Category Archives: Chuck Baldwin

Christ Alone Movie: This Looks Interesting

This is a FaceBook post from Chuck Baldwin. Looks interesting.

A brand new documentary film has just be released by Golden Ratio Media. It features notable leaders such as Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Don McAlvany, Attorney Tim Baldwin, Ty Bollinger, George Hunt, and yours truly. The movie is the masterful production of filmmaker Jason Paul Charles. I had the privilege of seeing the premiere screening of this movie at the theater in Whitefish, Montana over the weekend.

The name of the film is “Christ Alone.” But don’t let the title fool you. This is anything but a typical “religious” movie. With the aid of state of the art graphics, a first-rate script, and powerful narration, the film delves deeply into many of the burning issues of the day that affect Christians and non-Christians alike. Anyone who watches–no matter what their faith–will be mesmerized by this film. Every pastor and church should watch “Christ Alone.” I highly recommend this film to my Facebook friends.

Here is the website where you can order the DVD of this fantastic film:

I haven’t seen this movie, and I have some concerns. As I said before, I’m skeptical that the “Natural Law” idea, especially as it is understood by most who use the term today, is a Biblical concept. But, based on the trailer, it incorporates the kind of esoterica that some in our sphere like, and it goes after usury and banking which is something modern Christians need to hear.

Some More Thoughts on “Baldwin Churches”

Sorry for my recent absence from CHT. I was on vacation and away from internet access for a week.

This is a follow-up to my previous post on this subject.

Currently the tab for the application process at the Baldwin Liberty Church Project website is not functioning. I just sent them an e-mail asking when they think it might be working because I am seriously interested in trying to launch such a project in my area. I have made a few inquiries to guage potential interest. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and I see this as a project that has a lot of promise, but is also frought with potential peril.

First of all, I am currently happily churched in a healthy and active church. I have some theological disagreements with the church’s statement of faith, but not so much that I am overwhelmingly uncomfortable there. We have many good friends there. Most importantly, my wife and kids are happy there, and I am sure would resist a major change. I foresee myself initially as engaging this project in addition to my regular church attendence. That is why I prefer the concept of a “fellowship” as opposed to a church initially. Also, I like the idea of having the service on Sunday afternoon, as they do in Montana, which I suspect is at least partially intended to accommodate such dual congregants.

Second, I am not crazy about the heavy focus on the concept of “Biblical Natural Law” and “liberty.” Biblical Natural Law is both a theologically and philosophically problematic formulation and is arguably an oxymoron. And I don’t believe that the Bible’s focus is “liberty” nearly as much as it is obedience to God’s law. But this is a subject for a separate thread. That said, I am sure Chuck Baldwin is no libertine or antinomian, and I suspect this formulation is largely intended to appeal to a certain segment of the “liberty movement” that isn’t also hostile to Christianity and traditional morality. It’s just theologically and philosophically confused.

If I am involved in launching such a project, I would be very weary about poaching people who are already churched in other healthy, doctrinally sound churches. Therefore, I believe the initial focus for building a healthy fellowship would have to be on devout Christians who are currently unchurched for principled reasons, most likely the tax exempt issue. Building by bringing in the unchurched and new converts would likely have to follow the establishment of a healthy core. So you would have a small pool to draw from to begin with, and let’s be honest, one that is potentially filled with a disproportionate number of malcontents and outliers. As I commented in my first post, strong leadership will be essential to make this work right.

Those concerns stated, here is what I see as potentially promising. As I said above, I have some theological disagreements with my current church. But one reason I remain there is because I would almost certainly have theological disagreements with any church I might join. (Our Catholic friends would say that is a fundamental problem with Protestantism, but again, that is for another thread.) For the record, you can relax. I am orthodox (small o) in my beliefs and certainly do not reject any of the fundamentals of the Faith (the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc.). It is on some non-essentials that I have a hodgepodge of beliefs that I believe reflect the Bible but don’t usually come as a whole. (Some things I don’t so much disbelieve outright as I just don’t see that the Bible is definitive enough on the subject to be dogmatic about. The subjects of church government and end times come to mind)

Theology tends to come in packages. You have your Reformed. You have your Wesleyan. You have your Baptistic. Etc. For example, while I reject turning the political concept of separation of church and state into a theological dogma, as my own Baptists do, which might otherwise tend me toward the Reformed tradition, I reject the infant baptism and sacraments as a “means of grace” that comes with that package. As far as I know, there is no package that incorporates all my beliefs. So what is a Christian such as I to do?

