Foundations of Social Order

The Last Judgment

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Sociology

Lesson: The Last Judgment

Genre: Speech

Track: 135

Dictation Name: RR126H16

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee for thy mercies and blessings of the week past. We thank thee that thy hand is upon us for good, and so our Father, with gratitude and with joy we come into thy presence, commit ourselves afresh unto thee, to rejoice in all thy promises unto us in Jesus Christ, which are yea and amen. Bless us by thy word and by thy Holy Spirit, and grant us thy peace. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our subject today is The Last Judgment, and our scripture in the Gospel According to St. Matthew 25:31-46. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

The Apostles Creed says, concerning the Last Judgment and Jesus Christ, “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” The Nicene Creed declares, “And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.” Judgment is declared to be continual throughout history. Indeed, the scripture declares that God judged the nations of the Old Testament world as a separation for Christ’s coming. Those orders that set themselves up as final orders were overturned by God who declared through the mouth of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 21:27, “I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is, and I will give it to him.”

Jesus Christ came and another great shaking was begun, another great overturning, and St. Paul declared concerning that second great judgment, in Hebrews 12:27, that the purpose of this continuing judgment in the gospel era is the removing of the things that are shaken, as the things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken will remain. And these continual judgments culminate finally in the last judgment. The parable of our Lord in Matthew 25:31-46 is the parable which, above all others, describes the Last Judgment.

Now, the humanists in the church do not believe in a literal Second Coming and a literal judgment, and a literal heaven and hell. They deny that the Bible is true, at these points as well as many others, but nonetheless, this parable is a favorite with them. They delight at preaching it. This morning, a visitor here from Grand Rapids told me that in one of the major churches of that city, one which is ostensibly a bastion of the Reformed faith, a professor from a Christian institution preached on this parable and declared that what Jesus Christ said was that, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these,” and he cited a number of names, among them Khrushchev, Castro, Marilyn Monroe, and others, “ye have done it unto me.” This kind of blasphemy is regularly preached. This parable is a favorite with the champions of the Civil Rights Revolution, and they tell us that in this parable, Christ is saying that what you do to these people in Harlem and Watts, and what you do to the people in Africa, and Vietcong, and to the Red Chinese, and to the Bolsheviks, ye have done unto me. In other words, they declared, Christ identified himself with all these people of the world, and some have gone so far as to insist that Christ thereby included also one of the least of these, the homosexuals, the perverts of other varieties, the criminals in our penitentiaries, everyone.

This, too, is the {?} by some of the most outstanding of biblical scholars today, the liberal biblical scholars who are primarily humanists. Are they right? This parable comes from a discourse that began with three questions asked by the disciples, which are recorded for us in Matthew 24 in the 3rd verse. Our Lord had just declared, concerning the temple, that there shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down. He had spoken concerning the destruction concerning Jerusalem, and so the disciples asked three questions.

First, tell us when shall these things be? When will the temple be destroyed in Jerusalem? and the first part of the 24th chapter answers that question. The second question, What shall be the sign of thy coming? Our Lord made it clear that there was no sign of his coming, that the Gospel would indeed be preached unto all peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations, that no man would know the day of his coming, and there would be no sign of it, and the third question concerning the end of the world. Now, since there was no sign of his coming when he discussed the matter of the end of the world, our Lord concluded the end of the twenty-fourth chapter by declaring, “Be also ready.” Be in a continual state of readiness for when the householder comes, when the Lord comes, how are ye going to be prepared if, at all times, you’re not living in terms of my commandments?

And then he proceeded to give them three parables which indicated his judgment when he came upon his church, hence his warning to the church. Be in readiness, because when I come, I will sift the church and separate those who are true believers from those who are only outwardly believers, but inwardly are apostate. The first parable, the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, both alike ostensibly believers, but the foolish virgins were left in the outer darkness. The second parable, the Parable of the Talents, and the man who did not use the talents, the man who sat in the church and never used the word of God, made it a living thing unto himself, who never had faith, even that which he had was taken away from him, and the word of the Lord was, “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Again, it is a division in the church between the true church and the false church. And the third parable, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, our scripture, our Lord again deals with the division within the church.

