Revelation

Compromising Church (Laodicea) (Poor copy)

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 8-30

Genre: Talk

Track: 176

Dictation Name: RR129D8

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Revelation 3:14-22

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

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

Christ’s letters to the seven churches conclude with the letters to Philadelphia and Laodicea. It is not an accident that these two churches come close together. They were close to one another, and the two churches were in sister communities. Both communities had a similar purpose; they were missionary cities, they had a responsibility to propagate Greek culture in alien territory, Lydian and Phrygian territories, and later on to do the same for Roman culture. Both cities were eminently successful at this task; in some respects Laodicea was even more successful in propagating this brotherhood between alien cultures and religions than was Philadelphia. Laodicea like Philadelphia, had been ruined by the great earthquake of 17 A.D., but unlike the other cities it was again leveled by another earthquake in 60 A.D., not too many years before this letter was written.

But Laodicea was so rich, that when in 60 A.D. it was leveled by the earthquake, it rebuilt itself without any exterior aid, it refused it. This of course is a tremendous indication of the wealth of the community. It was a banking center, an important center of the clothing industry, it was famous for its medical school, and it was a center of the Emperor worship cult.

The church in Laodicea had been established fairly early. We have four references to it in Paul’s letters to the Colossians. And in his letter to the Colossians in chapter 2:1 and in chapter 4:13,15, and 16, Paul refers to the Laodiceans, and asks that his letter be read to them, expresses his desire to go and visit them sometime, which as far as we know he was never able to do.

The problem in Philadelphia had been that the church, because it stood for the faith, could not relate to this community round about it that was concerned with this promiscuous brotherhood. The church in Philadelphia faced a community that was successful and prosperous. Philadelphia was built, as its name indicated, on this concept of brotherly love, a brotherly love irrespective of any standards, of any absolutes.

Laodicea was successful because of the same thing. Because Laodicea was further to the east than Philadelphia, Laodicea was therefore quite close to the Phrygian border. Now Phrygia is a name that does not convey too much to us today, and yet there is much in our culture today that goes back to Phrygia. Those of you who have read my Religion of Revolution will know what I speak of when refer to the cults of Chaos. These cults, these religions of revolution, were common to the whole of paganism, and to the whole of antiquity; perhaps from no other source did they influence our western civilization more than from Phrygia. The Phrygian influence going directly to Greece and Rome, and through Greece and Rome influencing the Western world. And also, unfortunately, through various aspects of the life of the church in subsequent centuries.

Phrygia is the source of one symbol of revolution which is still quite familiar to us, the Liberty Cap. The Liberty Cap which we know on some of our older coins and which appears on much of the coinage of the world, was a symbol of the French Revolution, and is an ancient symbol of revolution, comes of course from Phrygia, as do other aspects of our revolutionary cults of today.

Thus, the antithesis between the Christian state and paganism certainly should have been clear-cut at Laodicea. Here they were on the border land of Phrygia, which in its every aspect represented the old paganism, the paganism of the ancient world par excellence. Phrygia which manifested this revolutionary impulse, not too many years before this letter was written, at the death of Nero, his revolutionary followers ran around the city trying to provoke revolutions, wearing the Phrygian cap and other similar symbols of their cult.

Here the antithesis certainly should have struck the Christians, but here in Laodicea the church related itself to the world round about. The church in Philadelphia had felt weak and impotent because in this successful community of brotherhood they were isolated, the world was going on and paying them as it were, little attention because they were so different. But the church in Laodicea prided itself on its success. And Christ said: “thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.”

They had it made. They were a successful church. They were related to the world. But we should not be surprised that the church in Laodicea, because perhaps no other variety of church is more with us today than the Laodicean church. Virtually every church round about us is a Laodicean church; a church that has related itself to the world, and has found brotherhood with the world. Is it any wonder that we find that they are well thought of in the councils of the state? After all, do they not espouse statism, socialism, atheism? Just about everything that is humanistic? And do they not feel that they are truly successful because they minister to man?

