Dear Dr. McIntyre:
Now, that was not even nice let alone Christian.
". . . Presbyterians are Baptist [sic] who can read. . ."
You need to read 1 John 3.
I am grateful that this Baptist who has worshipped with a PCA church and enjoyed fellowship of a neighbor who is a ruling elder has not found the disdain, vindictiveness, hostility, contempt and prejudice against Baptist [sic] that appears frequently in "Chalcedon."
Your letter complaining about my article, "How to Train Your Child to be Fully Literate," was an answer to prayer. It's not for the reason you hoped, however, but because you illustrate exactly what a semi-literate person is. Congratulations! You accuse me of not being "nice" and being not "Christian." You prescribe 1 John 3 to correct my "disdain, vindictiveness, hostility, contempt, and prejudice" toward Baptists.
1 John 3, 4, and 5 is our Lord's warning and instructions on how to "try the spirits" or recognize false prophets. The test is the love of God. I suppose you wish to say that I fail that test, because I do not love Baptists as I should. This love, unfortunately for you, doctor, is defined in 1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous." To put it in my own words, love is an emotion that causes one to obey God's law-word and find that compulsion a joy instead of an imposition. A false prophet, on the other hand, will define love as emotion that compels one to wink at sin and excuse sin in the name of brotherhood and find anyone like me who tries to use the Scripture correctly "unloving" or "judgmental" or any of the names you have called me and my colleagues at Chalcedon in your letter.
As matter of fact, I could call you a false prophet, but my heart is too full of love to do that. I'll settle for "not fully literate." I am going to send your letter to my associates at Chalcedon. I hope they will publish your letter and my response.
I know, doctor, that most people will agree with you and that your position is popular and in the majority, even in the PCA, as you boast. But, sir, as I wrote last month, "They are captive to what other people say and think. Not only are they politically correct, they are political prisoners, never able to fully function as literate persons. My prayers and love go out to you and all semi-literate Christians." God bless you.
Ellsworth E. McIntyre
I am a long-time financial supporter of Chalcedon.
I could not disagree more with the pro-free trade position of Mr. Brandly as expounded in his letter to the editor in the Chalcedon Report for May 1997. I was also very disappointed that there was no editorial rebuttal to the arguments made by Mr. Brandly. I remember an Easy Chair tape of several years ago in which Otto Scott effectively attacked the free trade position. I am sure Mr. Scott could answer Mr. Brandly much better than I can, but not knowing if Mr. Scott will write in response to Mr. Brandly's letter, I will give it my best shot.
This country's economic philosophy (after independence) was developed by Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures. That philosophy has been described as protectionist since it employed as its key feature a protective tariff. However, it was more than this, since it encompassed an entire system and approach to the economic sphere, whereby a nation could achieve prosperity through the free, enterprising work of its people. Central to this philosophy was the idea that there existed an inherent harmony of interests between capital and labor that must be recognized and honored by the nation's people and its economic and political institutions. Inseparable from this idea was the concept of nation and people bound together, one to another, in true community. The Christian influence was (and is) obvious and unmistakable.
The above philosophy became popularly known through the works of the l9th century economists, Matthew Carey, Henry Carey, and Frederick List. (Lincoln was one of its many proponents and the South was full of its opponents; however, the South should have built its own industry but that is another story.) It was List who wrote (if I may paraphrase my recollection of the quote) "What good does it do if I buy a cheaper shirt and lose my arm?"
In any case, the protective tariff and the American System of Economics, as established by Hamilton and expounded upon by the Careys and List, continued until this century and resulted in the unprecedented and astounding success of American industry. The American System was basically copied by Japan after Commodore Perry's visit and was simply refined after World War II. (People forget that the Japanese miracle began in the 1850s culminating in its defeat of Russia in the first decade of the 1900s.) The question arisesIs it only coincidental that as our commitment to protecting our industry steadily declined after World War II, our industry did likewise, while that of the Japanese advanced?
Ultimately, with free trade every man will work for the wages of the Chinese and enjoy the same Orwellian freedom. The free traders ignore the reality that without economic borders, there will be no national or political borders. Free trade is a weapon of the One Worlders. The Common Market was intended to lead to the European Union, and NAFTA and GATT are intended to lead to World Government through regional stepping stones. These arrangements have been sold (and will continue to be sold) under the banner of free trade.
The notion seemingly held by Mr. Brandly that some sort of free trade utopia exists in which all men benefit is nothing more than an ethereal delusion. Free trade is socialistic just as Orwellian freedom is slavery.
Mr. Brandly's contention that "The Bible does [not] give the state any power to restrict private contracts between citizens of different countries" is simply wrong. So is his following statement that there is a (Biblical?) "requirement that there be no trade barriers." Private contract is not sacred and there are literally thousands of examples of private contractual agreements that are and should be "restricted" by the state.
I find it extremely ironic that Mr. Brandly fears a government willing to "set the terms of trade" because"what prevents that government form imposing massive taxes on us, regulating every aspect of our lives, forcing our children to attend state-run schools, redistributing wealth, and meddling in the affairs of countries around the world?" The things he lists are here alreadyproducts of a government that sets the terms of trade by the standard of Mr. Brandly's own hallowed idolfree trade!
Mr. Brandly has been brainwashed by his state-run university to embrace a philosophy that is incompatible with the Christian world view he believes he holds. Fortunately, there is still hope. Mr. Brandly will graduate with his Ph. D. in Economics, find unemployment in the coming New World Order, and discover the beginning of his real education.
Joseph L. Williams