Friday, December 30, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
In fact, confusion over it and related concepts can be found at the heart of many of the disputes and issues tearing at the fabric of the early twenty-first century world. In “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek analyze why it actually requires more effort to remain an unbeliever and provide a number of tools the Christian can utilize to defend the faith in hostile situations before skeptical audiences.
Often, Christianity is downplayed and its influence minimized by secularists in the broader culture through the claim that the system is not objective. From this conjecture, critics diverge into two branches.
Older Modernists will argue that their perspective, superficially free of any prior faith commitments and extolling science as the ultimate foundation for truth, is the only objective viewpoint. Postmodernists, having grown weary of maintaining such a facade, dump the illusion of objectivity all together by postulating that every perspective is merely a matter opinion with no viewpoint being any more universally authoritative than any other. In “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek endeavor to show how Christianity is the best faith alternative for successfully balancing the tensions between the objective and the subjective.
Whether the detached skeptic --- often holding a tenured university chair --- wants to admit it or not, everyone (including himself) holds to some kind of religious position. In their analysis, Geisler and Turek classify religious worldviews into the three broad categories of Theism, Pantheism, and Atheism (23).
The authors define the first category of Theism as the belief that a personal God created the universe but that He is distinct from it. Examples of theistic belief systems include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The second worldview category is Pantheism, the idea that the universe as a mystical totality is God. To better understand this and the differences with Theism, Geisler and Turek provide the following example.
In Theism, God is analogous to an artist and the universe His distinct artistic work that is separate from Him but with which He interacts. In Pantheism, God is the painting. Major pantheist faiths include Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age movement.
The third worldview category is Atheism, which denies the existence of God and often a spiritual or immaterial component of reality all together. Under this category, Geisler and Turek have included Religious Humanism because --- even though differentiated from its secularist cousin in that it gives lip service to the existence of a power beyond the material realm --- Religious Humanism still looks to man rather than God as the final authority.
The Modernist and the Postmodernist have further skewered the discussion in their favor by creating barriers between the notions of belief and facts. Geisler and Turek write, “Despite its apparent persuasiveness, the claim that religion is simply a matter of faith is nothing more than a modern myth --- it’s just not true. While religion certainly requires faith, religion is not only about faith. Facts are also central to all religions because all religious worldviews --- including atheism --- make truth claims, and many of those truth claims can be evaluated through scientific and historical investigation (23).”
There is indeed a degree of correlation between what a person believes and the world beyond the self. One only needs to point out that insane asylums and mental wards are full of people who for various reasons and as a result of assorted circumstances have had their minds severed from reality. And though we as a society must exercise vigilance and even vociferously oppose those who would infringe upon the freedom and dignity of those whose outlooks run counter to prevailing perceptions but do not pose a definitive bodily harm to those around them, Christians should advocate for their worldview as the perspective that best harmonizes the inner and outer worlds.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, December 23, 2016
She has been accused of spoiling her offspring and even abusing them.
Busybodies in both the social and mainstream media have decreed that she should instead teach her children about the true meaning of Christmas by redirecting the gifts towards charity.
Perhaps the amount spent is a bit excessive.
But is it PROPER (to invoke a term the British like to articulate) to invoke the specter of abuse?
For in overly regulated quasi-police states such as the United Kingdom, the phrase “abuse” usually serves as the bureaucratic pretext to justify intervening in a home for the purposes of subjecting a family to a variety of investigative and surveillance techniques.
Have the British become so totalitarian as to produce actuarial tables detailing what number of presents are allowed before anti-social tendencies begin to set in?
And if it is unacceptable for a parent to spend $1800 at Christmas, why is it acceptable for the Queen to have so many corgis or Prince Charles to have an even greater number of sports cars despite his insistence that he is an environmentalist?
Gifts piled high probably aren't the meaning of Christmas.
But neither is the Pavolian reflex endemic throughout Northern European social democracies that what the nanny state decrees to be excess wealth should be confiscated and bestowed upon the chronically destitute with no strings attached.