This morning as I was listening to a council of churches broadcast, this was of course the justification that was given, very powerfully, by two church men. One a minister, the other a woman, a lay-leader. The church, they were sure, was eminently successful today because it was relating itself to all the major problems of today. To the problems of brotherhood and human need; and even the church service, the woman said, ministered to human need. She said “It could be described very aptly as ‘the pause that refreshes.’” Here a person could come, and find rest and relaxation. No doubt in the near future (?) suggest an hour or two weekly in a Laodicean church for the ‘Pause that refreshes.’

This was Laodicea. Having succumbed to the temptation, and happy and confident in the results. Jesus identified Himself to the church in Laodicea with the triune self identification, even as He had to Philadelphia. He declared first of all “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen.”

God identifies Himself in Isaiah 65:16 as well as elsewhere as the God of Amen, or the God of truth. And when we declare amen to our prayers, we say: “So be it.” And we declare our confidence in the God of amen, the God who can declare: “So be it” and it is, because His word is truth and His word is the word of power, He speaks and it is done, He declares the word and the heavens and the earth are created.

Second, Jesus Christ identifies Himself as the “Faithful and true witness.” The faithful and true witness, and we have seen previously that witness in the Greek is the same as our word martyr, in fact the word martyr is taken from the Greek word witness. A martyr is one who has witnessed unto death with his own blood. And Jesus Christ identifies Himself as the Amen or truth of God and the faithful and true witness, He who stood for the truth unto death, and to a church that was given to compromise, that was relating itself to the world, and thereby breaking its relationship to God; breaking its relationship to truth. Jesus Christ identifies Himself as the truth, the amen, and the faithful and true witness, or martyr to the truth.

Third, He identifies Himself as the beginning of the creation of God. As the beginning, the (Archay?) or the sword. “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”

Hence Jesus Christ shares His position with none, He alone is the truth, the way, and the life. And no man can take Christ who is the creator of all things and confuse Him with the creation, and bring Him into brotherhood with that which is a lie. And so Jesus Christ separates Himself, in this triune identification, and calls upon the church of Laodicea to separate itself unto Him.

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.”

Laodicea felt itself to be a successful church because it had met the challenge of the community, the desire of the community for brotherhood for conflicting cultures and peoples, and therefore had related itself to the world of its day. But in relating itself to the world it had cut itself off from God. And So Christ says: “Thou art neither hot nor cold.”

The word for hot, which our Lord here uses is in the Greek literally “Zestos” which means ‘at boiling point’. Our English word ‘Zest’ comes from ‘Zestos’, and to have zest means to be at the boiling point, at the full point of movement, of excitement, of delight in something.

And Christ says they are not hot, they are not at the boiling point, they are not fervent, full of zest for Him.

But neither are they cold, neither are they hostile to Him. “I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Our Lord makes clear the faith of those who are His enemies. But here He makes clear His contempt for those who cannot take a stand, who refuse to see any difference, who are for such total brotherhood that there is no distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, night and day. Who espouse so total an equality that all differentiation is destroyed, and meaning is obliterated.

“I will spue thee our of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:”

The church, because it was successful in its relationship to the world felt that it was a successful and rich church, and had need of nothing. And so much of the church today fits the bill of Laodicea, in fact you recently have seen the presiding bishop of a major church, speaking at the general convention of his church, outdo the black nationalists in his fervent plea for the black revolution; so that even the official paper which is certainly far to the left, felt that he had exceeded the bounds of good taste. But he was, as he made clear, relating himself to the world. Relating himself to the problems of the age. And in the last day or so the papers showed Bishop (Hike?) wearing around his neck a hippy necklace, very proudly. He was relating himself to the world in a typically childish manner.

But a church that relates itself to the world is not in relationship to Christ, and it may be successful in relationship to the world, but in relationship to Christ: “thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:”

“I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.”

