My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.John 10:27-28
Posted by Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Saint Mary on Monday, September 14, 2015
Friday, November 27
The Lord's Sheep
Wednesday, November 25
Will Christians Take A Ride On The Tyranny Buss?
In an analysis of Charlie Sheen's revelation that the actor is infected
with HIV, Christian social apologist Scott Alan Buss pretty much blamed
that development on all Christians.
In a column at his website FireBreathingChristian, Buss writes, “We see porn shops and strip clubs operating all across the fruited plain in direct violation of God's word.”
Those strip clubs are the fault of their owners and those that frequent them.
If you are Christian and you do not, you have nothing to answer for in regards to such smut peddling.
Even more disturbingly he writes, “We read about Muslims, witches, and even Satantists openly worshiping their false gods in the land in the name of all American/anti-Christian versions of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.”
Linked to that column is another titled “There Is No God Given Right To Worship False Gods.”
It would depend upon what is meant by that.
If that means that, after a life spent as an adherent of a false religion you go to Hell when you die, that is a correct statement.
But by that his pronouncement does Buss mean that the governing authorities should punish those advocating a perspective other than the religion officially sanctioned by those holding power?
In his condemnation of religious liberty, Buss insists that it is the epitome of statism to allow the adherents of non-Christian religions to worship publicly.
But what social institution would be charged with enforcing the law against those violating these statutes in his idealized Christian regime?
How is what he suggests little different than Iran that utilizes force, violence, and compulsion in the attempt to impose theological purity and uniformity?
The case can be made that there is less in the New Testament urging these as the preferred methods of evangelistic outrage than the long hair with which Buss is depicted in a number of photographs which Holy Writ counsels is a shame on a man.
By Frederick Meekins
In a column at his website FireBreathingChristian, Buss writes, “We see porn shops and strip clubs operating all across the fruited plain in direct violation of God's word.”
Those strip clubs are the fault of their owners and those that frequent them.
If you are Christian and you do not, you have nothing to answer for in regards to such smut peddling.
Even more disturbingly he writes, “We read about Muslims, witches, and even Satantists openly worshiping their false gods in the land in the name of all American/anti-Christian versions of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.”
Linked to that column is another titled “There Is No God Given Right To Worship False Gods.”
It would depend upon what is meant by that.
If that means that, after a life spent as an adherent of a false religion you go to Hell when you die, that is a correct statement.
But by that his pronouncement does Buss mean that the governing authorities should punish those advocating a perspective other than the religion officially sanctioned by those holding power?
In his condemnation of religious liberty, Buss insists that it is the epitome of statism to allow the adherents of non-Christian religions to worship publicly.
But what social institution would be charged with enforcing the law against those violating these statutes in his idealized Christian regime?
How is what he suggests little different than Iran that utilizes force, violence, and compulsion in the attempt to impose theological purity and uniformity?
The case can be made that there is less in the New Testament urging these as the preferred methods of evangelistic outrage than the long hair with which Buss is depicted in a number of photographs which Holy Writ counsels is a shame on a man.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 24
Will Refugee Crisis Exacerbate Obama's Messianic Psychosis?
In remarks overseas, President Obama categorized opposition or even
reluctance to admit swarms of Syrian refugees to the United States as
offensive and needing to stop.
And what if it doesn't?
The free speech of actual Americans is a higher constitutional priority than granting entrance to those who are not.
The President added, “We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic.”
Would he be as brave if he was not surrounded by multiple layers of security?
White House propagandists have developed a social media hashtag welcoming refugees.
Will these migrants --- either vetted or unvetted --- be allowed to congregate unrestricted in the vicinity of the First Family?
The President and his decreasing number of supporters in Congress insist that welcoming refugees is an American tradition.
At one point, so was marriage only being between a man and a woman.
Liberals certainly didn't mind altering that to suit their policy agenda.
In his support of flooding American cities with potentially Islamist refugees, President Obama asked are critics afraid of widows and orphans.
However, it must be remembered that Islamic societies do not necessarily gage the age of majority in the same manner as Western ones.
After all, it must be remembered that many of these savages think nothing of marrying nine year old brides and deriving carnal pleasure from them in the same manner mentally healthy men do with woman around their own age.
In an attempted compromise, a number of Republicans have suggested that perhaps a system could be implemented granting verified Christians resettlement priority.
The President insisted such a religious test was an outrage and unacceptable.
However, it is more of a humanitarian gesture than what Saudi Arabia is even extending to fellow Muslims, none of whom will be allowed into that desert kingdom but for whom mosques will be gladly built in Western lands as part of their religious obligation of planetary subjugation.
If religion is not to be taken into consideration in determining refugee status, why is the Obama administration denying it at a higher rate to Christian applicants than Islamic ones?
It is generally considered bad form at best and borderline treason at worst for Americans to criticize their nation or even its leaders while on foreign soil.
As such, shouldn't a similar standard apply to the President as well?
By Frederick Meekins
And what if it doesn't?
The free speech of actual Americans is a higher constitutional priority than granting entrance to those who are not.
The President added, “We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic.”
Would he be as brave if he was not surrounded by multiple layers of security?
White House propagandists have developed a social media hashtag welcoming refugees.
Will these migrants --- either vetted or unvetted --- be allowed to congregate unrestricted in the vicinity of the First Family?
The President and his decreasing number of supporters in Congress insist that welcoming refugees is an American tradition.
At one point, so was marriage only being between a man and a woman.
Liberals certainly didn't mind altering that to suit their policy agenda.
In his support of flooding American cities with potentially Islamist refugees, President Obama asked are critics afraid of widows and orphans.
However, it must be remembered that Islamic societies do not necessarily gage the age of majority in the same manner as Western ones.
After all, it must be remembered that many of these savages think nothing of marrying nine year old brides and deriving carnal pleasure from them in the same manner mentally healthy men do with woman around their own age.
In an attempted compromise, a number of Republicans have suggested that perhaps a system could be implemented granting verified Christians resettlement priority.
The President insisted such a religious test was an outrage and unacceptable.
However, it is more of a humanitarian gesture than what Saudi Arabia is even extending to fellow Muslims, none of whom will be allowed into that desert kingdom but for whom mosques will be gladly built in Western lands as part of their religious obligation of planetary subjugation.