As I indicated in my first post, I like the concept of a Christian fellowship united on the fundamentals (which IMO includes basically the historic creeds plus Protestant soteriology), but which allows wide latitude on the nonessential secondary issues. This shows humility that we acknowledge that we really don’t have it all figured out, and allows for sincere Christians to embrace membership without reservations if they don’t fit into a specific theological package.

I was once a part of a model such as this when I attended chapel in the military. I would not recommend this alternative all the time because much depends on the Chaplain, but we had a theologically sound Chaplain. The Sunday School and Bible studies that we had were some of the best I have ever participated in. They were not echo chambers. We had serious discussions about issues from a variety of theological standpoints.

But my main reason for hoping to see a “Baldwin Church” established in my area, is because I feel really strongly about the 501c3 issue, and I think it is important enough to take precedence over many other theological and practical concerns. A church that voluntarily allows itself to be censored by the State is arguably guilty of idolatry as it is allowing something to come between it and the whole proclamation of God’s Word. While the charge of idolatry is likely unhelpfully argumentative, it does indicate the seriousness of the issue at hand. People should be judged in the context of the milieu they are in, and since 501c3 status is currently the norm, I don’t want to be overly harsh. Many people who participate in such mean well and likely don’t know the alternative, but the current state of affairs is very misguided to say the least. As I said in my first post, churches should be non-taxable as opposed to tax exempt. As I understand it, this was essentially the state of affairs before the relatively recent development of the 501c3 status. But also as I said in my first post, since 501c3 status is normative these days, unincorporated churches are potentially wild cards, both theology wise and membership wise. As far as I know, we have only one unincorporated church in my area, but it is a Reconstructionist church so it comes with the whole Reformed package. Having a theologically sound but less doctrinally exclusive alternative would be a blessing IMO.

This post has essentially been me thinking out loud, so I would appreciate your thoughts and feedback. Thanks.

Chuck Baldwin Seeks to Launch Liberty Churches Nationwide

This is interesting.

For many months now, I have been making preparations for this moment. Hundreds of man-hours have gone into the planning of this project. Now, I am ready.

Over the past couple of years, hundreds of people from across the country have pleaded with me to help them start new independent, unorganized, unincorporated, non-501c3 churches and Christian fellowships. It has become painfully obvious to many patriotic believers that the vast majority of establishment 501c3 churches and pastors have made a deliberate decision to NOT engage the liberty fight. For the most part, these pastors and churches have been completely muzzled by State incorporation and the 501c3 government tax-status. And, sadly, these pastors and churches have absolutely no desire to change. They are cemented in lethargy and indifference. Meanwhile, our nation is spiraling downward toward certain destruction–and the biggest reason for this calamitous situation is the absence of patriot-pulpits.

See more here…

Here is the website for the project.

I’ll give my thoughts in the comments, because I don’t want to detract from something I’m largely supportive of, with criticism.

Chuck Baldwin to Preach Howard Phillips’ Funeral

This is from Chuck Baldwin’s Facebook page.

My dear friend Howard Phillips passed away this past Saturday. He was one of my heroes and one of the most brilliant men I have ever known. He forgot more about government and history than most of us will ever learn. He was a graduate of Harvard. He was the head of two federal agencies in the Nixon White House. Most people don’t realize that he was the principal founder of what became known as the “Religious Right.” He also inspired Jerry Falwell to start the Moral Majority. He was the founder of the Constitution Party and chairman of the Conservative Caucus. America lost an ardent defender of liberty, and I lost a good friend. The family has asked me to preach Howard’s funeral. I don’t know the exact day yet. When I know, I will post it here on my Facebook wall. The funeral will take place at the McLean Bible Church in Tysons Corner, Virginia. I’m sure going to miss my friend.