True wealth is here defined as the refining of God. Over and over again the scripture speaks of refining and equates it with purity. Indeed the very word for purity, as I pointed out previously, throughout the Bible, is basically the same as refined; tried by fire. And Jesus Christ says those He loves He tries by fire, and they are gold, tried in the fire. And every age that will not have Him he throws into the fire to burn out all the dross, so that He might reserve unto Himself the gold therein. He offers them also white raiment, the symbol of the righteousness of Christ, to put on not their self righteousness, but to go to Christ for white raiment: “That thou mayest be clothed.”

And to find their true sight not from their age, not from their politics, not from their science, but from Jesus Christ.

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

Saint Paul in writing to the Hebrews made it clear that those whom God loves He chastens, He disciplines. And those whom He did not discipline were not children of God but bastards. And Christ leaves it to the church of Laodicea to see what they are; if they are indeed only bastards who do not belong in the church of God, who are not truly sons of God, they will not be under His discipline or His chastening, because He has no love, no concern for them.

“Be zealous therefore and repent.” ‘Turn from your unbelief and become my people, that I may subject you to my rebuke, and my chastening.’

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

‘Any man who accepts me, shall have the full communion at the table with me. He shall share in my life, in my perfected humanity; in the victory which belongs to my people.’

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

‘I also overcame.’ Christ here hearkens back to his temptation in the wilderness, when Satan offered to him the perfect humanist answer to everything: ‘Turn these stones into bread. Find the answer in economics, feed the people. Give them cradle to grave security.’ (?) temptation, a humanistic answer preferred by Satan, and Christ refusing it.

‘I also overcame. He that overcometh shall reign with me,’

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

He that hath ears will hear. But those who are dead have no ears for hearing. And the dead churches therefore, will not hear. They will go to the grave. But he that hath an ear will 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 that by Thy grace Thou hast given unto these Thy people hearing ears. Bless and prosper them oh Lord, make the way straight before them, and in all things minister to their every need. We thank Thee our God for our fellowship in Thee, and we commit unto Thee our every hope in Jesus Christ. In His name we pray, amen.

Are there any questions now?

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] The question is, in plain, should we pray for others or for ourselves, or what should be the nature of our prayer? First of all, prayer is communication. It is talking with God. And it is important with prayer that you recognize that it is conversation. It is conversation of course with one who is infinitely beyond us and above us, but when we talk to someone we love, or if we talk to our parents, we do not plan the conversation in advance, although we often have urgent things we want to share with someone. So it is with our praying. Spontaneity is important. So that when we go to God, if we have a pressing concern for ourselves, of course we pray about it. If we have a pressing concern for some friend who is need, spiritually or materially or physically, then we pray about it. So that we should remember the naturalness and spontaneity of prayer and be guided by that.

On the other hand, if we find ourselves too self centered in our conversation, we know that we are often a pain for our friends to listen too, because all we talk about perhaps are our own aches and pains, and our own affairs, and we are not interested sufficiently in anything else. So that, we need of course to guard against self-absorption in prayer. So that there is no set formula for prayer, it is to be guided by the Spirit, by faith, and by our spontaneity as we approach God.

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, how does the concept of this world brotherhood relate to the one and the many? It can relate either way. First of all, in the period of the 18th century when this concept of world brotherhood was extremely prevalent and had its modern rebirth, the emphasis was on the many. So that there was a basic predisposition to anarchism. We find this today still quite prevalent in many circles. “Everyone is unique, everyone is important, and the essence of world brotherhood is to recognize that the cannibal is as good as the greatest man in our culture. There is no standard above and over the many, therefore there is the perfect equality of the many.”

Of course, this is a position which leads to intellectual dishonesty because it means denying the validity of distinctions. But this is one facet of the brotherhood emphasis. You emphasize the many, the plurality of things, to the point of anarchism.

The other is to emphasize the oneness of things. World brotherhood requires, others say, “A world union, a world order, which is dedicated to this brotherhood. So that all are one in this brotherhood, in an actual legal entity, a super state.” In which case you emphasize the one.