If religion is not to be taken into consideration in determining refugee status, why is the Obama administration denying it at a higher rate to Christian applicants than Islamic ones?
It is generally considered bad form at best and borderline treason at worst for Americans to criticize their nation or even its leaders while on foreign soil.
As such, shouldn't a similar standard apply to the President as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 17
Southern Baptist Defending Hunting Undermines Other Christian Liberties
It would be a proverbial understatement to say that the death of Cecil
the Lion at the hands of hunters touched something in hearts and
imaginations around the world. The mark of a skilled theologian or
apologist is the ability to take nearly any subject and try to view the
topic through the lens of a Christian perspective.
The Baptist Press of the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to do this in regards to Cecil the Lion in an article titled “Lion's Death Occasions Defense Of Legal Hunting” by that news service's chief correspondent David Roach. Overall the examination of the topic was quite balanced.
On the one hand, the article recognized that the Bible allows for hunting in that man in this dispensation has permission to use the animals with which we share the world for our benefit and enjoyment. However, the article also pointed out that this activity must be undertaken only with a sense of solemnity and responsibility.
The really discerning theologian goes beyond what is plainly said to shine light on that which might not be noticed so easily.
Accompanying the text is a photo of former Southern Baptist Convention president and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Paige Patterson. The caption reads, “Paige Patterson and his son Armour killed a roam antelope during a hunt in Zambia.”
Patterson was interviewed to provide a great deal of the article's theological context. Of his analysis, one really can't find much fault.
However, it really should be pointed out that the variety of antelope depicted in the accompanying photograph aren't known for a territory that overlaps geographically with the ecclesiastical stronghold of the Southern Baptist Convention in, well, the American South. That would mean that, in order to get within rifle range of such a creature, Paige Patterson would be required to travel a considerable distance.
There is nothing inherently wrong or morally alarming about travel. It is, in fact, one of the great blessings of the contemporary era that people can travel in a matter of hours distances that in decades or centuries past would have taken days, weeks, or even months.
However, the question must be asked. With what funds did the Pattersons travel to Zambia where they recreationally killed one of God's creatures? Did these funds come out of their own pockets or were these collected under the banner of some grandiose missionary outreach effort for the purposes of reaching the lost in the forsaken corners of the Third World?
Concern over this is sparked in part over the way in which conservative Evangelicals such as Southern and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists raise funds to conduct missionary outreach. No longer is the spiel formulate, “Look at those poor savages languishing in squalor. If you could spare a little, we might be able to increase their quality of life and also try to convince them that they need Jesus rather than their heathen witchdoctor to keep them out of Hell.”
Now, the missionary bordering on the fanatical blows into your church and drums up support for their overseas expedition by laying a guilt trip on the pewfillers as to how wretched the American culture and way of life is because the Land of the Free is not characterized by these Third World deprivations. By the time that the presentation is concluded, the donations are not collected so much to better the lives of the less fortunate but rather as some kind of penance for you having committed the sin of having been born in the United States. It is almost as if you are expected to thank these foreigners for accepting your money rather than the foreigners thanking you for your willingness to give.
Even if Paige Patterson is as clean as the wind-driven snow in terms of how the funds were obtained to finance this hunting safari, the issue is not settled. For to Patterson the professional religionist, your money that you earn is not yours to do with as you please within the parameters of morality even after you tithe or slip a little into the collection plate.
Rather, much of what you have is to be at the ready disposal of your ecclesiastical betters. Patterson has insinuated as such in a number of epistolary appeals.
One of these letters is titled “Ten Things That We Owe Dr. David Platt.” These are essentially ten disturbingly cultish pledges Dr. Patterson believes Southern Baptists are obligated to undertake in relation to the denomination's International Missions Board President David Platt.
Propositions seven and eight are particularly relevant in regard to this issue at hand.
Number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and within our power.” Principle number eight spells this out in more detail as it reads, “Willingness to make sacrifices in order to extend the kingdom of our Lord...and if the gospel is to go to the people of the world, without question Southern Baptists who believe in the world mission enterprise must be prepared for even more sacrifices.”
So whereas you are expected to flagellate yourself over and over in your mind as to whether or not you really need that day trip to the beach this year, Paige Patterson and his son expended the resources necessary to fly themselves to Africa. For despite such near messianic fervor lavished upon David Platt, it is doubtful that even his most enthusiastic supporters are able to walk on water.
Those conditioned to blithely accept nearly anything done by those anointed to these ecclesiastical offices will respond that Patterson might have been among the deprived heathen as part of some grand missionary undertaking. Surely such a servant of God has earned the right to relax in a manner of his own choosing.
In an open letter addressed to Southern Baptists regarding this topic to which Patterson is a signatory, it is written, “Revivalist and church historian Lewis Drummond once asked whether we would be willing to see our country brought to its knees financially if that is what it takes for revival to come to America. This may be that day.”
What such religious leaders are saying is that they hope to see you starving in the streets in the hopes that such suffering will break your will and bring you into compliance with the ecclesiastical elites. Don't worry though. Such prominent fat cats will not only always eat well but will continue to enjoy the privileges you are obligated to deny yourself such as opulent vacations such as oh, I don't really know, perhaps HUNTING SAFARIS TO AFRICA.
It is doubtful anyone in the upper echelons of the Southern Baptist Convention eats from discount grocery chains. In fact, at one time Russell Moore penned an article sneering down his nose at those frequenting such retailers as a way to stretch their nutrition dollar. One must ask is he as critical of those that do not so much hunt as way to provide subsistence for their families but rather as an excuse trot halfway around the globe for mere pleasure?
Paige Patterson is to be commended for his balanced yet eloquent consideration of the moral complexities surrounding the hunting issue. Let us hope that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention would be less pushy in those areas of life where the explicit oracles of God do not necessarily say as much as these theologians would lead those under their teaching to believe.
By Frederick Meekins
The Baptist Press of the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to do this in regards to Cecil the Lion in an article titled “Lion's Death Occasions Defense Of Legal Hunting” by that news service's chief correspondent David Roach. Overall the examination of the topic was quite balanced.