It has been claimed that the extravagance $1800 can accumulate will spoil these children.
But what about those making their livelihoods from institutionalized penury demanding increasingly sophisticated levels of luxury instead of expressing a modicum of gratitude for what private or public generosity they have been extended?
Are BBC “news readers” interviewing academics or policy analysts warning of the dangers that might take place as result of too many unearned entitled programs?
Anyone doubting the legitimacy of such a concern or observation only needs to be reminded of the British jihadist born of immigrant parents that not only murdered a member of that nation's armed forces in a ditch alongside the road but also proudly uploaded a video glamorizing the shocking atrocity.
Perhaps that is the subversive element that this concern regarding the consequences of incorrectly reared youth ought to be focused.
By Frederick Meekins
On Christmas morning many will go around bragging about all of the gifts they have received and share with everyone the things they have been given. It seems however, that there is one gift many forget to mention. It is the best and most perfect gift of all. It didn’t come to us by a fat man driving a sleigh pulled by reindeer. It came to us in a manger over two thousand years ago. It is a gift that once we receive it, is always ours, but at the same time it is one that we must share and give to others. What is this gift that I speak of some may wonder? It is the gift of the greatest news ever, the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The world, however, has rejected God, His teachings, and His Son. All you have to do is look around and see how dark and evil a place the world is. A majority of the world has embraced to false teachings and lies of the “god of this world” (see 2 Corinthians 4:4). It has embraced with open arms such evils as homosexuality and the form of mass murder and serial killing known as abortion. We have seen this very same ungodliness finding its way into the church and even into the clergy itself, corrupting the 100% pure teachings of God, under the guise of tolerance, progressiveness, Etc.
This Christmas season, as we all should be doing with every day, we need to stand up against this evil and share with those who are lost in the world and its ways, the gift that God has given us. We must tell the world of the true teachings of God as found in the Holy Bible. We must rebuke all false teachings, no matter how innocent they may see, to be.
As Christians, that have been born-again in the blood of Christ, we must stand up against false teachings and expose them for what they are (see Ephesians 5:11; Ephesians 5:6-13; Romans 16:17; Titus 1: 13). We must continue to resist the devil and all of his works in all we say, think, and do (see James 4:7).
We must all stand firm and never under any circumstance compromise of the Word of God. We must be completely loyal to Him, especially for all He has done for us. He gave His one and only Son for us, so we must be willing to do all for Him. This Christmas season we must go forward and share with an unbelieving world what the one and only true meaning and purpose of Christmas is for and about.
No matter what may come in our way we must do as command by Christ Himself, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28: 19).
May God watch over and bless each and every one of you. Share the gift that God has given you. Each time you share this gift with others it will always give back to you.
Dr. Bradley Carey
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Monday, December 19, 2016
Saturday, December 17, 2016
One hundred activists have been arrested in Rotterdam for demonstrating in the streets against a fictitious character named “Black Pete”.
For those having no idea who that is, in Scandinavian folklore Black Pete is the sidekick of Santa Claus. But instead of distributing toys and treats, Black Pete dispenses punishment in the form of the dreaded lumps of coal in the stocking.
Tolerancemongers are tossing their typical tizzy because Black Pete is depicted with a blackened face, red lips, and what is perceived as an Afro wig.
One theory holds this is because Pete is believed to be a Spanish Moor while others insist it is simply because he is covered in soot as a result in trafficking in hydrocarbon residue.
It is claimed such a depiction is racist.
Before this subversive impulse dissipates, these radicals bent on tearing down centuries of Western tradition (as Black Pete's supporters insist that the character is part of their cultural heritage as an integral component of their Christmas tradition) will condemn the Santa motif in its entirety for imposing the standards of the chronologically advanced upon the recently nascent.
After all, who are the bourgeoisie to impede the vanguard destined to bring change and transformation through violent upheaval?
If defenders of the Western way of life do not say enough is enough, soon it will be more than those expressions of culture formulated in less socially aware times on the line.