Cross posted at IPR.

Chuck Baldwin no Longer Pre-mil

Chuck Baldwin is moving away from Pre-millenialism, and has endorsed Pan-millenialism, a humorous term meaning that someone doesn’t embrace a particular end-times system, but simply believes it will all “pan out in the end.” This may seem like theological inside baseball to many, but I think this is a pretty significant development. Chuck Baldwin posted the following post on his Facebook fan page. I’ll explain why I think it is significant below:

Another note about prophecy: regardless of one’s personal interpretation of Bible prophecy, this much seems clear to me: prophecy is mostly used by preachers to build crowds and make money. Before Christians become prophecy “junkies,” they need to get grounded in the “weightier matters of the law.” When asked about the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, Jesus said bluntly, “It is not for you to… know…” (Acts 1:6,7) Let’s quit pretending that we completely know everything about the Lord’s return. We don’t. Our interpretations of Bible prophecy are educated guesses at best. Next: prophecy seems to be a tool of many Christians to promote war and military aggression overseas. This is not only unscriptural, it is VERY DANGEROUS. Jesus plainly told us that we are supposed to “occupy” (literally: “take care of business”) until He comes–whenever that is. If pastors and Christians would get as excited about taking care of business in the here and now as they are about something that God Himself is going to take care of in the future (and over which we have absolutely no control) our country would not be teetering on the edge of tyranny and oppression. Let God take care of His business, and we start taking care of our business!
He followed it up with this post which is even more on the point:
People keep trying to pigeon-hole me into one prophetic camp or another. Just FYI: I was raised and schooled in the Pre-millennial, Pre-tribulational Rapture position. As I’ve grown older and studied more on the subject, I confess that I have become much more neutral. For one thing, I am totally disgusted with the way my Pre-millennial friends use the doctrine of the Rapture to excuse their laziness and cowardice. In the name of “Jesus is coming soon,” they sit on their blessed assurance and do absolutely nothing while our beloved country is being turned into a giant police state. They also use their understanding of prophecy to justify all kinds of undeclared, unconstitutional, and immoral foreign wars. If the tree is known by its fruit, the fruit of Pre-millennialism (at least nowadays) is pretty rotten. My bottom line is I truly don’t believe that we Christians are supposed to know the exact details of Christ’s return. My study of scripture convinces me that God purposely intended that we NOT know these things, that they are confined to the Province of God. I have further come to believe that it truly doesn’t matter much what one’s personal view of prophecy is. We have a duty to do; we need to do it! “Occupy” until He comes (whenever that is). I guess one could say I am a Pan-millennialist. I believe it’s all going to Pan Out according to God’s Sovereign plan. In the meantime, I want to be faithful to do my duty. And part of that duty is resisting these infernal attempts by big-government elitists to surrender America’s independence and liberties to a bunch of New World Order globalists. Regardless of your view of prophecy, will you join me?
Chuck Baldwin is an Iindependent Baptist pastor. It is generally safe to assume that such people are Dispensational Pre-millennialists. When I was touting Baldwin’s Constitution Party campaign for President in 2008, I ran into several people for whom this was a concern, since most of the people I thought might be interested in Baldwin were non-interventionists who had been Ron Paul supporters. They assumed that since he was a dispy pre-mil that he would be supportive of military intervention on behalf of Israel, even though Baldwin was on the record as a non-interventionist.
One of the things that struck me about his second post above is how similar it is to what I have written in the past. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not accusing Chuck Baldwin of plagiarizing me. I was just amazed at how we had arrived at the same conclusion for the same reasons. In order to find somewhere I had written similar before, I entered “Red Phillips” and “Pan-millenialism” into Yahoo and this is what popped up. It is a discussion thread on the blog Sharper Iron. I have a few replies in the thread but note this one:
A pan-millennialist. I guess that is what I am. In my opinion the Bible is not clear on the exact end-times scenario. If it was, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it. I tend to believe this lack of clarity is intentional. (Other than the clear teaching that Jesus is coming again.) It is potentially dangerous to know the future, because it could affect how you behave in the present. It is particularly dangerous to think you know the future and be wrong about it. The post-mils and pre-mils are both correct when they condemn each other based on the consequences of their beliefs. Ideas (theology) do indeed have consequences. One should be hesitant about embracing a certain set of consequences when the theology it is based on does not warrant the level of certainty that many give it.
It is significant that someone so thoroughly schooled in the Pre-Milliennial perspective such as Chuck Baldwin has reconsidered, and it is noteworthy that the excesses of the pro-war on behalf of Israel crowd is one of the main things that prompted this introspection and re-examination. Is Baldwin representative of an emerging trend? My suspicion based mainly on the vibe I get from the political and Christian blogosphere is that he is.