On the one hand, the article recognized that the Bible allows for hunting in that man in this dispensation has permission to use the animals with which we share the world for our benefit and enjoyment. However, the article also pointed out that this activity must be undertaken only with a sense of solemnity and responsibility.
The really discerning theologian goes beyond what is plainly said to shine light on that which might not be noticed so easily.
Accompanying the text is a photo of former Southern Baptist Convention president and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Paige Patterson. The caption reads, “Paige Patterson and his son Armour killed a roam antelope during a hunt in Zambia.”
Patterson was interviewed to provide a great deal of the article's theological context. Of his analysis, one really can't find much fault.
However, it really should be pointed out that the variety of antelope depicted in the accompanying photograph aren't known for a territory that overlaps geographically with the ecclesiastical stronghold of the Southern Baptist Convention in, well, the American South. That would mean that, in order to get within rifle range of such a creature, Paige Patterson would be required to travel a considerable distance.
There is nothing inherently wrong or morally alarming about travel. It is, in fact, one of the great blessings of the contemporary era that people can travel in a matter of hours distances that in decades or centuries past would have taken days, weeks, or even months.
However, the question must be asked. With what funds did the Pattersons travel to Zambia where they recreationally killed one of God's creatures? Did these funds come out of their own pockets or were these collected under the banner of some grandiose missionary outreach effort for the purposes of reaching the lost in the forsaken corners of the Third World?
Concern over this is sparked in part over the way in which conservative Evangelicals such as Southern and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists raise funds to conduct missionary outreach. No longer is the spiel formulate, “Look at those poor savages languishing in squalor. If you could spare a little, we might be able to increase their quality of life and also try to convince them that they need Jesus rather than their heathen witchdoctor to keep them out of Hell.”
Now, the missionary bordering on the fanatical blows into your church and drums up support for their overseas expedition by laying a guilt trip on the pewfillers as to how wretched the American culture and way of life is because the Land of the Free is not characterized by these Third World deprivations. By the time that the presentation is concluded, the donations are not collected so much to better the lives of the less fortunate but rather as some kind of penance for you having committed the sin of having been born in the United States. It is almost as if you are expected to thank these foreigners for accepting your money rather than the foreigners thanking you for your willingness to give.
Even if Paige Patterson is as clean as the wind-driven snow in terms of how the funds were obtained to finance this hunting safari, the issue is not settled. For to Patterson the professional religionist, your money that you earn is not yours to do with as you please within the parameters of morality even after you tithe or slip a little into the collection plate.
Rather, much of what you have is to be at the ready disposal of your ecclesiastical betters. Patterson has insinuated as such in a number of epistolary appeals.
One of these letters is titled “Ten Things That We Owe Dr. David Platt.” These are essentially ten disturbingly cultish pledges Dr. Patterson believes Southern Baptists are obligated to undertake in relation to the denomination's International Missions Board President David Platt.
Propositions seven and eight are particularly relevant in regard to this issue at hand.
Number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and within our power.” Principle number eight spells this out in more detail as it reads, “Willingness to make sacrifices in order to extend the kingdom of our Lord...and if the gospel is to go to the people of the world, without question Southern Baptists who believe in the world mission enterprise must be prepared for even more sacrifices.”
So whereas you are expected to flagellate yourself over and over in your mind as to whether or not you really need that day trip to the beach this year, Paige Patterson and his son expended the resources necessary to fly themselves to Africa. For despite such near messianic fervor lavished upon David Platt, it is doubtful that even his most enthusiastic supporters are able to walk on water.
Those conditioned to blithely accept nearly anything done by those anointed to these ecclesiastical offices will respond that Patterson might have been among the deprived heathen as part of some grand missionary undertaking. Surely such a servant of God has earned the right to relax in a manner of his own choosing.
In an open letter addressed to Southern Baptists regarding this topic to which Patterson is a signatory, it is written, “Revivalist and church historian Lewis Drummond once asked whether we would be willing to see our country brought to its knees financially if that is what it takes for revival to come to America. This may be that day.”
What such religious leaders are saying is that they hope to see you starving in the streets in the hopes that such suffering will break your will and bring you into compliance with the ecclesiastical elites. Don't worry though. Such prominent fat cats will not only always eat well but will continue to enjoy the privileges you are obligated to deny yourself such as opulent vacations such as oh, I don't really know, perhaps HUNTING SAFARIS TO AFRICA.
It is doubtful anyone in the upper echelons of the Southern Baptist Convention eats from discount grocery chains. In fact, at one time Russell Moore penned an article sneering down his nose at those frequenting such retailers as a way to stretch their nutrition dollar. One must ask is he as critical of those that do not so much hunt as way to provide subsistence for their families but rather as an excuse trot halfway around the globe for mere pleasure?
Paige Patterson is to be commended for his balanced yet eloquent consideration of the moral complexities surrounding the hunting issue. Let us hope that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention would be less pushy in those areas of life where the explicit oracles of God do not necessarily say as much as these theologians would lead those under their teaching to believe.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, November 4
Southern Baptists More Condemnatory Of Trick Or Treating Than Inner City Rioting
Of Halloween, theologian Albert Mohler posted on Facebook “Christians
need to consider that there are pagan roots to many of the holidays on
our calendar, but what makes Halloween different is that it alone is a
celebration of paganism and the very attempt to recover in one means or
another those pagan roots.”
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 3
Ministries Condemning Halloween Less Than Ideal In Other Areas Of Doctrine & Practice
In an anti-Halloween sermon, a pastoress remarked how if those in
Satanic or Wiccan covens are late for a ritual, they are punished by
demonic entities. Instead of celebrating how the Christian possesses a
degree of freedom not found in spiritually counterfeit systems of
belief, the pastoress lamented lack of similar discipline in the ranks
of the true church. If one wants to be such a ramrod stickler to detail
with everything being done by the book to a fanatical degree with
little room for forgiveness, what is a woman doing being a pastor in the
first place?
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 2
Cemetery Visitation Condemned As Part Of Halloween Hysteria
In a criticism of Halloween, a pastor condemned a Scandinavian custom
where loved ones visit the graves of the departed on that day to light
candles of remembrance as a form of mourning.