In both forms the concept of world brotherhood is destructive, because in the one case it destroys the sense of community and in the other it destroys individuality. So that in neither form has the concept of world brotherhood been able to do anything to answer the problem of the one and the many. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, well, you have an extreme application of the many-ness and brotherhood in respect to it in Alfred Schweitzer, who was against anything that would kill insects or worms or bugs on the premises at his hospital. He was very inconsistent in that of course when they performed any surgery or administered medicine they did kill bacteria in the patient, and he did recognize this was a contradiction, but he was of course for total brotherhood, even with bacteria ideally speaking.

Now of course, this was a logical conclusion from his idea of brotherhood, and the integrity and equality of all things. If all things are equal, than the individuality of a mosquito is as important as your individuality.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] In this sense no, not in terms of the brotherhood…

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Oh, we have to recognize that God has created all things, yes. They have all a significance, they have an importance, and we are called upon to understand it. But this is in terms of an over-all meaning above and beyond any imminent unity or particularity, so that the meaning is not in the things themselves, but above and beyond them, and they have a purpose in terms of Gods creative purpose, so that in terms of that we are to respect them. But of course, the kind of thing I was speaking to has reference to a purely this-worldly meaning, which the things have in and of themselves, and in terms of that of course, there is a reductionism. You lower everything when you have this brotherhood concept and equality to the lowest common denominator, so that you reduce man first of all to the animals, and then the animals progressively downward.

I think in terms of that, it was interesting that the nude-inn at San Francisco State College this past week, one of the leaders when he issued his statement, he said: “Man is an animal, why can’t he be as free as one?” And of course, one of the demands at Berkeley is that they have the same sexual right for intercourse on campus as the dogs did.

Now, this of course is the reductionism whereby you insist on equality, and any time you insist on equality you have to integrate downward, and this is what you have when you have brotherhood. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, you are very right. The questions is, “Don’t they, even though they move in terms of the lowest common denominator, create their own society and then have status within it?” That is very true. The hippies of course, who just proclaimed the death of hippy-dom a few days ago, insist that they are for equality and brotherhood, but then they felt that they were above the Johnny-come-lately hippies whom they called plastic hippies. And of course they now say that the new order is the brotherhood of man, and this is what they are going to proclaim, the brotherhood of free men, ‘all men are free of law, of society, of all things else.’ Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, it is a long history, but we do know historically what happened to these churches, Laodicea did not do well. Philadelphia as I indicated last week, did prosper. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, very definitely. Bishop (Pike?) is a sorry spectacle, if he were not on the other side he would certainly be torn apart for the fool he is by the press, but they deal on the whole very gently with him, he is one of them. And the Bible specifically forbids us to make any attempt to communicate with spirits, or to for tell the future through various magical and other means. These things are strictly forbidden. We are to walk by faith and in terms of the prophetic insight of scripture, whereby we are given to understand Gods law and Gods working, and how they operate. So that we know from Gods principles of causality, historical, physical and so on, how to see the future. And in terms of that we are to move, but not in terms of this kind of magical and similar methods. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] The question is “What are the one and the many?” the problem of the one and the many is the basic problem of philosophy, and it is this: “Which is more important, the oneness of things or the many-ness of things?” In other words, the individual or the state; marriage or the individuals in marriage; the group or the individuals, the citizens or the state.

Now, historically the answers have swung from one to the other, from the one to the many. And you have had a swing from statism or totalitarianism, to anarchism. And most of the briefly good periods in history have been just the mid-way point between the two as the historical movement has veered wildly from one to the other. And Greek society, which is very much exalted in our textbooks, was nothing but sheer disorder as it swung from dictatorship to anarchy.

Now, the only answer to the problem of the one and the many that you find anywhere, is in the scriptures. In the Doctrine of the Trinity. Philosophically this is spoken of as the ‘Doctrine of the Ontological Trinity. Now, I am trying to complete a book, I have been working on it for about five years now, on the subject of the one and the many. But the doctrine of the trinity gives us the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, that is, in the godhead; the oneness and the many-ness, the three-ness, are equally ultimate.