The Chronicles Magazine Chuck Baldwin Debate

Our frequent critic Savrola asked me what I thought of Thomas Fleming’s recent comments about Chuck Baldwin. I was unaware of such comments. Turns out they were in the comment thread of an article, not an article itself as I had supposed.

As a supporter of Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, I obviously disagree. I posted my comments there and Dr. Fleming has already responded. I won’t reproduce my them here because they are rather long. I’ll just direct you to them.

Your thoughts there (requires registration) and here.

James Antle on Options for Anti-War Conservatives in November

Check out this article at The American Conservative.

Antle covers Virgil Goode (CP) and Gary Johnson (LP). I promised to lay off Goode until after the election, and I have, but this is a perfect example of how the Constitution Party has harmed its brand by nominating Goode. Anti-war conservatives can’t unequivocally embrace the CP nominee. Any endorsement has to be hedged.

This dilemma is particularly acute this year. Let’s just go back to 2008, when the two major party candidates were Obama and a far more committed hawk than Romney in John McCain. At least the Constitution Party nominated Chuck Baldwin, a candidate who had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who had turned sharply against the war. Both men were fairly decent choices for the antiwar conservative.

Four years later, the Constitution Party nominee is a former Republican congressman who (like Barr) voted for the Iraq War but (unlike Barr) hasn’t had much to say about his second thoughts since. In his acceptance speech, Virgil Goode apologized for his support for the Patriot Act but not Iraq. In an interview with this writer for the print edition ofTAC, Goode seemed not to have gotten the memo — or the Duelfer report — on Iraqi WMD.

The Libertarians have nominated Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, for president. Johnson opposed the Iraq War. He wants out of Afghanistan and never wanted into Libya. Johnson hasn’t exactly been humming McCain’s catchy tune “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

But Johnson is much less conservative than Goode on issues like immigration (he’s as close to open borders as anyone this side of the Wall Street Journal editorial page can be) and abortion. His eagerness to dispatch U.S. troops to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda while talking cheerfully about a 40 percent cut in military spending could be a forgivable bit of third-party incoherence, but it sounds like a prescription for disaster.

See more…

Similar post without the editorial content posted at IPR.

Chuck Baldwin: Hutaree Militiamen Cleared in Court

Here is Chuck Baldwin’s latest. The original can be found here.

Much to the chagrin of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a federal judge has cleared the members of a Michigan militia who were accused by federal law enforcement agents of conspiracy to commit sedition. Since you didn’t hear much about this ruling from the national press corps, here is one online version of the report:

“Seven members of a Michigan militia have been cleared of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government as a judge dismissed the most serious charges against them.

“In a shock defeat for federal authorities, District Judge Victoria Roberts said the group’s expressed hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy.

Continue reading

Chuck Baldwin: Ron Paul is the Only Presidential Candidate Who Gets It

Chuck Baldwin recently released a video endorsing Ron Paul. The content of this editorial is different from the video.

