Revelation

Compromise (Thyatira)

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 5-30

Genre: Talk

Track: 173

Dictation Name: RR129C5

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Let us begin with prayer. Almighty God our heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee for all Thy blessings. We thank Thee our Father that all our todays, our yesterdays, and our tomorrows are in Thy hands. And in this faith our Father we come to Thee. Minister to us in Thy wisdom. Prepare the way before us, prosper us in Thy service, and make us bold in Thy truth and confident unto victory, in Jesus name, amen.

Our scripture is from the second chapter of Revelation, verses 18-29. Revelation 2:18-29, Apollo and Christ.

“18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

28 And I will give him the morning star.

29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

The seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3, were letters to actual churches in Asia Minor. But these seven churches were also typical of the churches of all time, in that in every age there are persecuted churches, lukewarm churches, compromising churches, and the like. So that in these seven churches, seven being the number of fullness, Christ spoke to the church of every age. Witnessing to them concerning those things which are a continuing and persisting problem in the church, or trials wherein the church needs comforting.

This letter to the church in Thyatira is generally the most neglected of the letters. This is ironic because it is the longest. It is better than twice as long as the letter to the church in Pergamos. And so obviously it deals with something of moment and importance. What was Thyatira, and what was the significance of this letter? Thyatira was a garrison or sentinel city to Pergamos. It was also a major trade center, particularly with respect to the garment industry. Dies, linens, various kinds of yardage were manufactured there, and shipped from there throughout Asia and Europe. It was a cosmopolitan, a mixed city.

It was moreover, a very great center of trade unionism. A noted archeologist and scholar, Sir William Ramsey wrote some years ago: “More trade guilds are known in Thyatira than in any other ancient city.” Now the unions of that day were often thoroughly reprobate affairs. They were given, quite extensively to drunkenness, maintaining one might say a 24 hour bar for members, and many of the trade halls were also houses of prostitution. But this was definitely not true in Thyatira. The unions there were under a very old-fashioned Greek influence and standard. Perhaps, seldom if ever in the history of trade unionism have the unions been more effective and more thorough in their program of social welfare and concern for their members than Thyatira and similar areas where the old influence prevailed. The unions there took very thorough care of every needy member, sick members. They provided the funeral expenses. They did much to care for everyone in the group.

There was only one group in Thyatira or anywhere in the world at that time which could at all compare with the trade unions of this area in their care for their members, and this was the church. And the church in a sense could not fully compare. The church had no treasury, the church at this time was a small handful of saints, it was rare if there was found a group of a hundred or more members. There were by 100 A.D. approximately 500,000 believers throughout Asia and Europe, and North Africa. But these were scattered, they were perhaps a century to a century and a half, or two centuries away from the time when they even owned a church building, they met in homes. They were little groups of 20, 40, 50 people who gathered together for Bible study.

They sought to take care of one another, and did as far as they were able, but their means were limited. Trade unions therefore of Thyatira in a sense were without equal. Everything that the church was trying to do, they were doing better. Thus the problem of Thyatira was not that members were involved in Union immorality, the unions represented a particularly remarkable concept.

But, the unions also were not only trade unions, they were first and last religious organizations. So that, the union meetings which were constant, the Union activities, all hinged on the union faith, the union doctrine. And this Union doctrine was the reigning faith of Thyatira in that area, the Apollo cult.

Now of course, when the name Apollo is mentioned it immediately conjures up for all of us a picture of a remarkably handsome young Greek God. And the statuary that survives certainly gives evidence that here was an idea of youthful beauty, an epitome of the Greek concept of the good, the true, and the beautiful. But, basic to this religious faith was also the concept of the oneness of being; all being is one. This is a faith of course that we find in virtually all religions apart from Christianity, but very highly developed in some particular forms such and Hinduism, Christian Science, Mysticism, and a variety of other faiths.

As a result of this faith in the oneness of being, Apollo had two names, and the other name for Apollo was Python, who was the devil of the system. So that Apollo was Apollo, and he was Python. He was also everything else in between. Since all is one, and one is all, the God of this system was also the devil of this system. And so they spoke as this letter declares, of the depths of saying, or the deep sayings of Satan; the depths of Satan or the deep sayings of Satan.

