Warren Throckmorton

Michael Peroutla wants the Bible to be the law of the United States. It is the Christian reconstructionists dream. Here he presents in a nutshell (see what I did there) the crux of his argument that the law of the land must square with the Bible or else it can be ignored.

Before we can say whether a law is now or not we have to consult God’s Word? That’s precisely what I’m saying. That’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s exactly what our founders said, that’s exactly our organic law of the United States. That’s the law. This is, it’s contained in the Declaration of Independence. When Jefferson said, the laws of nature and nature’s God, he was quoting Blackstone. Blackstone said if what man made law is what he called “ad-missible” law, is not harmonious with the divine law then it’s not law at all. That’s a standard, a fixed standard that we don’t acknowledge today and we need to.

As far as I can determine, Jefferson did not credit Blackstone with being the source of his phrase “nature and nature’s God.” Jefferson spoke to the matter of sources in a letter to Richard Lee dated May 8, 1825.

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before, but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, not yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All it’s authority rests on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, & c.

Jefferson also told Lee that he “turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing” the Declaration. Jefferson did not agree with Blackstone on the origin of British common law being in Christianity and even though Jefferson read Blackstone (all lawyers did at the time), this does not mean he took this phrase from him or meant to send a coded message that the Bible was to be the law of the land. It is inconceivable that Jefferson would have had Peroutka’s misunderstanding in mind. Jefferson did not have much good to say about the Old Testament and cut up the gospels to only include the moral teachings of Jesus.

In any case, the Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land and doesn’t make the Bible the final authority. Peroutka should rename his institute to Institute to Promote the Bible as Civil Law.

A Mars Hill Global donor forwarded this letter to me. In the wake of ongoing questions about how funds donated to Mars Hill Global since 2012 were spent, the church leaders issued this letter to 6,000 donors.

This is slightly a reworded statement from the Mars Hill Global FAQ page on the Mars Hill website.

In fact, the Global Fund was a giving option until at least May of this year. As I demonstrated by means of videos that Mars Hill wants to hide, the leaders of Mars Hill did not simply consider Mars Hill Global to be non-member, online givers. Sutton Turner said in a video you can watch here that Global is a part of Mars Hill Church. At 30 seconds into this video, Sutton Turner said:

Mars Hill Global is the arm of Mars Hill Church that makes disciples and plant churches all over the world.

Later in the same video, Turner clearly addressed current members when he said:

So whether you’re a member of one of our Mars Hill Church locations in the United States or you’re one of 100,000 podcasters every single week, we encourage you to pray about giving above and beyond your tithe to Mars Hill Global.

In fact, the person who received this letter is not a podcaster, but rather was a member at the time the donations were given. The receiver of the letter serves as a contradiction to the content of the letter.

It was not the terminology alone that was confusing. The messages from Mark Driscoll, Sutton Turner and the Mars Hill website referring to Mars Hill Global as the way the church supported missions were especially confusing.  They clearly called Global the arm of the church which supported missionaries; now they want to call Mars Hill Global the donations given by people who are not members.

Earlier today, Justin Dean, acting on behalf of Mars Hill Church, requested that You Tube remove video clips of Mark Driscoll and Sutton Turner talking about Mars Hill Global. In the video clips, which were made available to illustrate my commentary on the subject, both Driscoll and Turner clearly identify Mars Hill Global as a ministry of Mars Hill Church for the purpose of supporting international missions.’
I have contested the notice and will await You Tube’s decision, which could take up to 10 business days.  I firmly believe that the video clips are covered by Fair Use and are necessary to report accurately the relationship between Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Global.
Last Friday, Mark Driscoll told his congregation that he was glad for the freedom of the press:

In addition, I really am blessed to live in a land where the law allows me to have freedom of speech, to have freedom of religion, to have freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. That means we get to assemble, and I get to open the Bible and teach whatever I believe to be true. But it means that others have that same legal opportunity. They have that same freedom, and so, and so others are free to, to say things as well.

One aspect of that freedom is the ability to use copyrighted materials to report news, or provide commentary and/or criticism. Clearly, the purpose of the videos in question is report news and provide commentary on Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Global.
For all articles on Mars Hill Global, click this link.

