This is the new podcast of Christian Agrarian writer, historian, and preacher Michael Bunker.
Duration: 39:53 m - Filetype: mp3 - Bitrate: 96 KBPS - Frequency: 44100 HZ
I'm Not Skeered
- Michael Bunker goes to the mailbag to answer your questions. Some are tame... some not so much so. Questions on Travel, Alternative Medicine, Insanity, Community Living, Whites Only?, and thorns in our sides.
- Keywords: Michael Bunker, Agrarianism, Christianity, Separatism, Alternative Medicine, Herbs, Insanity, mental health, community, race, miscegenation, thorn
9 comments:
My only question about your argument against miscegenation is concerning Numbers 12 where God defends Moses' taking an Ethiopian wife. Do you think that this passage is just God is defending His authority structure or does it have anything to do with justifying Moses' right to take a foreign wife?
Thanks for the podcast Michael. Thanks for answering the question on the apostle Paul's thorn in the flesh. The answers on the mental issues and eastern mysticism was very helpful and shows us what to avoid in our lives. The Lord bless and keep thee.
Thanks as always for the good podcast. I never thought of Paul's thorn as some other person, or type of person. It does make sense in light of his always having to defend himself.
I thought you made a balanced argument regarding miscegenation. It is probably my colonized thinking, and the spirit of the age that makes those kind of thoughts off limits. It is a mental gulag built in the mind by the "tolerance" crowd.
- Todd
Thank you for another podcast. But I have to make an observation. It seems that a lot of people get it "backwards"- concerning separation. My opinion would be that fellowship vs. separatism and agrarianism (which are so many times put in the same lot-but are not the same., I mean sep . and agr.) is not explained well enough on LU in their priorities and in their contrasts. This topic perhaps deserves a sermon because it seems that this specific mistake is common, that is, it seems many people get it "backwards", that is, separate first, fellowship later. But that is exactly what people get from the "Doctrine of Separation" sermon, even though I'm sure that was not you intention.
The basic equation from how I get it is: fellowship trumps separation trumps agrarianism and obedience trumps all that but God unites.
Now, does a ministry (some ministry) preach truth if it does not preach concrete temporal separation? And, are we then not to separate if there is nothing to separate "unto"? My answer would be "no" to both questions. We are to separate ourselves from false believers and unbelievers. Commandment remains even if God has not assembled us yet. Should I also be an agrarian? Lastly yes, because not to, would mean that you are equally yoked with unbelievers. But to follow that chain of thought could mean that we will dwell alone for a time. So be it. What? Are we to stay in the world? Even if God does unite two like-minded families,can there be a separated assembly of believers which constitute a ministry without the members in it that qualify for teaching and eldership?
Can we be separated without being agrarians yet still work with our hands?
I'm afraid that the only solution for a believer that believes doctrines of grace and of separation is to move to Central Texas. Not that that move is salvific, but it helps in assurance of election which everybody needs and it could be constituted as fruit, and it seems that if one does not come to CT where fellowship, separatism and agrarianism are untied under proper spiritual leadership one could feel lost in his current condition, that is, in his place of dwelling.
I'm also afraid, that, since all these things mentioned above are impossible for men but possible to God it would be wrong to put burdens on possibly confused people, who apply your teaching the way its presented (maybe not thoughtfully presented, as it seems), expecting from them to manage circumstances which only God can manage, and possibly charge them with carnality.
So in the light to your answer to the people that asked you about separation, I am not sure what your answer was - do nothing?- that is, if you are gonna separate, separate to a community (which community?),and if you will not then don't separate and stay with your fellowship even though that fellowship doesn't preach separation? What? Is not separation fundamental doctrine?
Further more, by checking on the forum on "community building" topic all I saw were believers that separated but also separated from each other looking for a community to build, and it was OK then, but now that would be a "huge" mistake.
Michael please correct me if I'm wrong and clarify this conundrum for me please.
Thank you
My God's graces and mercies be with you
Ante,
Your response is not "wrong" insomuch that since it is all over the place, it is too difficult for me to get at exactly what you are asking. It is very circular and is fraught with presupposition errors. But I will try.
You always have to remember that people lie to themselves and that when someone says something, they are not always (in fact, very rarely) saying what they mean. As a teacher, it is my job to get at the real question (or situation) regardless of what the person has said or asked. In the question that the person asked, there were presuppositions behind the question that needed to be addressed: "We have an ancestral home/land" and the presupposition was "We really, really, really like this land and don't want to move or live anywhere else" - followed by "what do we do to build a community here". I think this is a false question and it exposes that the people in question have their priorities backward.
Now, what you have done is you have taken specific answers that I have given to people whose questions have belied the fact that they have defaulted to a particular land or area FIRST, and you have attempted to make maxims out of what I have said in order to apply them to people who ACTUALLY and REALLY are unable at any cost or hazard to move into or towards Christian community.
Yes, to me fellowship comes first. But I would never, ever accept fellowship over separation. The point is that you are trying to put one command of God up against another, and I do not do that. What I say is "If you are telling yourself as a default that you HAVE to live in a certain place for some carnal reason, and then you want to carnally build some fellowship there, you have it all backwards".
Best to rephrase your questions in a gentle, non-defensive, not-loaded way, and I'll be glad to answer them specifically in the next podcast.
Michael
Christopher:
This is a long and complicated question. I think the answer is the first one, but there are so many automatic assumptions when it comes to that passage, that it takes a lot of digging. There is an automatic assumption that:
a) this wife was actually an Ethiopian, when a few commentators hint that this may have been a pejorative term used because she was not in the "inner circle" going back to the beginning of the exodus.
b) that because she is called a "Cushite" (not really Ethiopian) that this pejorative term actually has any bearing on whether or not she was racially or ethnically divergent.
c) that because she is called a Cushite, that she must have descended from Ham - which would have been a plainly forbidden act.
Now, none of these assumptions can be made from the text, and there are many different opinions, although the modern default is to say, "See, Moses' wife was black" even though there is no way historically (or in any other way) to know that.
The other somewhat knee-jerk tool of the modern age is to make the exception the rule. Now there is no evidence that there was an exception here, but there are exceptions to rules throughout the Bible that do not eradicate the rule. The tool of the modern age is to find any exception (such as the rule of Deborah) to throw out a wise and plain rule of scripture.
So, based on what we actually do know and not on speculation, I would say "a" - God was defending His authority structure, and it was rebellious and out of order for him to be questioned or challenged on the matter, regardless of what the issue was that caused the rebellion.
Thanks,
Michael
Ante,
Oh, and I'm drinking Croatian coffee right now. Everything got here in good shape. Your package went out two days ago. Please let me know if you need more of anything and we'll be glad to send it.
Thanks for the coffee!
Michael
Thanks Michael,
I am sorry if this sounded offensive, that was not the intention, and if it sounded like that, please accept my deepest apologies. Perhaps it was too loaded and for that I apologize as well. And yes, you answered my question perfectly: "Yes, to me fellowship comes first. But I would never, ever accept fellowship over separation."
Once again I'm sorry if I got your answer from the Podcast wrong, and thanks for clarifying, because the way I got it really made me feel confused, because it denied the doctrine of separation in a way from my perspective, that is, made it secondary, or as you said one command of God has been put against another.
Michael,
I'm thankful for every podcast, lesson, blog or sermon I read and listen. They are all good for learning and living and I always am left with the question, when's the next one coming. Thank you God bless.
Mihai
Post a Comment