What did this mean? It meant that if you pushed anywhere in this system, you pushed everywhere at the same time. So that if you explored the deep things of Satan, you were also exploring the deep things of God. If you were exploring the deep things of God you were also exploring the deep things of Satan.

For example, there are two sister cults in India, which claim to be ascetic. One abstains as far as is humanly possible from eating, from all pleasure, from marriage and sexuality, and gives itself to an extreme asceticism barely designed to keep the body alive. The other plunges into every kind of imaginable sexuality, to a staggering degree. It again regards itself as ascetic. Each is taking a way to the same goal, because in that system if you press at the point that is marked devil, or at the point that is marked God, you are pressing the same thing, and so both what we would call immorality and goodness, both lead to the same goal.

Now of course, in the Apollo cult in Thyatira they were not advocating the immoral practices that have become the logical development, but they held to this faith, the Apollo Python faith. What was the problem in the church in Thyatira?

Our Lord says that ‘They suffered a woman, Jezebel,’ not her real name, but a name He gave her, ‘Which calleth herself a prophetess’, that is, one who speaks for God, ‘to teach.’ So she obviously taught at least a woman’s Bible class, ‘and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols.’

Now this statement does not mean that this woman was leading them into open and flagrant sexual immorality. They certainly would not have tolerated her in the church had she done so. But she was obviously a respected woman leader in the church. And we know from all of Scripture that the terms adultery and fornication are used again and again, by God to symbolize apostasy, faithlessness, departure from His word. God declares repeatedly that He is a jealous God, and that He will tolerate no faithlessness to Himself, and no one can declare that they love God or follow Him who are faithless to Him and follow other faiths, other practices; no husband or wife would put much credence in their husbands or wife’s love if they professed to love them deeply, and yet were casually and consistently guilty of adultery.

The term therefore is one of the most common terms in scripture to describe departure from the faith.

Now, the term Jezebel tells us a great deal about this woman who was a teacher in this church in Thyatira. For reasons unknown to me we somehow have the idea that Jezebel, the Jezebel of the Bible was a scarlet woman or a woman of loose morality and so on and so forth, and there have been at least 1 or 2 popular songs to carry out that notion. This is definitely not true. The Jezebel of the Old Testament was the wife of King Ahab of Israel. She was a Phoenician princess. She was a remarkably able woman. The house of Omri, the dynasty of which Ahab was a member was the great dynasty in the Northern kingdom. We know a fair amount concerning it from Assyrian and other records.

Jezebel when she married Ahab was determined to make her husband and her children and grandchildren THE power in that part of the world. And her course, her program of action was this: the great threat was Assyria to the east. And therefore it was imperative she felt for the various smaller nations to the West to unite, to form a coalition that would gradually become more than an alliance, a kind of United Nations against Assyria.

To this end she conducted all kinds of negotiations with the powers round about. She also married her children to the surrounding princes, so that in the next generation her grandchildren would become the rulers on the throne, and so it would be one family, the house of Omri, dominating each power, and making it possible for these various states to unite.

Now she was interested therefore in having a common front, a common loyalty to the house of Omri, to her children and Grandchildren, and to bring these nations close together, a common religious faith. And so it was, she began to move steadily to bring about a religion that would be a union of all the religions of these various states. And so Jehovah worship and Baal worship had to be merged, just as all the other religions of the surrounding states had to be merged. Unfortunately most of the priesthood went along with Jezebels policy. Only Elijah and a handful of others stood out against it.

But, this was the policy of Jezebel. And the reason why Jezebel was for so long a time so very successful, and seduced so vast a percentage of the priesthood, almost the entire priesthood, was that she could say: ‘This is logical. We have this enemy Assyria; we are really one in what we want to do, to gain our freedom, to overthrow this threat.’ And so on; and so Elijah seemed to be, as Ahab said: “One that troubleth Israel.”