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 26
Baptist Pastor Advocates The Abuse & Persecution Of Other Christians
In addressing the Oregon community college shooting, Pastor William
Strum of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina observed
in remarks posted at SermonAudio how this incident likely portends the
increasing martyrdom of believers as America becomes markedly less
Christian.
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 22
Fundamentalist Hardliner Takes A Stand Against Everything Except That Which Matters
With some of these hardline Fundamental Baptists, it seems everything must be explicitly “religious” 24/7.
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 28
Episcopal Hierarch Threatens To Undermine Immigration Law
The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland Eugene Sutton has posted a pastoral letter titled “Are Not These Our Children?”
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 16
Theoanthrocide: The Death Of God & Man
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?” Without a doubt, the twentieth century ranks among the
deadliest in all of human history and it seems the twenty-first will
likely continue this appalling legacy. This era will also be remembered
as a period of intense philosophical upheaval where the pillars of
culture and belief were shaken and in many cases even shattered. A
number of sophisticated liberals will contend that one cannot establish a
link between these sociological developments because innocents have
been slain in societies assenting to Judeo-Christian assumptions and not
every unbeliever has been an ax-wielding serial killer. Yet it cannot
be denied that in nations where the God of the Bible comes to play a
role of decreasing significance, the value placed upon human life soon
follows such a downhill plunge.
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 9
Baptist Church Mocks The Pretribulational Rapture
In a SermonAudio podcast, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in
Fayettville, North Carolina mocked those holding to a pretribulational
view of the Rapture.
It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution.
Maybe so.
But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use
of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors
suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be
coming?
Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral
negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual
teaching?
Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also
thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable.
But what about this particular congregation?
For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the
nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its
coffee bar and such make a tempting target?
For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform
the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there
isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in
front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio
profile photo.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 8
Let Hungerstrikers Starve
Ecclesiastical rabblerouser Jim Wallis went on a fast in protest over cuts to social programs in the Congressional budget.
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, September 4
Thursday, September 3
Wednesday, September 2
Are Evangelicals Too Quick To Embrace Bonhoeffer As One Of Their Own?
In a column regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer, shouldn't Cal Thomas have
been a bit more reserved in his praise of the theologian executed by the
Nazis?
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 1
Monday, August 31
Thursday, August 27
Tuesday, August 25
Monday, August 24
Is Peewee League Part Of The Darwinian Struggle?
NFL linebacker James Harrison has confiscated his sons' peewee football league participation trophies.
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 20
Wednesday, August 19
Monday, August 17
Headline Potpourri #77
If Megyn Kelly is so outraged over something Donald Trump said about
women on his network television program, why does she work for Rupert
Murdoch who has allowed media companies under his corporate oversight to
produce some bawdy and demeaning entertainment regarding women over the
years and decades? For the longest time, Married With Children was Fox
Entertainment's signature program.
Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment as to the propriety of his remarks?
Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics. But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the candidates have been fighting against for decades?
It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?
Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.
Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like, maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat of racism beating us over the head all day long.
The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think. Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.
Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female reproductive tract. One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.
In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well, President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself by his own full name.
Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.
Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.
The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional deprivations.
Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better off settling for another candidate.
The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention. Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment. However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or religious ideologies.
Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?
On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages. Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?
A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.
Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled. Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?
Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.
In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.
In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided upon by the governing authorities?
An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service. However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.
On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation?
In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.
If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?
Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?
A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing his mind.
The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret society ban this form of haberdashery as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment as to the propriety of his remarks?
Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics. But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the candidates have been fighting against for decades?
It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?
Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.
Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like, maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat of racism beating us over the head all day long.
The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think. Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.
Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female reproductive tract. One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.
In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well, President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself by his own full name.
Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.
Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.
The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional deprivations.
Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better off settling for another candidate.
The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention. Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment. However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or religious ideologies.
Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?
On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages. Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?
A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.
Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled. Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?
Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.
In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.
In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided upon by the governing authorities?
An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service. However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.
On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation?
In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.
If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?
Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?
A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing his mind.
The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret society ban this form of haberdashery as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 13
Tuesday, August 11
Should Christians Avoid Apostate Literature In All Instances?
In discussing how Christians grow over time, an Evangelical broadcaster
remarked that in going through some old books he came across a couple of
titles by Tony Campolo he had read about fifteen years ago.
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 10
Exaltation Of Southern Baptist Functionaries Grows Cultic
David Platt has been elected as the head of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board.
And with the level of blind devotion called for on the part of a number of prominent Southern Baptist personalities, things are not going to end well.
From a number of statements made by former Southern Baptist Convention President and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, it is doubtful most Roman Catholics follow the Pope as uncritically.
For example, Patterson issued an ultimatum of ten demands that Southern Baptists are expected to abide by in relation to David Platt.
For example, obligation number four reads, “Recognition that there is not a more important man in the world than the President of the International Missions Board because of his potential to touch so many lives...for God.”
In that position, Platt is essentially an administrator and bureaucrat.
Should the President of the United States be praised for the brave acts of the American soldier?
Then why praise Platt over the toils of the frontline missionary?
Another demand made by Patterson in his ultimatum is even more disturbing.
Demand number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Dr. Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and is within our power.”
Ladies and gentleman, feel free to listen to anything David Platt has to say.
However, in the final analysis, make up your own mind as to what you will do with what the Lord has given you.
You answer to the Lord Jesus Christ, not David Platt, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other organized church body.
For while David Platt is essentially teaching that anyone responding with anything less than a willingness to serve as canon fodder for God (as He no doubt whispers in Pastor Platt's ear) is a urine deprived excuse of a Christian, if Brother Patterson had had his way, the seminary Patterson heads would have opened its doors to eventual Islamist takeover.
Some will snap that these kinds of observations are inaccurate or over exaggerated.
However, nearly every cult tragedy or church abuse scandal began with these kinds of claims and admonitions suggesting how some particular leader was so far beyond the mere pewfillers in terms of spirituality who were obligated to bow at the feet of the exalted guru.
My advice to you is that it might be best to avoid Kool Aid offered either by David Platt or his more enthusiastic supporters.
By Frederick Meekins
And with the level of blind devotion called for on the part of a number of prominent Southern Baptist personalities, things are not going to end well.