Even one of the most blasphemous of commentators on this passage admits that the word that is here used, translated as “separate,” is, in the Greek original, a technical word which is used for the division by a shepherd of his flock at evening. The shepherds of that day, each evening, as they brought their flock in, divided the sheep and the goats as they bedded them for the night, because the restlessness of the goats would have caused nothing but panic among the sheep. So each evening as the flock was brought in, there was a separation. The entire flock belonged to the shepherd. He was their shepherd and they followed him, at least outwardly, but now there was division at eventide. The obvious meaning therefore, is that at eventide, at the end of the world, Jesus Christ as the great shepherd shall divide his church between the sheep and the goats, but why this strange principle of division?

I was hungered, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, in prison. Why this particular test? The test is confessional. It has to do with faith, but faith without works is dead. {And so here, there was a very real test of faith. Why? Our Lord declared in the Beatitudes that, “Ye shall be persecuted for righteousness,” and he declared as he sent the disciples out on their first mission, that he sent them out like sheep before wolves, and they should be persecuted and brought before kings and governors for my namesake, and the New Testament is full of admonition to be ready to entertain the sinners{?}, to give them shelter, to provide for their care. Why? Well, in those days, the hotels were the houses of prostitution. It was no place for a Christian to go for the night, and if you travelled say, to Corinth or to Rome, or to any strange city and there was no one to take you in, you huddled against a door for the night, with one eye open to protect yourself against thieves, because there was no place that was fit for you to stay.

And then, because you were a Christian, you faced arrest. After the Jewish/Roman war, 66-70 AD, the persecution of Christian became a chronic thing in the Empire for centuries, but even before that time there was persecution, and St. Paul spoke with real feeling concerning Onicipherus{?} who, when St. Paul was in prison, visited him and cared for him, and provided him clothing, a change of raiment, and who was not ashamed, St. Paul said, of my bonds, of my chains, and especially after the Jewish/Roman war, took real courage to entertain a homeless Christian who came to your community, to visit him in prison and to clothe him, and to feed him. You immediately identified yourself as a member of the Christian sect, and there might be, the next week, a knock on your door and the Roman soldiers there to take you before a court, and to give you an opportunity either to offer incense before the Emperor’s image, or to face prison and death yourself.

In other words, our Lord was saying, to use a couple of very blunt modern expressions, “Put your money where your mouth is,” “Put up or shut up.” If you’re a believer, show up under fire. The days are coming, he was saying to the church, when, to identify yourself with the least of these my brethren, my disciples, my believers, my members, is to brand yourself in the sight of the world. It is to mark yourself possibly for death also or for persecution, and if you are a member of me, you will identify yourself with the least of these, my brethren, and even a cup of cold water given in my name to the least of these shall have its reward. In other words, our Lord was saying that if you have faith, you’re going to demonstrate it under fire.

The indictment that Paul issued against some church members was that they did not discern that the Lord’s body, either in the elements of the sacrament or in one another, because as they came together, they were contemptuous of their poor brethren in the congregation. They did not discern the Lord’s body either in their brethren or the elements, and Jesus Christ is saying in this parable, if you know me you will know my true body, and you will manifest your faith, and this parable today means this. It says to the people in the church today, When I came to you and witnessed that your church was a false one, apostate, and there was a little group gathered together here and there in terms of the word of God, a little congregation standing, a humble church here, or a group of believers there, and you despised them, and you preferred your huge edifice, you knew me not. If you have faith you will confess it by discerning my body, by knowing that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst.

This then, is no parable that gives any ground to these humanists. Rather, it is an indictment of them. It is a separation of them from Christ, and it declares that they have no part of him, because they fail to discern the Lord’s body, and they have separated themselves from the true church and indeed, have persecuted it, and have identified Christ instead with the degenerate of the earth. These men deny what the bible teaches concerning the Last Judgment and concerning heaven and hell, but it’s not because they do not believe in judgment, heaven, and hell. All men do, and God, having created man, and having created the universe and all things therein, everything that God made is an inescapable category of thought. Man’s thinking can only be analogical. He can only think God’s thoughts after him. He cannot think creatively. So that when man is in sin and in rebellion against God, he takes the things that are of God and puts them to perverted use. He tries to build a kingdom but he makes it the kingdom of man, and he takes the biblical, the God-given categories and humanizes them.