Michael Hill is the president of the League of the South. The League of the South should be an organization which exists only in history books. However, it exists and actually has a political candidate masquerading as a Republican in the Anne Arundel County (MD) Council race, Michael Peroutka.
Hill (similar to David Barton) recently penned a defense of private citizens owning whatever weapons the military owns in order for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. And, according to Hill, we will probably need those arms:

If you trust that your government will never infringe your rights, then I suppose you’ll find my argument senseless. But if you fear, say, a future when drones fill the skies for the purpose of surveillance, intimidation, or worse, then you might see the need to own a couple of hand-held rocket launchers.

And beyond rocket launchers taking out drones, what other targets will be important?

But what about that liberal canard that says that no matter how well armed the citizens are, they will never be able to defeat the modern military in a toe-to-toe confrontation? First, that presumes that the US military would fire on its own people, a question whose answer we do not know. And, second, it presumes that the fight would be a conventional one. More likely, it will be Fourth Generation Warfare, which is just another way of saying guerrilla war.
In 4Gen Warfare the lines between the military and the political, economic, cultural, and social are blurred past the point of recognition. To oversimplify, the primary targets will not be enemy soldiers; instead, they will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run.
4Gen Warfare doesn’t require that the populace be armed equal to the military and law enforcement. In fact, having such firepower, with few exceptions (such as full-auto “assault weapons,” silencers, and a handful of other esoteric toys), would be a logistical and tactical burden to the common 3- to 5-man group so common in this type of warfare. Stealth and the concentration of firepower at certain points for a short time are the keys to successful Gen4 Warfare, whether it’s busting up a traffic roadblock, ambushing a gun confiscation raid, or taking down a high-profile tyrant. If you want more from an historical standpoint, read about Michael Collins. If you want more from a modern, practical standpoint, read Joseph P. Martino’s Resistance to Tyranny: A Primer.

I wonder if Hill considers bloggers to be a part of the “hostile media?”
Do you think some crazy white separatists might actually think the rhetoric was intended for action?
 

Update: Earlier today, Justin Dean, acting on behalf Mars Hill Church filed a copyright claim against the video below. Just now, I contested the claim. The counter-notification process takes 10 days.
………………..
On July 15, I reported that Mars Hill Church removed three videos about Mars Hill Global from their You Tube account. Generally, those videos presented Mars Hill Global as the international mission arm of Mars Hill Church.  At that time, I wrote:

From my point of view, beginning in early 2012, Mars Hill created an impression that gifts to Mars Hill Global were mainly going to international mission efforts. Inadvertently or not, they created confusion (as they have admitted) with their various definitions of Mars Hill Global (is it a non-member audience, is it a fund, is it both?), and their constant references to international efforts in the context of Mars Hill Global pleadings. Actually, most of this has been admitted. What is remarkable is that they used “the preponderance” of donations to expand their locations, even though they gave donors almost no indication that the money was being spent in real time for those local purposes.
In accord with fair use guidelines, I clipped relevant material from the deleted videos. These clips indicate that Driscoll presented Mars Hill Global as something Mars Hill Church was doing in addition to church planting in the U.S. This is of course make sense since the international efforts after 2011 had a name (Mars Hill Global) and a fund (the Global Fund). Non-members gave money to the General Fund and the Global Fund of Mars Hill Church and at times, Mars Hill leaders referred to Mars Hill Global as people around the world who donated money. However, in these clips, Global is referred to as an effort conducted by Mars Hill Church.

Also on July 15, I pointed out three web pages on the Mars Hill website which identified Mars Hill Global as the Mars Hill approach to international missions with one page linking the two. That page has been altered to remove the evidence.
Below is a new video I made which contains portions of the removed videos that provide evidence that Mars Hill Church clearly identified Mars Hill Global as the international mission arm of the church rather than a source of funding for U.S. expansion solely provided by non-members. Several days after my initial video was posted, Mars Hill asked You Tube to remove the video, claiming a violation of copyright. I decided to make a more focused video and intend to contest any copyright claim Mars Hill Church makes because I believe the videos, including this one, have been made in keeping with Fair Use guidelines.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XFiD7XkYtPk[/youtube]
To see all posts on Mars Hill Global, click the link.