So that, from the Christian perspective, you cannot emphasize either the oneness or the many-ness of things, both are equally important. So it is not the citizen or the state, but the citizen and the state. Not marriage or the individuals, but marriage and the individuals within marriage as equally important. The institution, in other words, as well as those who comprise it. The group and the individual. In other words, you sacrifice neither one or the other, you hold to both. And only the doctrine of the Trinity philosophically is able to answer the problem of the one and the many, because the only answer you can give to the problem that will preserve a society is this:

First, you have to have a transcendental source. That is, something above and beyond this world, God.

Second, you have to have the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, and of course the doctrine of the Trinity is that equal ultimacy.

So only there do you have an answer to the basic problem of philosophy. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, by hot or cold Christ meant either ‘Truly for me or truly against me.’ No, it didn’t refer to right or wrong so much as for or against. And you see, the lukewarm church is the church that says: “Yes, we are for Christ, and yes we are for revolution, yes we are for the Bible, and yes we are for the new morality.” And so on. This is the lukewarm church, it doesn’t have the decency to make a stand in terms of basic differences, it blurs it. It reduces everything to a lukewarm state.

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Cruel? Have in any time of history have the Christians been considered a cruel people. Why, yes. I would say throughout history their opponents have considered them cruel, for the simple reason that they make a distinction where people don’t want to make distinction. When you say, for example that something is wrong, you are making a distinction which to many people is cruel.

I was once called cruel because I called a man who was guilty of murder a murderer. And I was told that was a very cruel way to speak of him. But he was a murderer, and he did deserve to be sentenced, and got a slap on the wrist.

Now, the world regards anything that is decisive, that has a standard as cruel, whenever, which is generally most of the time, the world wants to blur distinction. So it is that the liberal churches today speak of that which we represent as a cruel, heartless, dogmatic theology. Because of course they don’t like anything that says: “This is what constitutes a Christian. If you don’t believe this you are not a Christian.” They want to make anyone and everyone a Christian. So this is cruelty in the eyes of the world.

And of course you have all kinds of myths invented as to how terrible the Christians were in the past, and how they have been the persecutors, and the stories about them having died in the arena is mythological, and so on. You have a radical re-writing of history, so that today the textbooks are mythological in their content.

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It is erroneous teaching. First of all, a great deal is made today of the so-called persecution of the witches. And we are increasingly told that millions upon millions of witches were killed, some have said ten million. In fact they are now beginning to speak of the millions of slaves who were slaughtered in pre-civil war America. So you can get an idea of the mythology that was circulated. Now, the plain fact is that the witches movement, the so-called witches, represented a revival of the old pagan fertility cults of pre-Christian Europe. It was a basically revolutionary movement. It was aimed at an overthrow of the social order of the day. Now, they could have submitted to that as we are doing today, we won’t prosecute anyone who is subversive and who is working for the overthrow of our country.

Now they did, unfortunately they did not succeed because at the same time they were not renewing their faith, you see. So that the medieval orders that were trying to save themselves ultimately began to deteriorate, even though they did suppress this movement, because the spiritual movement was not there. But it was a radically subversive movement that they were dealing with. And the documentation for this is very extensive. It was a part of the ancient cults of chaos, thoroughly revolutionary movement. This they do not tell us.

Well, they did suppress them. Sometimes they were pretty harsh in doing it, but basically they were fighting for survival.

Now, that is a different thing, when you are fighting an enemy for survival, and when you are going out of your way to treat people who are helpless and harmless savagely. I am sure in Vietnam today there are instances of injustice in the treatment of prisoners by our troops. It is impossible, where feelings are aroused to escape it. But I think it would be absurd for us to say, and I am not in favor of the Vietnam war, it would be absurd for us to say that because such things exist and because we are not in favor of foreign wars, that therefore our men over there are cruel. On the contrary, on the whole they are as fair-minded as any army has been anywhere. They are so generous and kind, both to the people of South Vietnam, and very often to the men they take prisoners, that I would say very few armies have been as humane. But you can find instances, this is my point, of individual cruelty. If you want to build a case on this you can, and you can go back through the history of the church and you can find where Christianity was in the saddle in a country that people were dealt with very harshly, brutally sometimes; I could provide you documentation for such a case.