Karl Marx, in one of his very earliest writings, in the introduction to his treatise on Hegel, speaks of what is necessary for the triumph of communism. He says that, first of all, the class, the revolutionists who are going to have a successful revolution, must hammer home one point and make it an inescapable fact, an obvious fact to everyone, that they are the liberators, the saviors of the world. Thus, they establish a savior: themselves.

Then, he says, it is even more important to drive home the point that the other class, the capitalists, the Christians, the one you’re waging war against, are the devils, the demonic group. So that all people conclude that all evil is incarnate in that group. So that you bring about a new order when you bring judgment upon that group, and when you have the world revolution, you bring judgment on this demonic group, and you send them to the slave camps, to hell, and you have {?}. Marx, you see, believed in a last judgment. He believed in a heaven and hell. He could not escape the God-given categories. He simply took and humanized them.

And all the other humanists have similar ones. The Existentialists have theirs. For them, it will be heaven when everyone who is a moral absolutist, everyone who believes that God has an absolute law, and there is an absolute right and wrong, is destroyed. That will be heaven, and their destruction will be the last judgment, and John Dewey had his heaven, too. The Great Society was the first step to it. It would be the Great Community, and judgment would be when the hopelessly aristocratic ideas of Christianity would be destroyed, and we could go on and cite all these secular concepts of judgment, but all of them agree on one thing. They transfer the final judgment, and heaven and hell from God to man, from eternity to time, and they absolutize history and enthrone man as god, and when they bring the final order down into history, they destroy history. They try to stop, arrest, history and they destroy liberty, because they say Here are the final truths, the God of history, as it were, has incarnated itself in the dictatorship of the Proletariat, or the elite socialistic planners, and so on, and how can you differ with this? And history, instead of being the place of development, of growth, of testing, is made into a vast slave camp, and the liberty of trial and error is denied. They are going to abolish sin by force, but the humanists of utopias always become prisons. They insist on a finality which man is not capable of. They fail to create a heaven on earth. They are successful at only one thing: creating a hell on earth.

But history refuses to stop. It refuses to terminate on man’s orders, because it runs in terms of God’s time, not in terms of man’s myths, and every time man tries to create a final order, it collapses underfoot, as history marches on in terms of God’s sovereign purpose. And all man’s final orders come in with pride, and they go out in shame and destruction, but as the Nicene Creed declares, “Jesus Christ shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead whose kingdom shall have no end.” Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee that it is thy judgment that shall prevail, and that thou shalt confound the judgment of the Marxists, the Fabians, the progressivists, all of man’s foolish attempts to create a final order. We thank thee, our Father, that thy judgment upon us has been passed in Jesus Christ. The death sentence executed upon him, and we given in him the resurrection and the life, the joy of victory, the confidence that, because thou art for us, who can be against us? Our God, how great thou art, and we praise thee. In Jesus name. Amen.

Yes?

[Audience] Rush, in {?} therefore shell {?} declaration spoken of {?}

[Rushdoony] The entire verse.

[Audience] Well, {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. This passage has reference to the desecration of the temple before the Fall of Jerusalem, so that our Lord was saying that when you see the temple so desecrated, and understand the meaning of this, that this is the end. Then he goes on to say, “Then let him which be in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house.” In those days, with the flat roofs in warm weather, they lived on top of the house. It would be {?} in the summer, because in the evening it was cool there. You could sleep there more readily, and so he says, When you get the news, take the outside staircase and leave. Head for the mountains. Don’t go downstairs to pack up, because this is the end of Jerusalem and Judea.

[Audience] I thought he was talking about {?}

[Rushdoony] No. This portion has reference to the Fall of Jerusalem, and not a single Christian died in the Jewish/Roman war because they did take heed and they left. Yes?

[Audience] Have you read The Death of the Church?

[Rushdoony] Not yet. I had just gotten it. I browsed in it, but I didn’t have time to read it. I received my copy just last week, today.

[Audience] You know, it was very interesting that, in short, that the humanists can take note of the Presbyterian church, of course they’re not satisfied, they set up their own external church where it had to be a {?}, and first you had the ordination vows, those who lied when they took {?} ordination, but now that they’ve rewritten the ordination vows, the question is 1) they have stolen the property left in trust {?} vows, {?} released the present ministers in the Presbyterian church in their old vows, and in the future {?} they swear to take a new oath which is yet unknown. They {?} 70 in 1990.