Now we can understand why our Lord called this woman in the church of Thyatira Jezebel. Her policy was identical with that of Jezebel. Here was a woman who was quite obviously teaching that: “After all, these Unions represent a great and a noble effort here. Of course we are against paganism, but we can make an exception with regard to these Unions and their Apollo cult, there is a great deal to be said for all that they are doing, they are very thoughtful of their membership, they are able to do everything that we are trying to do, so why not see their Apollo cult as something of a forerunner of that which we are trying to do, and of our faith, and perhaps Apollo as a kind of pre-vision of that which Christ was intended to be? So let us not be hostile to them, but cooperative.’

“Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication,” ‘To be involved in this spiritual adultery, “and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.”

Now it is important for us to appreciate what this particular phrase means, to understand what the teaching of the New Testament is on eating of meat sacrificed to Idols. The council of Jerusalem people sometimes remark, forbad it. But then Paul said that it was alright for the strong to do so, since they knew that the idols were not real idols. Was there a contradiction there? And the answer is, obviously not.

What the council of Jerusalem forbad was this: to take part in any service or any public function or any banquet where the food was offered as a sacrifice to idols and then eaten as a part of a communion service to some pagan God, whereby you made yourself one body with the God.

Now, all meat that was sold in those days was sold at the temples. And you went to one side of the temple and bought the meat that was brought there by way of offering in the Greek or Roman cities, and you took it home; so it had been offered as a sacrifice to idols. And this upset some people, and Paul said ‘those of you to whom this is spiritually upsetting, abstain from all such meats. But to the strong it is no problem, because they know that the idols are not real, and they take it home and give thanks unto God and eat it, praising God.’

Thus it is obvious, there was no condemnation of meats eaten at home, even though that meat had been butchered at the temple and offered there first. There was a condemnation of going to the temple where chamber of commerce meetings were held, or to the Union halls, and there eating and taking part in a pagan communion service. And what this woman had been teaching was, ‘Since we are in purpose so close to these people, what harm is it to take part in their particular services?’ and so they were eating things sacrificed to idols, and becoming a part of that worship, and feeling that there was no offense to Christ in the worshipping at the table of Apollo/Python.

And so the word of the Lord is: “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

‘But to those who withstood this temptation, to him’ “that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”

In this passage our Lord clearly recalls the second song. The great song where God as He views the conspiracies, inspires David to say: ‘Why do the heathen rage? And the nations take council together, conspire together, against the Lord and His anointed?’ He goes on to say: ‘They imagine a vain thing, for He that sitteth in the circle of the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision.’ And therefore the nations are summoned to ‘kiss the Son lest He be angry, lest He shatter them as the vessels of a potter shall be broken to shivers, and will rule them with a rod of iron.’

And so here our Lord says to the saints: ‘Triumph with me, and with me rule the nations with a rod of iron, and destroy them that stand up against me, and govern those that will be governed by me. And to him that overcometh, I will give him the morning star.’

Christ declared himself to be the bright morning star in Revelation 22:16. Morning Star was an ancient symbol of world dominion, world power. And Christ who identified Himself as the world power, the one with dominion over all the nations says: ‘To those who overcome, to those who are faithful, to those who will not compromise, who stand with me, I will give the Morning Star. I will give them dominion with me, over the nations.’

Today a vast segment of the church has gone the way of Jezebel. Its way of victory is to make terms with the world, to say: ‘Look at all the good in communism, in socialism, in humanism, in all things else.’ And sees no good in Christ when it says that. And it has united with them. And this judgment pronounced upon Jezebel and her followers is pronounced upon all such churches; but to those who stand faithful: ‘To him and to them will I give power over the churches, and I will give him the Morning Star.’

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

Let us pray. Our Lord and our God we give thanks unto Thee for this Thy word, and we thank Thee for Thy great promises to us in Jesus Christ. Give us faith, grace and strength to overcome, that we might reign with Thee, and might be more than conquerors through Him that loved us, even Jesus Christ our Lord. In His name we pray, amen.