From a number of statements made by former Southern Baptist Convention President and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, it is doubtful most Roman Catholics follow the Pope as uncritically.
For example, Patterson issued an ultimatum of ten demands that Southern Baptists are expected to abide by in relation to David Platt.
For example, obligation number four reads, “Recognition that there is not a more important man in the world than the President of the International Missions Board because of his potential to touch so many lives...for God.”
In that position, Platt is essentially an administrator and bureaucrat.
Should the President of the United States be praised for the brave acts of the American soldier?
Then why praise Platt over the toils of the frontline missionary?
Another demand made by Patterson in his ultimatum is even more disturbing.
Demand number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Dr. Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and is within our power.”
Ladies and gentleman, feel free to listen to anything David Platt has to say.
However, in the final analysis, make up your own mind as to what you will do with what the Lord has given you.
You answer to the Lord Jesus Christ, not David Platt, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other organized church body.
For while David Platt is essentially teaching that anyone responding with anything less than a willingness to serve as canon fodder for God (as He no doubt whispers in Pastor Platt's ear) is a urine deprived excuse of a Christian, if Brother Patterson had had his way, the seminary Patterson heads would have opened its doors to eventual Islamist takeover.
Some will snap that these kinds of observations are inaccurate or over exaggerated.
However, nearly every cult tragedy or church abuse scandal began with these kinds of claims and admonitions suggesting how some particular leader was so far beyond the mere pewfillers in terms of spirituality who were obligated to bow at the feet of the exalted guru.
My advice to you is that it might be best to avoid Kool Aid offered either by David Platt or his more enthusiastic supporters.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 3
Will Church Hopping Send You To Hell?
In a Youtube video, a pastor claimed that church hopping is a sin because it is God that places individuals in particular churches.
Then who is to say that it is not God that prompts individuals to go elsewhere?
As justification for his position condemning the practice of going from church to church, the pastor invoked the passage in Matthew 7:23 where Christ says, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
The pastor insisted that the issue was not that those surrendered to eternal damnation did not believe in Christ as Lord and Savior but rather that these workmen were ministering where they had not been assigned.
The pastor further taught that the individual believer is not cleared to find another church until God tells the PASTOR that it is time for you to leave.
And I guess, when the pastor tells you to drink the funny-smelling Kool Aid that burns as it goes down, you are expected to remain in the church for that as well.
Contrary to this podcast under consideration, if you leave one church to go to another, you shouldn't have to give an elaborate reason why.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, July 28
Certain Evangelicals Overreact To AD Miniseries
In an analysis of the AD miniseries, Pastor Randy White on the “Standing For The Truth” podcast split a theological hair so fine that is doubtful that even an angel could dance across it. He insisted that a drama or a painting of a Gospel event is not a presentation of the Gospel.
At best, according to White, such is merely the presentation of an historical event even if integral to the Gospel. As justification, White invoked the Apostle Paul whom White alleges did not rehash these events but went on to emphasize Christ crucified and risen as the Savior of the world.
St. Francis is attributed with saying preach the Gospel and if you must use words. Though with the anti-Catholic attitude often elicited in the consideration of this drama, it is doubtful his admonition will be positively considered.
An important question to consider here is what is this pastor really concerned about. At times, it sounds primarily to be about the job security of the professional clergy and their relevance in the context of the missiological encounter.
No balanced person in favor of the series is saying that exposure to the drama is all that is required to drag the soteriological ball into the end zone of salvation.
If God did not intend our faith to be founded on a basis of history, why were we given the Gospels? Perhaps of even greater curiosity would be why bother with vast stretches of the Old Testament at all?
For while many Christians insist that they abide by all of Scripture, they'd probably tell you that while scarfing down pork barbecue with a big mess of crabs.
Pastor White insists that, in terms of outreach, the believer is better off going to one's neighbor and sharing what Christ has done in your life.
That might have been an effective approach in a previous era. However, for better or worse, this is an era where the visual will likely have as much impact on the individual as the conversationally verbal.
Furthermore, I am not particularly all that interested in what Jesus has allegedly done for you per say, especially if there is little chance of distinguishing that from transient indigestion (the old Mormon burning in the bosom) or fluctuating biochemistry.
I for one, if I was an unbeliever, would be more concerned if the objective historical accounts detailing the Crucifixion and Resurrection actually happened and the conclusions drawn by the eyewitnesses and their immediate contemporaries universally binding irrespective of ones temporal circumstances.
In his exposition, Pastor White asserted that dramatic presentation of these events are just so problematic in that the possibility exists for the director, playwrite, or screenwriter to leave things out or to embellish that which ought to be downplayed.
But isn't that also true of sermons and testimonies as well?
What pastor hasn't invoked Scripture in ways to buttress their own opinion or interpretation to appear as if it was handed down at Sinai as part of the stone tablets?
Perhaps an even greater danger are those eagerly plying the techniques of the “Look What Jesus Has Done For Me” School Of Evangelism.
That approach might be able to draw in a number of the hurting.
But sometimes those accounts are so fanciful that a fledgling faith or even one that is longstanding could suffer profound harm if the individual exposed to these stories does not experience the intervention of God in such a tangibly overpowering or life-altering manner.
Though a single sin is sufficient to alienate the individual from God for eternity, not everyone's life was as screwed up as the average drug addict, wife beater, or pornstar.
Granted, those that have not fallen into these temptations should not go around like the proud Pharisee displaying for applause how grateful they are that they are not like other men.
But that said, shouldn't the church also be just as cautious in the other extreme that lavishes increasing rewards and benefits such as book deals and speaking engagements upon the repentant reprobate that can craft the most titillating tale of carnality and debauchery provided Jesus rushes in at the last second to rescue to rescue the teller from utter damnation?
With the brand of Christianity most openly opposed to the AD Miniseries, there is no winning. Such critics seem to enjoy playing an unending game of vocational gotcha in condemnation of those not part of the ministerial in crowd.
For example, it is claimed rightfully so that all talents should be utilized in honor of the Lord and for the furtherance of His kingdom in pursuit of the lost.
However, as soon as a believer or even those inclined to a traditional brand of spirituality attempt to do so through a modality or medium that might be morally acceptable but which might not be suited for a traditional church service, these hypertraditionalists rank among the first to poopoo such artistic efforts.