[Rushdoony] Yes, they are not released because the vow is taken, not to men but to God, and in the new confession of 1967, the very committee that worked it out, and it is a thoroughly Bartian confession, they deny the faith for essentially this kind of humanism that I have been describing, the total identification of Christ with humanity. In particular, the most degenerate kind of humanity. It is interesting that members of the committee that wrote that confession are now saying it’s only a stop-gap measure. In other words, they want a more boldly socialistic, humanistic confession so that they’ve already indicated that this was a compromise. After all, it still has the forms of Christianity. So, you can assume from that, that the next confession will have even less of the paraphernalia of Christian terminology, until it becomes openly the church that worships man. Any other questions?

[Audience] They recognize though, apparently, God in the fact that they reduced the word from a capital “w” to a small one. They openly state that the scripture is not the literal word of God, subject to all human failings. They do recognize God, don’t they, by mentioning, by reducing that word in capital letter to small letter?

[Rushdoony] Their God, basically, is man, however, and they use the idea of a god other than man as a limiting concept. In other words, they are, some of them, still ready to say there are limits to what man should do. There are certain thing we would call right and wrong. So we use God as a limiting concept so that we don’t say anything goes. We’re not ready to say that. So that God is not the living God to them, but a philosophical limiting concept. Now, this is what he is for Karl Barth{?}, and the Baumann{?} declaration which was included in this new confession is a body in document{?} and I think may have been written by Karl Barth{?}. His new confession goes a little further than the Baumann{?} declaration. Now already, as I indicated, there are verses that say this Bartianism is too conservative. Why maintain the form? Why use a limiting concept? So that a confession of 1990, you see, is already planned. A confession that will do away with the necessity of confessing anything except yourself. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. The I/Thou conception is an Existentialist one, and in terms of Existentialism, there is no God out there. Now, if you believe in the God of scripture, then every fact in the universe is a personal fact, because it was created by a personal God. It therefore, has a meaning in terms of God. It is a brute factuality. It isn’t meaningless, unrelated data.

Now, if you are an Existentialist, you deny that there is a sovereign God. There’s nothing out there except brute factuality, meaningless {?}. It is a world of “it” objects, and the only personality in the world that you really know is yourself. You’re an “I,” and everything else out there is an “it.” Now, the thesis of these Existentialists is that Christianity, the Bible, treats everything as an “it,” because of course, they refuse to acknowledge God as creator. So, they say if you go in terms of law, and the Bible, obviously it’s untrue, therefore, obviously, you’re treating everything in terms of something that’s non-existent, so your relationship is an “it” relationship. In other words, you’re not having a personal relationship with your husband or wife if you’re going in terms of God’s law. Your saying “I have to be faithful because God requires it, and this is what I believe to be true righteousness, and I want to be righteous. Therefore I’m doing it.” Well, that’s an “I/it” relationship. That’s immoral. How do you become moral? Well, you deny that there is any law, and you say the only thing that makes for any meaning in the world is myself and my love, so I will establish an “I/thou” relationship. Now, when it’s an “I/thou” relationship, you can one with your husband or wife, or with any person in the neighborhood, or with any man or woman, it can be a homosexual relationship, but it’s a holy one because then it is personal. It is an “I/thou” relationship. It’s you and your love, and that’s the only law that exists.

Now, this is the gospel in the church today. It’s this “I/thou” relationship. Well, when you establish that, you have automatically declared that there is no God out there. There is no law out there. Everything goes. You’ve dissolved the family. You’ve dissolved marriage. You’ve dissolved the state. You’ve dissolved any kind of loyalty to anything except yourself. You’ve dissolved the whole world of God, at least in your imagination you have.

Now, it is in terms of this, the “I/thou” philosophy that almost all of your pulpits are operating, that your marchers, for example, in New York and San Francisco are operating, that your hippies, your diggers, your hobos, your beatniks, all of them are operating. This is the reigning philosophy of today. So anytime you hear this “I/thou” kind of talk, beware. You’re dealing with a dangerous person. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. The Death of the Church by Carl McIntyre. It’s available in paperback. Yes?

[Audience] When you go {?} the scripture, what is the Christian’s responsibility for {?} other Christians, or?