For example, elsewhere in Western Europe at a Woolworth's store in Germany, Christian decorations were removed just days after they were put up.
The reason given was that the retail establishment was now a “Muslim store”.
Die hard freemarketeers of the sort that think that it is a good thing when pewee athletic coaches berate the kids and even smack them around a little will likely respond that a merchant should be allowed to sell whatever the business desires. That is of course unless the products in question that an establishment doesn't want to sell happen to be birth control related and then suddenly the concept of proprietary discretion is tossed into the conceptual remainder pile.
But do not customers have the right to demand that assorted enterprises provide desired goods and services?
If the heathen can pour across the frontiers of the West demanding under threats of and actually committed acts of violence demanding that these besieged populations alter a variety of longstanding norms and practices, the civilized peoples of the Earth are well within their own rights to withhold financial patronage of such non-responsive merchants.
If Woolworth's fails to comply, perhaps that name in Europe will become like it is across large swaths of North America as a defunct retailer relegated to the proverbial annals of business history and remembered little more by a quickly depleting pool of shoppers.
It should be interesting to see if this alliance between multiculturalists and free market purists will remain united and intact regarding a development in Saudi Arabia.
It was announced there that the private schools for internationals residing within that particular Islamic kingdom would be forbidden from celebrating Christmas.
The prohibition even forbade schools from even altering examination dates in the attempt to give students a bit of a surreptitious break.
Will there be similar outcry from the voices insisting that celebrations in primarily Christian and Caucasians lands must be altered for the purposes of establishing the ballyhooed safe spaces for minorities and that whatever choices these protected demographics might make within their own COMMUNITIES must be affirmed in a celebratory fashion by the broader society?
The Constitution warns that enemies can be both foreign and domestic.
As such, one of the most pernicious of threats is this paradoxical situation where many of diversity's most enthusiastic acolytes demand that we as Americans eliminate the cultural expressions of the faith that has guided the nation throughout much of its history while looking favorably upon the very creed whose most fanatic practitioners have few qualms about physically mutilating those with whom they disagree.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, December 16, 2016
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Monday, December 12, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
That in no way prevented the expositor from invoking the text in the attempt to beat the listener over the head with any number of assorted guilttrips.
In the story, Abraham details for the servant the process to find a bride for Issac.
Of this, the homilist remarked that Abraham showed more faith in his servant than most modern Christians do in their pastor.
To craft an appropriately contextualized phrase, what does that have to do with the price of petroleum in the Levant?
In the case of Abraham and Issac, this was to be the genetic line that would result in the Israelite people in general and the Messiah in particular.
However, any Baptist worth his communion grape juice will admit that God for whatever reason does not intervene as explicitly at this point along the time line of redemptive history.
Anyone desiring this degree of pastoral oversight in their lives to the point of selecting the spouses of their children is only asking for trouble on par with the cult tragedies of Jonestown, Waco, and Heaven's Gate.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, December 09, 2016
Interesting. A homicidal tyrant that has in effect built a wall of security for the purposes of keeping his people imprisoned is praised by typical liberals but a president elect that promised to keep out those having no right to be here is the first place is condemned.
There are two suspected assailants in the attack on an Ohio college campus. Wonder how long until the unapprehended second attacker disappears into the ether and his existence vociferously denied to the point of law enforcement threatening violence against witnesses continuing to insist otherwise?
It was alleged on a Christian talk radio program that those on the Right are often guilty of arguing from the extreme. So does that mean come next October this ministry won't rant and rave that children that Trick or Treat are prone to becoming Satanists or practicing witches?
A pastor remarked that it is humanocentric to be worried about people going to Hell and theocentric to be concerned that God is not receiving the worship that He deserves. Maybe so. But if this was God's primary concern, perhaps He shouldn't have created sentient beings so aware of or motivated by pain and misery.