Pastor Randy White in the broadcast went out of his way to denigrate the accompanying DVD and online studies released in conjunction with the miniseries.
He insisted that the true pastor needs nothing more than his Bible, and not the Internet, to prepare a sufficient sermon addressing these kinds of matters.
Interestingly, was it not the Internet that Pastor White turned to to warn those beyond the boundaries of his own congregation of the allure of seductive entertainments?
In criticism of the AD miniseries, often those the most rigorously opposed have seemed to have more to say about those either producing or promoting the drama than about the actual contents of the narrative.
For example, of particular concern is not only the Roman Catholicism of Roma Downey but that the particular strand that she is an adherent of borders upon the New Age in terms of its beliefs and practice.
But ought the primary concern to be instead the extent to which these might have infiltrated the dramatic presentation?
Pastor White and the Standing For The Truth hosts were noticeably critical of reputable Evangelicals that decided to promote or endorse the miniseries.
Particular ire was directed at pastor and Christian broadcaster David Jeremiah.
White insisted that any good David Jeremiah might have accomplished is undermined and perhaps even nullified by the questionable alliances and affiliations promoting this production.
Does this also apply to Pastor White in terms of his questionable affiliations as well?
At his website, Pastor White admits to being a Southern Baptist though a disgruntled one.
Does he not trust God enough to come out of and to be ye separate if that is the advice he seems to bestow upon everybody else?
Admittedly, the AD miniseries was far from perfect.
However, in this day where the culture is declining more and more to resemble the era in which this disputed narrative takes place, one would think certain Evangelicals would be a bit more pleased that there are a few in the entertainment industry at least willing to consider the only cure for this spreading decadence even if they do not agree to the details around the edges.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 27
Is Huckabee Any More Egotistical Than Pastors Complaining About His Ego?
The pastoral round table of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina snidely remarked in a podcast posted at SermonAudio that Mike Huckabee was only running for name recognition and had no chance of winning the presidency.
That raises a number of observations.
I'm not much of a Huckabee fan.
I possess an aversion to those that insist that the government should track the weight of your children in the name of national security when they themselves possess progeny pushing the 300 pound mark.
However, according to these pastors, are we to take away the impression that whether or not we attempt something should be determined by standards of earthly success?
Secondly, which of the candidates isn't running for some degree of recognition?
What in life isn't done in pursuit of that if only from one other person or even from God Almighty?
When you come down to it, one of the primary reasons people reproduce is so that their name will continue on after they are dead.
Name recognition, in part, is why many get involved in ministry.
Sure, there is the desire to spread the Gospel.
But doesn't even this church posting the comments in question have its name attached as well as those of the participating pastors?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 24
Will Crypto-Progressives Undermine Fundamentalism's Patriotic Nature?
Attempting to maintain their affectation that they are too cool for school (or perhaps in their case church), the pastoral council of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina in a SermonAudio podcast weighed in once again on the assorted flag debates breaking out across America.
Previously, the leadership of this congregation in the heart of Dixie came out firmly against the Confederate Flag.
However, this headlong march into a globalist progressivism did not stop there.
For the pastor, who doesn't seem to mind shoving mention of his distinguished military career in your face when he thinks the invocation of such should earn him some due deference, mentioned that he was not too keen on Christians swearing allegiance to the American flag either.
In his tirade, the minister propagated the impression that Old Glory does not necessarily represent the higher values upon which the nation rests but rather whatever regime might be holding power at any given moment.
But even Christians now trying to get their priorities in order while retaining a place of honor for the American flag but in subordination to the Christian flag are not immune from this particular church's derision and contempt.
In the analysis of a church that flies the Christian flag in this manner, it was snorted that doing so might cause offense and that God does not need a flag.
Should an activist Jew travel by Pastor Sean Harris' church and not want to be bothered by the sight of a steeple, should his congregation rush to take that symbol down as well to eagerly comply with the tyranny closing in around them?
After all, God doesn't require a steeple either.
There is nothing in Scripture about churches holding expansive properties rivaling some shopping centers or even small amusement parks in size.
God is perfectly fine with small bands meeting in tiny churches or even catacombs.
Does that mean Pastor Harris and his dutiful sidekicks are going to gleefully applaud the seizure of their building for the establishment of an atheist museum as occurred in the case of the former Soviet Union or perhaps the erection of a gay pride center which might be more fitting in light of the particular variety of carnality and licentious unbelief epidemic to this particular moment in history?
One of the assistant pastors confessed that he was not comfortable pledging to a Christian flag either.
Then shouldn't we be leery of making all sorts of church membership vows and pledges when these are mentioned no where in the pages of Scripture?
Perhaps one of the most interesting things about a church that is taking such a public stance against the American flag is that on its SermonAudio profile page there is a picture of that church building where there isn't simply a single tasteful flagpole with the national ensign flying in front of the church but rather at least four or five American flags.
It was argued in the exposition in condemnation of flags that a sanctuary should be laid out and adorned in such a fashion that a Christian from a foreign land (Palestine was given as an example) would not be offended by any potential Americana such as the flag.
Christian or not, if a Palestinian comes into an American church and gets jacked out of shape at explicitly American paraphernalia, he can slink back to his Third World terrorist-sympathizer excrement pile.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 23
Hardline Homeschoolers Hint Jurassic World Lures Children Into Idolatry
It was observed in a Christian podcast on media consumption that, if children watch a movie Friday night, in all likelihood they will want to watch a movie on Saturday night as well.
And the problem is?
Most people are awake between 12 and 18 hours per day.
Does all of that time need to be focused on direct Bible study or related religious exercises?
This is an especially valid question if they are going to get a big dose of church the next day anyway?
It was suggested in this Christian podcast that, if children talk more about Jurassic World than the “things of God”, this is possibly a symptom that they might be slipping into idolatry.
But could it also be that God designed children to be more fascinated by dinosaurs than potluck suppers or lengthy meditative expositions where they are ordered to sit with heads bowed and eyes closed pretending to have a conversation where honestly the deity does not respond directly?