Are there any questions now? First with respect to the lesson before we branch out. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] I don’t know where that has come from. Jezebel of course was guilty of murder, but not of immorality. She was a very dedicated wife and mother, and her one purpose was to exalt her family, without any respect of course for anything more than that. But Jezebel has gained the wrong kind of reputation, she was of course a very wicked and ungodly woman, but not the kind of woman that she is thought to be. She was a woman of considerable forcefulness of character, as well as courage, because she made quite a thing when she knew the end had come, we are told that she painted herself and went haughtily to the tower before she was thrown out. She certainly had courage; but she was of course thoroughly reprobate.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, I really don’t know. I have never been able to trace it down. Certainly Negro folk lore has made her into quite a scarlet woman, but I don’t know if it goes back of that or what its source is.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It could be that, yes. Another question? Well, if there are no further questions at the moment, there are a few things that I have brought that I would like to share with you, one from the comic strip (Lolee?) I thought this was quite delightful, (Lolee?) goes in to ask her boss for a raise, and he says: “The reason that you don’t get a raise is that you are not a hard worker. I only give raises to people who work hard.” So the response of (Lolee?) as secretary is this: “That is a clear case of discrimination.” And I think that is about par for our thinking now-a-days.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Then from analogue, the current issue, I thought the editorial by John W. Campbell was very interesting, of course this writers perspective is evolutionary, but he is something of a maverick writer, and he produces some remarkably intelligent articles. He criticizes in this editorial the continual running down of man; he writes, and I will skip through here and there: “We tend to think of ourselves as being poor, hapless, thin skinned, fur-less, weak, slow running, and with poor sense of sight, hearing, and odor. Terribly handicapped in competition with the other animals of earth.” And he says this just isn’t so.

“In the first place it has been shown that normal human ears are capable of hearing the rustling, hissing noise produced by thermal movement of the air molecules of the atmosphere. It is obvious that no possible hearing mechanism can go further than that. You are already down to the fundamental noise-level of the medium. The human eye reacts to as little as 6 quanta of light; the best photo electric system require about 10, and the most sensitive photographic emulsions require about 100. Cats can do a wee bit better than men, because a cats retina is back by a reflective layer, giving the retina a second chance to catch a photon that leaks through, while man has an absorptive backing that stops photons that pass through the retina without reacting.”

But then it goes on to say how a man’s eyes are on the whole far superior to a cats. “So far as acuity goes, the astronauts reported seeing things, trains, railroads, etc. on the surface of the earth while up in orbit; the doctors of a dozen disciplines ranging from optical engineers, lens designers, and mathematicians through medical specialists all agreed were provable invisible. Beyond the powers of eye lens or retina to resolve. And the next batch of astronauts reported seeing things that couldn’t be seen, and proved it.

The myth that dogs can hear sounds human beings can’t hear rests on two things. First, dogs aren’t so busy thinking about other things, and pay more attention to their ears, and second, dogs are smaller than human beings, and their smaller auditory equipment can hear somewhat higher frequencies. But I remember the confusion of a neighbor, who tried to demonstrate to his four year old daughter that Fritz, their large rather elderly German Shepherd could hear the silent dog whistle but that people couldn’t. The small daughter with young ears was distinctly bothered by the shrill whistle; the bid elderly dog couldn’t hear it at all.

We know a lot of things about what human beings are like that just aint’ so. We are among the largest and most powerful animals, purely as animals, that this planet has produced. The Puma or Mountain Lion is usually considered a large, powerful, and deadly, dangerous animal. They average just about the same as a moderate to small man.”

He goes on to point out that they do not have the abilities or strength of a man. And speaking of agility, human beings can in many parts of the world, and for many millennia did, run down antelope, deer, etc, by the simple process of chasing them until the prey collapses from exhaustion. Man is not quite so poor a runner as people tend to imagine; he isn’t as fast as a cheetah or greyhound, but he can run longer, farther, and more persistently than any other creature on earth.

Now, the matter of sensory equipment is open to considerable variation, a people… well, he goes on to say that the very attributes that we call defenselessness on the part of man make him more versatile and more able to defend himself. For example, in speaking of the abilities of man he says: “Man is more adaptable because he is both carnivore and herbivore, eats both meat and vegetation. Some of the western Indians were able to live with reasonable comfort in Death Valley, while crossing that horrendous strip of country. No herbivorous horse or carnivorous puma could have made it; the puma wouldn’t chew and suck the water out of cactus plants, And a horse wouldn’t eat the fairly abundant insects and small mammals native to the area.”