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the reaction–or better, lack of reaction–by the GOP’s Presidential candidates is a perfect example of how it will not matter to a Tinker’s Dam which Republican candidate wins the nomination, unless that candidate is Congressman Ron Paul. This is what so many people within the so-called Religious Right and establishment GOP just do not understand: they do not understand the fact that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state. They have buried their heads in the sand for so long that they wouldn’t know what tyranny looked like if it came up and bit them on their blessed assurance! They have totally drunk the propaganda Kool Aid that purports that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from the Sand People. Our Founding Fathers were a much wiser lot, of course. They understood perfectly that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from Washington, D.C., not Baghdad, or Tehran, or any other foreign entity.

Read more…

Cross posted at IPR.

Articles for your consideration

From Chuck Baldwin: “Why we chose the Flathead Valley of Montana” and “Government cannot be trusted to police itself.”

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn “Things gleaned from the Republican Debate” and “To Tyranny and Beyond…!”

Alexander Cockburn at Chronicles: “Can any of these Republicans win? Can Obama lose?”

Jack Hunter at TAC: “Radical Kirk”

Justin Raimondo:  “The Persecution of an Antiwar Blogger” at

The Second Vermont Republic’s Mission Statement

Our friend Jerry Sayler write on the “War on Raw Milk” at Front Porch Republic


(Update) “We hear you’ve been saying bad things about us!”

If you want to get into the ring, you better be able to take a punch. It’s true in politics as much as it is in boxing. Unfortunately, some can take punches better than others and then there are those who can’t take being hit at all, but like a bully insist upon dishing it out.

The Koch Brothers, the Wichita family oil barons, are a good example of the latter. They’ve been involved in the founding of the conservative movement when their father bought bulk copies of the book Conscience of a Conservative back in 1960. They helped start and finance the libertarian movement through think tanks, patronage of writers, even the Libertarian Party itself when David Koch got himself nominated as the LP vice-presidential candidate in 1980. They’ e spent and estimated $100 million on political activism. They’re publicity shy and like to remain in the background and do their political work from afar. Nothing wrong with that (if only more people did so the world would be much better off). The problem is, they don’t like people pointing all this out. Nor do they like it when persons criticize what they do, even though they have no problem criticizing others for their points of view, million of times and millions of dollars over and over again.

In fact recent criticism of the Koch for the money they gave GOP candidates last year has apparently bothered them to point where its actually degenerating into outright paranoia as this post on Politico shows:

Continue reading

Articles for your consideration

Has the 13th Amendment Brought About  True Freedom? by Robert Rohlfing

Is it time for Christians to Shred their Bibles? by Rev. Chuck Baldwin

Technological Advancements: A Path To Freedom Or a Path To Serfdom? By Robert Rohlfing

The Re-Emergence of the Neocons by SARTE

Montana Update by Rev. Chuck Baldwin

The Recession Bubble That Was Delayed by Robert Robert Rohlfing

Is it Uncle Sam or Mommie Dearest? by Robert Rohlfing

The GOP Has My Support on Bush Era Tax Rates by J.J. Jackson

You might this article from The American Prospect  interesting for it confirms from the Left what any Chronicles reader knows: culture trumps politics. Don’t believe me? Well then ask yourself how DADT was eventually repealed.

What’s Good for the Conservative Goose is Apparently not Good for the Liberal Gander

Well this is interesting. PA Gov. Rendell is “appalled”(as he should be) that an anti-terrorism task force was keeping tabs on liberal activists, and is falling all over himself to apologize. Was he equally appalled when Missouri was fingering TEA Party activist, Ron Paul supporters, and Chuck Baldwin voters as potential terrorists? I certainly don’t recall this sort of outrage about that story except on the right. And I don’t recall the Gov. of Missouri doing this kind of abject apology dance.

Chuck Baldwin is Moving to Montana

Wow! This is news to me.