Call me a heathen, but a T-rex battling it out with a velociraptor is just more exciting than a lengthy exposition on someone's mechanic's accountant's taxidermist's bunion removal.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, July 18
Four Out Of THE FIVE Duped By Papal Environmentalism
That was certainly a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
The other pundits lambasted fellow talkinghead Greg Gutfeld for excoriating Pope Francis for perpetuating a dangerous anti-capitalist mindset.
The others attempted to persuade Gutfeld that what the Pope really opposed was simply materialism and greed.
In the next segment, these very same media elites who already possess more than the Pope would allow under his regime of global asceticism and income redistribution bemoaned that the bargains offered during Amazon's twentieth anniversary sale didn't exactly live up to the hype as they had hoped.
When Gutfeld pointed out that Amazon wouldn't even be available if innovation was restricted to levels suggested by Pope Francis, he was ordered to give it a break and that he was in danger of hellfire for simply countering the Pope in an area outside of that position's narrow area of expertise.
However, the only thing that puts you in danger of hellfire is if you believe that something other than calling upon name of the Lord Jesus Christ can possibly keep you from there.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 13
Headline Potpourri #75
The first Black person selected as head bishop of the Episcopal Church reflected that selecting him for the position in large part because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character reflects the deepening spirituality of his denomination. So when will the Africa Methodist Episcopal Church or the National Baptist Convention will deepen its own spirituality by selecting their own leader largely for having simply been born White?
Wonder if any of the NBC executives severing the network's relationship with Donald Trump have Hispanics in their neighborhoods that blast music well past midnight.
Why are bakeries allowed to deny Confederate flag cakes under freedom of expression and conscience but doing so in regards to sodomite wedding cakes can result in financial ruination and compulsory reeducation?
If gays wanted a Confederate wedding cake, could Walmart be sued if the corporation failed to comply with the request?
In the launch of his presidential campaign, Chris Christie assures that compromise is not a dirty word. But with gay marriage legalized, the healthcare industry hobbled and the Confederate flag banished, there isn't much left to compromise on.
Rand Paul suggests that, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, the relational institution should be privatized. How does that protect a Christian baker from being compelled to bake wedding cakes against their will? Relatedly, as a heterosexual, even if granting marriage licenses to same sex couples demeans the institution overall, how would it compromise the state of you own union if you as a heterosexual acquires a marriage license under this expanded judicial mandate? If you don't love your spouse to a sufficient extent isn't that more your own fault rather than the state recognition of marriage being extended to those that should not have it?
For decades, Christians offended by something culturally were chided that they were not required to gaze upon that which they found disagreeable. Are minority activists some how inferior in terms of their mental aptitude and emotional constitution that they are not able to abide by similar counsel in regards to the Confederate flag and war memorials?
If there is a cultural obligation to take down statues erected in honor of valiant Confederates, why not the statue erected in honor of infamous deadbeat Michael Brown?
A NOAA study claims that firework displays spark a spike in air pollution. Does this occur just during festivities where the Declaration of Independence is celebrated? Or does this also include other celebrations where pyrotechnics are deployed to commemorate occasions such as Hispanic Heritage Month or municipal International Festivals that celebrate nearly every ethnicity imagination with the exception of those White in origin.
The Ten Commandments monument must be removed in Oklahoma because it might unfairly advantage one religion over another. So when it comes to the bombing of the Federal Building in that state, Timothy McVeigh's worldview deserves an equal hearing with the suggestion of “Thou shalt not murder”.
Greg Gutfeld griping about how watching pointless videos and trivialities does not bring real satisfaction and we should instead do productive things. So does that mean we should switch off his po-mo Sunday evening broadcast? Why should drunkard Greg Gutfeld get worked up if people spend time watching cat videos?
So when Donald Trump rants against the Chinese it is evidence of how radical and dangerous the Republicans are. But when these people rant against cheap imported food, we are supposed to applaud that as progressivity and Enlightenment.
So if broads watch this movie about male strippers, on what grounds do they gripe if a man gawks at a woman's bosom when they are shoved in the face?
George Takei has said that Clarence Thomas is a clown in Black face that should not be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. For suggesting that the swarms of illegals pouring over the border might not be the best that Latin America has to offer, a systematic campaign is underway to economically destroy Donald Trump. Clarence Thomas has fulfilled the requirements to be where he is. Irrespective of what Donald Trump said, those he said it of have no right to be here. Therefore, shouldn't George Takei be ostracized in a similar manner? The Duke's of Hazard has been removed from the airwaves under the theory that catching a glimpse of the Confederate flag painted on the roof of the General Lee might send a viewer into a homicidal rampage. Should Star Trek also be removed from station programming rotations for fear of seeing George Takei eliciting a similarly psychotic response?
The Dukes Of Hazard was removed from the airwaves because of those allegedly victimized by the Confederate flag or merely offended by it. Extrapolating from the logic, shouldn't Shark Week broadcasts be canceled out of respect for those mangled and disfigured in attacks along the Atlantic coastline?
Regarding those mocking the man that sued his anesthesiologist for mocking his privates during a colonoscopy and won a sizable settlement. Would they call for such leniency if it had been a male doctor ridiculing a woman's privates?
In a sermon posted at his blog titled, “Why It's Time To Exchange Our Civil Religion For A Cross”, Southern Baptist functionary Russell Moore scolds those that invoke a form of godliness for the purposes of molding the kinds of citizens necessary to uphold the American Republic. But how is that markedly different than his invocation of Christianity to support the abolition of the Confederate flag?
In a sermon on marriage, to those wishing that their marital unions could be better, a pastor said that all you really deserve is an eternity in Hell so you should be nothing but elated over anything else. By this standard, even if the pastor instructed how one ought to treat one's spouse, on what grounds would an abused wife be allowed to complain about a husband that keeps her locked in a cage and subjects her to nightly beatings? For as terrible as that sounds, it's still better than the eternal damnation threshold is it not?
If Jeb Bush is going to rush forward to insist that a percentage of illegals aren't criminals and deadbeats is he going to insist as eagerly that most supporters of the Confederate flag aren't racists or mass murderers?