[Rushdoony] The scripture tells us, and I’m glad you asked that, because while I’ve gone into this before, I think it’s so important that it doesn’t hurt to repeat it repeatedly. Now, scripture declares that our moral relationship with other people is on a three level basis. It is not a universal ethic, a universal morality, as the humanists declare.

First, there is a level of law for our dealing with our family. “Husbands love your wives,” support them. “He who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel.” Now, we cannot support the whole world, and we cannot love the whole world, and we’re definitely not to love our neighbor’s wife or discipline our neighbor’s children, but our own. This alone is moral. So there is this one kind of moral obligation, a spirit law, the family.

Then, there is another area, as we deal with other men, and that is the church. This is a kind of larger family, and we are to love the brethren, we are to provide for them and their wants, the deacon’s fund in most churches, and we are to recognize that we have a common destiny and live in terms of that.

Then, there is a third kind of relationship with the world at large. We are required to make known the word of God to them, to try to convert them. This isn’t everybody’s individual duty, or when the opportunity presents itself. We certainly do have a requirement to witness. We have an obligation, Paul says, to be honest in all our dealings with them, to love our enemies in the sense that we keep the law with regard to them. Not to kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet. This is what it means to love our neighbor and our enemy, and when works of mercy are required. As, for example, the Good Samaritan. He was an enemy to the Jews, yet he stopped, took care of this Jew who was by the wayside, made provision for him with the Innkeeper, and passed on. Now, he did not say, “I’m going to associate with him for the rest of my life.” It was just a work of mercy. This is to be our relationship towards the world. Yes?

[Audience] {?} all these people that are apostate in the churches and not Christian. Shouldn’t we declare war on them, or how do we reach{?} them?

[Rushdoony] Yes, they are apostate and, in a sense, they are more objectionable to God than those who’ve never come in the church, because they are guilty of a fearful blasphemy, and certainly we are at war with them. They are at war with us. They are doing everything to drive the true faith out of existence, and I think some of you perhaps have seen reports lately. McIntyre has published some in the Christian Beacon how, through Internal Revenue, tax exemption is being taken away from churches that are faithful to scripture. More than one church in the past few years, has had its tax exemption withdrawn, and in one instance, a congregation was told, “Well, we’ll grant you your exemption if you join the National Council.” Now, what has the National Council so with Internal Revenue? But in other words, they will only recognize the humanistic church. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, she obviously is not yet Christian. She doesn’t seem to have any awareness of doctrine. All we can do is to hope that, having ostensibly broken with communism in terms of God, she will now turn to the scripture and try to understand what God has to say and who God really is. However, it’s easy to be cynical there, and I am as yet skeptical, I want to be shown{?}. However, Dr. Wurmbrand has said that one of the things that impressed him when he was working in the Soviet areas was that he found so many people who knew nothing of the Gospel, but was sure there had to be a God, and therefore, were breaking with communism in terms of this vague kind of faith. There had to be a God, and so they come and ask him about the faith and when he would tell them the story, it was the first time they had ever heard the story of Christ, they would listen with tears of joy. Yes?

[Audience] What be the limits of the Christians’ war against the Lord’s enemies?

[Rushdoony] Exactly what do you mean limits?

[Audience] Well, conducting warfare, or counter-warfare against the Lord’s enemies, what limits are imposed by God’s {?}

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Well, the warfare is to be conducted on God’s terms. Now, the obligation we have is to create a Christian order. This means, therefore, we have an obligation to set up a society and work toward a society that will be Christian, in which the church will be Christian and in which the state will be Christian. Now, this means we enforce God’s law, the death penalty. We do not permit abortion, because this is murder, and man does not have the right to kill. We create therefore, a society established in terms of God’s word. Now, in terms of that, I would say I do not believe an unbeliever should have a right to vote. He has a right to exist, he has an obligation to obey God’s laws, and he will be treated justly and fairly as long as he does, but one of the things that brought us into the {?} we are now, was that all the laws we once had which required that a man believe in the scripture as the infallible word of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity, before he could vote in any and every one of the states of the United States, began to be created more and more carelessly, until enough people were voting, because they weren’t being strict about that regulation, the people found they could get away with it. Until World War 1, you know, some states still had such laws on their statute books, written into their constitution in at least one case.