But this is not the overall picture, you see. and we have to look at the over all picture, and today we are subjected to a vast amount of propaganda, the purpose of which is to justify the progressive disestablishment of Christian law and order, and progressive destruction of Christian society. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, what specifically about it?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the Liberty Cap was used as a symbol by the priests of the Phrygian religion. And the essence of its meaning was that it represented freedom from law. Freedom from law. Now this is the antithesis of course of the Christian belief in freedom under law. And our very word liberty comes from Liber, the name of one of the ancient Gods of Rome related to the Phrygian cult, “Liber Pater”, Father Liber. And the essence of this religion of Liber was that anything goes. In fact, that which normally did not go, you did as a religious rite, as a religious ritual. Therefore, during the periods of Saturnalia you committed incest, homosexuality, any and every crime, religiously.

Now, the Phrygian cap was the symbol, first of the priests, and then of the devotees of this cult. To indicate that they believed in freedom from law, and the overthrow of established law and order. Also, those who wore these Phrygian caps or the Liberty cap, would also indicate whether they were a homosexual or not, by reversing the top of the hat. In other words, if it were worn one way which was the normal way for a man and they reversed it, either the male or the female reversing it from what was normal for their sex they would thereby indicate they were of the homosexual fraternity or sorority. So they actually wore it to boast of their propensities. It became the cap of revolution over and over again in history. And you find, oh about 200 B.C. in Rome, they came very close to overthrowing the Roman government, they had a plot to assassinate every judge, every senator, every tribune, and to take over the state. And their one principle was that ‘The only law is that there is no law.’

Fortunately someone confessed to the plot, a servant, just a little prior to the date set for the mass murder, and it was forestalled. But this cult eventually did take over Rome in an organized fashion, Julius Caesar very definitely represented it, and his background as a pervert was very extensive. Nero was a dedicated champion of this faith, the Roman circuses were a religious festival. We think of them just in terms of the games, but the Roman circuses with all the events there, and most of the events are not fit to talk about in public, were religious. So that they were begun with religious festivities, and clothed religiously.

This then passed into a world of subterranean movements and cults in the medieval period, which created all kinds of revolutionary movements, and then the witches cult so called took this over, and became the center of this movement, and saturated Europe for a time with this movement. A couple of very good books dealing with limited aspects of this are written by Dr. Murray at the University of London whose perspective is not Christian at all. And this movement of course passed into the modern period, and your enlightenment figures were involved in a number of such movements. And for example, both sides in England during the time of the War of Independence, had their own cult. The Hellfire cult by the party in power was one such group, and anyone who was of any prominence in the English parliament and in the ruling party at the time was a member of the Hellfire Club. To be a member you had to perform a number of acts publicly of perversion, otherwise you could not join. It was a radically revolutionary cult.

And that is why Peter Drucker, an Austrian economist, now in this country in New York has spoken of what we speak of as the American Revolution now-a-days, as actually the American counter-revolution. It was counter revolutionary activity against the revolution that had captured Europe. And of course today we are facing this same basic belief that creativity is through destruction, progress is through revolution, freedom is through the death of law. And of course, the great road block in the front of this ancient faith is Biblical faith.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] What?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Well, if you look at one of the old Morgan silver dollars, the liberty head on the back, you will see a liberty cap. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] And the gestures of the Middle Ages, were, that is a very good point; very closely related commonly to these cults. One more and then our time is up.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] That is very true. They were not all of them aware of what it was, but some of the Sons of Liberty were definitely infected by some of the European thinking. However, they were not the ones who had any leadership, and their ideas were very quickly subverted by the leaders of the colonies. They came into their own subsequently when the Jacobins became prominent in this country, and the Jacobins who were fostered here by agents of the French Revolution wore the Liberty Cap deliberately. Now, Thomas Paine came to this country of course to try to make league with some of these people in this country who hoped to create a genuine revolution here. He came here after we had already made our break with England, after the first Continental Congress had already met, in fact he came several months later. He left before the end of the war in disgust because he felt the cause was hopeless.