A meme regarding the series AD reads, “Do you remember that story in the Book of Acts where Saul of Tarsus attacks and burns down the Christian commune that was living on Barnabas' land?” The meme replies, “Neither do we. The AD miniseries is historical and religious fiction. Don't rely on it to teach you anything accurate about Christianity.” The production is, indeed, a work of historical fiction. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. What the narrative attempts to do is to use the events described in the Biblical record as a springboard to postulate about moments that weren't detailed in the divine revelation but which do not necessarily contradict or violate it. Since Saul persecuted the early Christians, he might have very well participated in a similar kind of raid. Too many Christians (hardcore Protestant especially) seem to demand a depiction of Scripture about as peppy as a dozing octogenarian having missed their scheduled dosage of Ovaltine.
If Sanctuary Cities can get by with flouting federal immigration law when the Constitution gives the national government primary authority in regards to this statutory area, will jurisdictions that refuse to authorize gay marriage be as celebrated for standing by their principles in regards to an area of law that was intended to be defined primarily by the individual states?
Bush lackey Ari Fleischer insists that Donald Trump is not a credible candidate for the presidency. Maybe not. But isn't the real estate tycoon more of a statesman for speaking out plainly regarding an issue with the potential to ruin the United States and to catalyze the nation's ultimate collapse? All that the establishmentarian candidates suggested by the likes of Fleischer offer is a continued policy of acceptance and tolerance that threatens our very survival.
Morgan Freeman is narrating a public service announcement extolling Pope's Francis' environmental philosophy. Will he also narrate one celebrating traditional Roman Catholic social teaching regarding monogamous heterosexual marriage?
If the son of Paula Dean is to be condemned for wearing dark makeup as part of a Ricky Ricardo Halloween costume, does that mean Star Trek should be removed from the air because Ricardo Montebhan played a shade darker down the racial pigmentation chart in portraying Khan Singh when Montebahn is of a Spanish descent while Khan was from the Indian subcontinent?
Will those jacked out of shape about a church flying a Christian flag over an American flag get as worked up over the sodomite ensign being allowed to fly on military bases?
The same ones getting jacked out of shape about a church flying a Christian flag above an American flag probably rank among those that would look on approvingly as Black Lives Matter subversives set an American flag ablaze.
At least the church that flew the Christian flag above the American flag has an American flag on the property. Some churches are so spineless these days they won't even have an American flag for fear it will prevent the congregation from being taken over by Third Worlders.
If one man can now decide to marry another, aren't we really past the point of getting jacked out of shape if a church decides to fly the Christian flag above the American flag as a display of how they order the priority of their authorities?
An immigrant restaurant owner is threatening to pull out of the Post Office Pavilion redevelopment project as a result of Donald Trump's comments. If Mexico is such a wonderful place with nothing but first rate people, why did this migrant come here rather than live out his life in an alleged Third World paradise?
Now that the Confederate flag has been for all intensive purposes banished from polite society, will radical Black activists return to civilized behavior? Or will they grow even more violent in terms of their rampages following court verdicts, law enforcement tactical decisions, and even sporting event outcomes over which they experience intense emotion having seen how quickly White leaders cave into these kinds of demands?
So if gays can compel Christian businesses to render services in support of their blasphemous nuptials, shouldn't insurance companies be compelled to render financial services to churches opposed to gay marriage?
Because of a single homicidal lunatic, the nation is expected to get onboard a frenzy to banish the Confederate flag from this land. Therefore, shouldn't the death of an American citizen at the hands of a felonious illegal alien deported multiple times spark as much effort on the part of elected officials and business leaders to repel back over the border the transnational migrants violating this established boundary?
Regarding the young woman murdered by an illegal alien on the streets of San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi pronounced that we must prevent easy access to firearms. Since the weapon used to perpetrate this crime belonged to a federal agent, does that mean that law enforcement must also be disarmed?
From a local newspaper, sounds like another farmer's market is planned for the area. The ones in the area already seem to be in decline with ugly hippies seeming to outnumber the produce. So why are the fried doughnuts and the smelly slop prepared on site by the foreigners in their food trucks really any healthier than the McDonald's down the street?
I voted Donald Trump in a GOP straw pole. There are things that disturb me profoundly regarding the real estate mogul. However, I agree nearly wholeheartedly with his remarks regarding illegal immigration. This threat to our culture, sovereignty, and very survival is not going to be resolved by keeping quiet about it. Even in the days as Rome fell, from the impression one takes away, at least they seemed to take pride to some degree that they were Roman. The elites here seem hellbent on eradicating traditional conceptions of the American identity from the listing of the nations of the world.
Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has labeled Donald Trump as Narcissist In Chief. No doubt Trump's lifestyle skewers a bit to the ostentatious end of the luxury spectrum. But mind you, Wallis is of the variety of liberal that makes gaudy public pronouncements bemoaning name calling and insults should he hear something similar emanate from talk radio. Donald Trump might indeed be self-absorbed. But less so than the Occupy Movement deadbeats Wallis suggested that churches open their doors to shelter these vagabonds as they traveled from protest to protest as if on some kind of spiritual pilgrimage. Donald Trump was disciplined enough to build a business empire. The Occupy subversives didn't even possess the ability to control their bowels in public or the courtesy not to defile churches.
The sheriff of San Francisco says that, as a father, he is outraged that some would dare invoke the death of an American citizen at the hands of an illegal alien to question the policy of Sanctuary Cities. What in the name of Sheol does his having reproduce have to do with any of this?
A social media status update posted by the Western Journalism Center read “'Like' if you think we need a candidate like Ronald Reagan in the White House." But didn't Regan play a part in getting the ball rolling in terms of surrendering to the illegal aliens and the authorization of the assorted Executive Orders that could institute a near totalitarian police state with the flick of a pen?
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is being heralded as courageous for having the Confederate flag at the state house removed. But is it really an act of courage to get on board with a demand that will eventually result with riots in the streets if it is not complied with or result in the end of one's political career if an elected official does not obey a direct order of one's Illuminati handlers?
Of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics & Public Policy Center warned in a National Review Online column that the purpose of such a regulation is “to undo America's system of local government and replace it with a regional alternative that turn suburbs into helpless satellites of large cities.” To put that into words many will be able to relate to, the Obama regime is establishing the framework where your adolescent offspring will eventually be subjected to a lottery where the selected will be required to battle one another to the death in televised gladiatorial amusements. May the odds forever be in your favor.
By Frederick Meekins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)