I wish Pastor Baldwin luck, but I’m not sure how I feel about this. Like I’m not sure how I feel about the Free State Project or Christian Exodus. To move somewhere because there is more “freedom” there strikes me as overly ideological. One essential insight of paleoism is the value of family and community above mere abstractions. This seems like downplaying the former to seek after the later. You can’t just plunk unconnected people who are united only by an idea down anywhere and expect a coherent community to arise. Community is organic. Plus, Montana may be more “free,” but is it more Christian? The Panhandle of Florida retains much of its Southern and Bible Belt character, unlike anything below Tampa/Orlando.

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism

By Chuck Baldwin

The GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can’t seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.

You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don’t know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don’t want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, “Ron Paul”?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a “Democrat in Drag” to borrow from Steve Farrell.

Continue reading

Life of the Party

I wanted to comment on the Kevin Thompson’s leaving the CP and Red Phillips response to it. Like Red, I too believe non-major parties can be useful if they are used in the right manner and organized in the right way.

I have written about such uses for non-major parties and I agree such parties should not just use ideology as their sole building block. American political parties have alwasy been building blocks for various communities of interest. The weakest parties, you will find, are those only based on dogma and ideology. Every left-wing and right-wing splinter group can attest to that.

Actually, why leave the party at all? What law says you can’t be a member of two parties? Hmm? I am not a full member of the CP, but I affiliate with it. I also do the same with the LP and the GOP. I’m like old Raymond Burr in those Independent insurance business commercials, I don’t represent one party, I represent many.  Kevin Thompson can do so too. No one is stopping him.

Without the CP or the LP around, there’s nothing stopping the GOP from going fully neocon. The Ron Paul Movement has made extraordinary progress within the GOP since it first started in December 2006 but it still has a long way to go and there is no guarantee it will get to where its going. 

Using activists from small parties to influence a bigger one way non-major parties can be used effectively. Winning local elections, especially for non-partisan offices is another.  Influence local communities so that policy is changed from the ground up should be the main goal for non-major parties.

Too many people in this country talk about political parties in the same manner that socialists do. They hold them sacred. The Founding Fathers would have said nonsense. Non-major parties keep our political system open and fluid. Without them, we would be at the mercy of a highly centralized duopoly. For the sake of our Republic alone, we need more than two choices. Whether or not Chuck Baldwin would have made a good President, your work and my work to get him on the ballot and have him as a choice for those not wishing to hold their nose and waste a vote on McCain, was very important.

My Reply to Kevin Thompson: Third Parties are Really not About Winning but That Doesn’t Mean They are not Worthwhile

I have long been conflicted about how much effort conservatives should put into third parties (see here) because I can see both sides. As I tried to write a response to Kevin’s letter, I couldn’t keep it under several thousand words. So I will work on a large article for later publication and just answer some of his arguments briefly.

1.) First of all, as the situation regrettably currently stands the purpose of a third party is not to win. Anyone who believes that is the purpose is deluded and bound to wind up frustrated. If you want your candidate to win, or you personally want to run a winning or even competitive campaign, do so within one of the two major parties. The purpose of a third party should be first to secure ballot access, second to recruit candidates, and third to use those campaigns as platforms for informing the voters and punishing unfaithful major party candidates. In our current rigged system, ideological third parties do not exist to be serious players in electing candidates and third party activists who don’t realize this are kidding themselves. When third party and independent candidates do well, they are almost always centrist, outsider, and/or represent one of the two already existing dominant coalitions, center right conservatives or center left liberals. Successful independent and third party candidates usually have money (Ross Perot) or previously existing name recognition (Charlie Crist, Lincoln Chaffee). Ideological third parties (Libertarians, Greens, the Constitution Party) that represent more or less “purer” versions of one of the dominant coalitions almost never poll above a few percent and almost never win. (The Libertarians are a little harder than the Greens or the CP to characterize as a purer version of one of the dominant coalitions, but they are definitely an ideologically pure party relatively even though some of the “radical faction” might disagree.)

Continue reading