Now, this is the way we should operate, and of course, this is the way they’re operating because ultimately, they are going to deny to us any right of legal existence, and try to destroy us physically as well.

[Audience] Do you hold therefore, that strictly a positive Christian {?} and only a primary defensive measure a Christian may take {?} for instance, a Christian send out spies, scouts, infiltration, and all the other tactics of warfare, amongst the enemy, of course. Not amongst Christians, but amongst the enemies who {?} of God.

[Rushdoony] In warfare, yes, but otherwise it’s futile. I think we already have wasted millions documenting what the enemy is doing, and I think most Christians today are sinning because they are spending so much time trying to document, endlessly. Now this is important in some cases, in a limited number, but in most cases, what does it add up to? We’ve got libraries full of documentation as to what the enemy is doing. What we need is to have Christians who will stand in terms of the faith and apply it. Yes?

[Audience] Well, I was thinking that, in terms of {?} we can think of all kinds of things {?} in other words, the way you raise your children. {?} teaching your children.

[Rushdoony] A very important point.

[Audience] {?} in Christian schools.

[Rushdoony] Right, and some of you heard, in the past few days, one of the most remarkable men in the United States, Robert Thoburn, of the Fairfax Christian School in Fairfax, Virginia, and he is certainly doing remarkable things, and there isn’t going to be a child that goes through his hands who isn’t one of the strongest Christian soldiers you can imagine.

[Audience] I know he’s going up to the twelfth grade now. The students which graduate from the twelfth grade are {?} I know {?} twelfth grade {?}

[Rushdoony] His twelfth graders, I think, will be far ahead of our university graduates. After all, his fifth graders are studying German at a more advanced level than college students. They start German in Kindergarten at this particular school.

[Audience] And Latin.

[Rushdoony] Latin at the fifth grade, yes.

[Audience] {?} What is the background {?}

[Rushdoony] No, he is an orthodox Presbyterian minister.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, he’s never discussed it. I’ve mentioned it to some of you at several meetings. I have been there and visited the school.

[Audience] What’s the name again?

[Rushdoony] Fairfax Christian School. It’s a free enterprise school he started five years ago last September with a handful of students in an old building, and it is an old building, and today it has two buildings, 560 students. They are colonial brick buildings, beautiful architectural, twenty-one acre campus. He’s putting up another building because he had to turn away so many students this last fall, so he will have an eight hundred capacity this September. He will have buildings that are worth about $600,000. He will pay for the building he’s putting up this summer in two years.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh, he has quite a list of them. He pays $6,000-10,000 for his teachers. He pays them not in terms of their academic work, or years of experience, but in terms of quality. So the best teacher may be a new teacher, a year or two of experience, but if they’re good, they get a promotion, a real raise in pay. So everyone is judged individually. He has a departmentalized kindergarten, and they start them as early as the fourth year, and they teach them arithmetic, as well as reading and German, and a number of other things.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Fairfax, Virginia

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No. Yes?

[Audience] Do you see any link between capitalism and Christianity?

[Rushdoony] Very definitely, a very, very definite and inescapable link. Apart from Christianity, capitalism has always been still born in every culture where it has developed, because capitalism cannot exist without capital. Now, the accumulation of capital and its ability to become effective requires two things: hard work, and thrift. Now, the combination of the two you do not find apart from Christianity, and of course, the critics have pointed a finger at the Reformed tradition, in particular, and insisted that there is a link, {?} and Tommy and others, and they’re right, because many people have been compelled to work hard in many a slave state, but that’s a different thing than hard work that is productive work, that is voluntary work combined with thrift. This produces capitalization, and you do not have any real development of capitalism until you have capitalization.

Now, we now are in a period of de-capitalization, hardly{?} de-capitalizing because socialistic states everywhere in the world are destroying wealth, but the basic de-capitalization before you have destruction of wealth is the de-capitalization of character, and this de-capitalization has already taken place in most of the world. You have no longer the same character of work, the pride in work, the productivity. We no longer have the thrift, the readiness to forego present pleasures in terms of a future purpose, so that the basic de-capitalization is a character and the basic capitalization is a character, and that’s why the critics of capitalism have put their finger on the very source of the whole thing. They’ve said it has been Christianity, and it has supremely been the Calvinists, and that’s why their particular hatred of that tradition.

Well, our time is up and we stand dismissed.

End of tape