“Man is not physically inferior to animals, pound for pound he is more powerful and more competent than any other animal, and he can out-fight several times his own weight, and quite routinely does. Watch a 160 lbs of bull fighter against 1600 lbs of bull, for instance; or in less lethal conflict, a cowboy bull-dogging a steer. And just as though the old philosopher were wrong on that matter of physical competence, they were and are wrong on the characteristics of behavior they so condemn. We can start with an ode to hate. It is one of man’s unique and magnificent possessions, a characteristic that only man, the highest life form of earth has yet developed. And that one fact alone should give any honest philosopher pause; why does man, and man alone of all earth animals have that characteristic? Why if it is so bad, wicked, evil, destructive, vicious, and awful, does the product of 2-3 billion years of harsh ruthless selection possess it?

First, distinguish carefully between anger and true hate. Anger is a short term, immediate response to intense irritation on the emotional level. Hate is a long term, long lasting thing; not an explosive, sudden, but short lived reaction. One of the reasons that man alone of earths children has true hate is that it requires a long span time, binding determination. It requires the ability to hold a determination over longs spans of time, with conscious, not merely instinctive decision. A rabbit doesn’t have brains enough to hate a fox, it can’t remember; consider (?) determine long enough. It can only feel anger for a short while, and when the short time is elapsed, the anger is gone essentially without a trace. Human beings however have a characteristic the wolf and the rabbit alike do not understand, they hate. That is one of the reasons they rule the planet.

The modern appeal for funds to support cancer research, heart disease studies, virus research, are all addressed to that ancient, human, and human only characteristic hate. The long term discrimination that: “This we will not put up with, we will attack.”

Prejudice is also inevitably a characteristic of intelligent entities, prejudice is simply a pre-determined conclusion, based on evidence from previous experience that the individual entity believes is applicable to the present problem. Since only intelligent entities have a long time span memory, and the high ability to learn from experience, only intelligent entities can display what we call prejudice. It is simply the act of applying previous experience learning to a present situation.”

And so he goes on to say, finally, that war is simply an instance of this kind of intelligent activity, you fight that which is a threat, and you organize and mobilize your resources against it. I thought it was a refreshing statement coming from the other side.

Then the Current Nations Business has a very delightful article, (Outcast?) on the Hippy Economics. It’s a superb statement, I would like to read all of it but there isn’t time; however he begins one section by describing Louis Abolafia. Abolafia is the Hippie candidate for president. “His campaign posters show that he has quite a bit of hair, but no clothes at all except a hat which he uses to cover an area other than his head. Other posters show him after he has thrown his hat into the ring, and saying: “What have I got to hide?” Right here I must disenchant my admirers who may hail Abolafia as one of my fantastic creations. Abolafia is real, all too real, and I recently had him on my T.V. program. Abolafia thinks it is fine for one class to produce things, and another class to run things. He simply suggest that a different class take over the running end, namely those who like himself, have not had their creative strength reigned by producing anything but poetic suggestion.

Abolafia’s platform is this: Now that inferior, unimaginative men, in hippy language the straight people, the guys in neckties, have created an America superior to any society anyone dared to imagine, it is time to turn over the running of it to the Hippies, the flower children. The flower children are the children of a generation which flowered in the depression, and worked and fought to protect their young from the bitter deprivation they knew; and the menace of fascist and communist domination they feared. The flower children bloomed untouched by the necessity to struggle for personal survival, and now won’t touch the struggle for national survival, and Louis Abolafia is their leader.

A couple of months ago I asked Abolafia what he considered his chief qualifications for the presidency. “I am younger than any other candidate,” he replied, “which means that I am not as cynical about things. And I am cleaner than they are. I have never dirtied my hands in politics.” When I asked Abolafia what as commander and chief he would do in case of enemy attack, he said: “Make love not war.” Confronted with such a tactic I asked him what he thought the enemies would do. “What could they do? They couldn’t fight us; they would have to join us. That would turn all wars into lovin; you know, group gropes. They feel good and don’t hurt anybody.”