A pastor remarked that, in order to destroy the idol of materialism, the Christian must become a giver. Wonder if the pastor would sing the same tune if the philanthropy was directed towards any worthwhile charitable effort but the one he administers or others in his theological or ideological orbit.
In a sermon against idolatry, a pastor said that, during the holiday season, the congregation was being provided with a list of organizations to which they should consider giving in the attempt to squelch the influence of materialism over their lives. The catch was that this eleemosynary was not to come their usual tithe or offering. In other words, the minister was insistent that he still wanted his usual cut of the usual proceeds.
In a sermon, Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church remarked in reference to John D. Rockerfeller that anyone that gave away 60% of their income couldn't be an idolater. I cannot necessarily speak to the state of John D. Rockerfeller's soul. However, the pastor's conclusion doesn't necessarily fly. For example, having all that one could desire in terms of possessions, often those of immense wealth fund an assortment of organizations for the purposes of advancing their own reputations or to remake society in compliance with their particular image. Likewise, what about Communist revolutionaries that might forgo the accumulation of personnel possession for their particular cause? They might not wallow in luxury, but they are no less materialistic as the most debauched hedonist. After all, the philosophy underlying Communism is itself called dialectical materialism.
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser lamenting the strain caused by increasing numbers of indigents streaming into the city because of its generous social welfare benefits wants to tighten the residency requirements that must be met before shelter is offered. So how is such a proposal appreciably different than Trump wanting to toughen border security for assorted reasons? And if bleeding heart liberals want to maintain the distinction, why are foreigners more deserving of American assistance than actual Americans?
On The Five, Greg Gutfeld says most prefer community to calamity. From my experience, each of these is pretty much identical.
A pastor warned that your spouse or your children can become an idol in that an idol is anything that can compete with your affection for God. If a pastor fails to list the organized church among that warming, there is the likelihood that the pastor has made an idol of formalized religion.
A pastor complained that, for every $100, the average Christian gives only $2.50. The remark must no doubt mean into the offering plate. But if we are going to operate under the assumption that the family is the first and foremost charity, isn't every dollar a parent spends to take care of a child in essence a dollar spent on charity? And isn't the amount increased substantially if the Christian has their offspring in a Christian school as they have been admonished to by a wide variety of reputable teachers and ministries? And to those that might not have any children, it has been suggested that creation care itself qualifies as a form of ministry. As such, wouldn't every dollar one spends on pet food contribute to the care of God's creatures? It might be responded but children and pets are entities from which we derive enjoyment. Tread carefully, dear pastor. For the ultimate outcome of that line of argumentation would conclude that those attending your congregation should instead send their offering dollar to the congregation across town or down the street that they do not attend.
In a sermon on idolatry, Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church used the illustration of a little girl with three dolls in her arms that would still want additional dolls in her embrace if she could get her arms around them. Given the photo of his church facility on SermonAudio, are that many flagpoles at one church the most prudent use of tithe dollars especially since the pastoral staff is on the record in numerous uploaded podcasts expressing just what little regard they have (actually bordering on spiritual contempt) for Old Glory?
If your church is on the verge of financial ruination, isn't it about time to cut back on the foreign missionaries to an extent?
If in a sermon on tithing it is claimed that those that tithed ended up with more money, how is that appreciably different than Osteenian propaganda?
It was said of 100 faith promise giving program pledge forms, a previous year only nine were completed and returned. But if it is emphasized that this campaign is distinct from the Biblically compulsory tithe, who is to say that it wasn't the Holy Spirit that restrained some believers from participation?
On an episode of “Stand For The Truth” addressing racial issues, broadcaster Mike Lemay lamented how often the response on the part of Conservatives and certain Christians is to point out that things have improved considerably over time. Instead, succumbing to the intellectual contaminate of liberal White guilt, he suggests that we are to join the chorus of how things still need to improve. Perhaps if he fails or refuses to realize that this response on the part of Conservatives is to prevent additional government intervention and wealth redistribution, perhaps what he himself has worked to accumulate will be among the first assets seized. Better yet, if he feels Holy Ghost conviction regarding these matters, why doesn't he surrender his microphone to a minority and instead take up manual day labor as a way to do penance?
