the transporting are caught, but it would surprise you to know that they are themselves servants of the rich and powerful. Listen to what Richard Hofstadter in his 1971. America at 1750: A Social Portrait. Knopf Doubleday. p. 36. Has to say:
“Not all European servants were sent willingly. Several instances of kidnapping for transportation to the Americas are recorded. An illustrative example is that of Peter Williamson (1730–1799). As historian Richard Hofstadter pointed out, "Although efforts were made to regulate or check their activities, and they diminished in importance in the eighteenth century, it remains true that a certain small part of the white colonial population of America was brought by force, and a much larger portion came in response to deceit and misrepresentation on the part of the spirits [recruiting agents]." Richard Hofstadter in his 1971- America at 1750: A Social Portrait. Knopf Doubleday. p. 36
The plan is the same today. The little that has been assigned to the poor, will be taken to fill the pockets of the depraved rich. But the time will be soon when the rich, will weep and howl for the miseries that shall come upon them. Not afar off, their riches will be corrupted, and their garments motheaten.
Cameron A. Bowen