Who would he run with as vice president? The candidate said that he would run with a chick. Could he give me a name? He asked a nearby blond in a miniskirt her name, it was Janet, I think, or it may have been Sandy which proves how easily we forget our vice presidents. I asked him who he would choose as his secretary of state. “It must be,” he said, “A cat who digs that the time is now to grab the scene from the man in the necktie, and tell him to either cool it, or flake out and give the flower children the chance to produce something groovy for our national grossness or gross natural product; and did I have any suggestions?” At that time I didn’t.

How could I know that a few blocks from my home in Cambridge Massachusetts, an old and cherished friend was adding the final flourishes to a manifesto demanding everything that the hippies were demanding. How could I know that as the first hippy president was flowering in East Greenwich village, the first hippy economist was flowering at Harvard. How could they know about each other? How could an Abolafia with no students at all, dare to dream that a Galbraith who had several would be perfectly in tune with him. I don’t suggest that Abolafia read Galbraith’s the New Industrial State, I don’t suggest that Abolafia read. But if he will take the word of one who proved his friendship by putting him on my T.V. show when I could have had Carol (Sasson?) he will offer the state department job to John Kenneth Galbraith; he couldn’t find anyone more devoted to hippy ideals.

This may be a surprise to Galbraith and to Abolafia too, and it may not be a pleasant one for either of them; but every shred of evidence proves that they were made for each other. Hippies claim that beauty and art are more important to the national welfare than material things, and those who devote themselves to beauty and art, hippies, at all times; except when they are cashing their unemployment or allowance check, should outrank those who merely produce, the straight people, the Joe Sinceres, the Hubcaps, the Daddy Warbucks, in a nut shell the whole non-hippy bit.

The hippies however don’t go along with those who believe that producers should be beaten up and all their productions burned. That is the non-violent movement. On Abolafia’s campaign posters his qualifications for being chief executive are listed as: “Artist, poet, philosopher.” Does Galbraith support Abolafia? Let us look at his answer. “The perfect new industrial state will exist,” says Galbraith, “when we realize that beyond the area of good sense services, however supplied, and the demand for them however contrived, is the future world of aesthetic experience. This is served not by factories or engineers, but by artists.” No Harvard professor gave any presidential candidate a more unqualified endorsement.

Would anyone but Abolafia choose Galbraith? Let him answer in his own words from his own classic: “Aesthetic achievement is beyond the reach of the industrial system, in conflict with it.” Is Galbraith bitter about his society not yet run by Abolafia? If it is bitterness you want, try reading this aloud as it must have been written, with clenched teeth: “Aesthetic goals today must usually prove that they yield economic advantage.” But if Abolafia gets in, would Galbraith feel better? Read his answer: “Aesthetic goals would be accorded priority, and industrial efficiency would be subordinate to them.” He concedes, as Abolafia does that this would be inconvenient, and usually achieved at some cost to economic growth, but he stands shoulder to shoulder with the hippy candidate, and with all the hippy’s in the world when he declares that: “Beauty is worth the sacrifice of some increase in the gross national product.”

We haven’t had an economist like that since Edna Saint Vincent Millay. We haven’t had an economic theory that made as much good, old-fashioned sense since she, Edna Saint Vincent Millay stated: “My candle burns at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah my foes, and oh my friends, it gives a lovely light.”

Galbraith says it better of course, and Abolafia says it even better than Galbraith, but it is the sort of thinking that made the (?) empire and (Barruch and Billy Salt Ephses?) the household words they are today.”

Well, I think we owe a vote of thanks to (El cap?) for that. We have time for just one or two questions or observations, yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Well of course religion is a broad term. He is saying that from ‘a’ religious perspective, if he means that Christianity is, he is wrong of course. If he means that humanism is one of the most destructive forces in the world, he is right. But he is speaking as a humanist, no doubt, against Christianity. Religion is a word that covers so much territory, that it is not possible to get at what he meant there too well, only the contention. And ask him the next time what he means by religion, what religion. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, a very good point.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, very good point, Christianity is divisive, but not destructive. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] The whole economics of Africa today is on its back. It is surviving just on subsidies from us. This is of course, apart from places like Rhodesia and South Africa. Our time is up and we stand adjourned.