Elites are unsettled that Donald Trump might have strong armed United Technologies into keeping in the U.S. over 1000 jobs the corporation had intended to transfer to Mexico. How is this anymore disturbing than the courts compelling small scale Christian businesses to provide services for gay weddings against their will or Obama imposing an assortment of broad mandates upon American enterprises nowhere authorized by Congress or even ordered by the courts?
In response to the AltRight, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson insisted that the Bible allows for the immigrant or stranger to enter the land. If we are going to be that hardcore Old Testament, don't these Old Testament passages about the stranger abiding in the land also admonish the stranger to abide by the laws and customs a determined by the host country and to an extent renouncing the ways of their homeland.
In his criticism of the AltRight, Kevin Swanson insisted it is not a sin for immigrants to attempt to preserve their cultural identity when they come to live in the United States. Then why did the homeschool activist dedicate the podcast in which this sentiment was expressed to propagating the notion that it is a sin for America as its own distinctive culture to take steps in order to do so?
In condemning the AltRight, Kevin Swanson warned that there can be the possibility of more than one ditch. By this, the podcaster meant that, just because something is opposed by the Left, that does not necessarily make it correct. Why doesn't the same principle apply to education? Just because public education at this point might be beyond repair, it does not follow that the only alternative is a form of home education where the future life paths of young women especially are severely curtailed and restricted to the point where they are discouraged from pursuing higher education and even pre-marital employment outside of their parents' home.
Home school activist Swanson denounced as reprobates those not keen on fellowshipping with groups of people. But why are we obligated to attend gatherings where one is going to be bored out of one's mind, where others hardly interacts with you, and where one is reluctant to open one's mouth for fear of it being a religious gathering you will likely be berated with Scripture or if in secular company the outcome could very likely result in a beating or your property destroyed.
Obama in the oration where he brownnosed himself for how the war on terror was conducted during his regime how America was founded so that one could practice one's religion as one saw fit. That is, of course, unless one differs from the prevailing herd mentality regarding homosexual matrimony.
NASA posted "Godspeed, John Glenn." Why shouldn't the official invoking deity in this instance be occupationally terminated like the Jet Propulsion Lab functionary dismissed over confessing a belief in theistic intelligent design? Yes, the modifier "theistic" is necessary because there is probably some egghead at that facility who believes the Intelligent Designer is an extraterrestrial and the directors of the facility have no problem with that belief.
Isn't Brian Williams about the last mass communicator that should get on his establishmentarian media high horse against “fake news”?
Regarding those outraged over the legitimacy of the Pizzagate scandal. Were they as quick to condemn the rush to judgment regarding nebulous allegations of carnal impropriety leveled against Herman Cain and Donald Trump?
In his condemnation of the so-called AltRight, home school activist Keven Swanson insisted that sin, not immigration or cultural preservation, is the root cause of the nation's problems. Technically so. But that is the Sunday school answer. If Swanson really holds to Reformed theology, he ought to admit that it is God's plan for different people to tackle the manifestation of such in different social spheres or cultural arenas. Perhaps Swanson ought to be criticized for focusing a significant percentage of his efforts towards education. It must be admitted that there are some in the AltRight that probably take the issues that they emphasize too far. However, this subset of Conservatism has only gained a degree of notoriety because of the many religious leaders that downplay the concerns of everyday Americans (usually Caucasian) while overlooking ethno-supremacist activism when such manifests itself among assorted minorities.
An appellate judge has suggested that the “arms” of the disputed Peace or Victory Cross World War I Memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland could be removed in order to make the edifice constitutionally compliant. So it can, what, look like a giant middle finger thrust into the face of God?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, December 08, 2016
Wednesday, December 07, 2016
Tuesday, December 06, 2016
Monday, December 05, 2016
Sunday, December 04, 2016
On his website, Russell Moore published a column titled “What The Church Can Learn From Justice Scalia's Life”. For the most part, the analysis is an approving appraisal and explanation of Scalia's philosophy of jurisprudence. However, there are points at which Moore can't resist the urge to get in slight digs.
For example, Moore writes, “One can disagree with Scalia on these principles, and one can argue that he occasionally seemed to contradicted them.” But the same criticism could just as easily be said regarding Russell Moore.
For example, Moore sits on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. Would Moore sit on the board of an organization titled the National Confederate Leadership Conference?
From there, Moore proceeds to invoke the death of Justice Scalia as a platform and a pretext from which to bash his fellow Evangelicals.
For example, Moore praises Scalia's prescience to foresee or extrapolate where the judicial rulings of the present might nudge the moral developments of the future. Moore contemplates, “Why were evangelicals so slow to advance the pro-life witness? Why were evangelicals caught so unaware by the shifting family structures in the United States?”
Moore answers these questions that he raises rhetorically by noting that the shortcomings he has pointed out in Evangelical social thought were the result of failing to see ahead of time how culture moves and for in part accommodating the “divorce revolution”. Maybe so, but the answer in part goes beyond that.
Many Evangelicals failed to see the direction in which culture moved because for generations probably up until the time Francis Schaeffer came into prominence and in some circles even later most Evangelicals had been indoctrinated and conditioned to have as little to do as possible with the culture whatsoever. The good Christian, it was often expounded from the pulpit, did not seek to investigate the issues and challenges of the day on their own.
Instead, you were simply expected to accept whatever your pastor was willing to tell you about them. An interest in anything beyond the casseroles at the church potluck supper was considered “worldly”.
Media and forms of art were considered evil not necessarily on the basis of content but rather in and of themselves. You can't really subject the students in your Christian school to a curriculum consisting of not much more than grammatically diagramming Bible verses and where about the only professionals exhorted as examples to emulate are missionaries to foreign fields and then sit around dumbfounded as to why so few graduates from such settings go on to careers in strategically important fields such as law, medicine, government, or media.
Russell Moore really strives to bore the assembled a new one as he moves towards the conclusion of his analysis. In particular, Moore praises Scalia's aptitude to befriend his opponents.
Of this tendency, Moore writes of Scalia, “He was certainly one of the most combative justices in print and in argument in history. Even so, he had a strong friendship with liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Was that an inconsistency?”
Moore answers his rhetorical question, “No. This was confidence. He knew that his ideas could prevail, so he didn't see the persons who opposed him as those to be avoided or shunned. He knew that his convictions were clear, so he didn't play tribal politics by isolating himself with an ideological cocoon.”
Speaking of “tribal politics”, once again, it must be asked, if Russell Moore enunciates that phrase in such as say as to imbue it with negative connotations, why does he sit on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference? Moore is likely nothing more than the organization's token gringo. For outfits with such ethnically explicit names are all about tribal politics and don't give a rodent's hindquater about good of the nation as a whole.
Justice Scalia is to be commended for his many contributions in the effort to preserve what little remains of America's constitutional liberties. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding his passing, as with all who achieve lofty status or position (including Russell Moore most likely as well) one will find that his ultimate loyalty was probably to the elite and its continued perpetuation rather than a set of enduring principles necessarily.
For example, the hunting lodge from which Justice Scalia transitioned into the Afterlife was owned by the International Order of St. Hubertus. According to the Washington Post (a mainstream media institution and not Alex Jones mind you), the International Order of St. Hubertu is an order where its exclusively male membership gathers to prance around in silky green robes while slaughtering animals not so much for subsistence hunting but rather for the thrill of taking another creature's life.
Even worse, this organization is itself believed to have ties to Bohemian Grove. For those not familiar with that particular term, that is a place deep in the woods of California were many elites thinking they are so much better than the rest of us that they are the ones that will determine the course of our lives gather before a giant owl statue ritualistically pledging to bring about the New World Order. The ceremonial proceedings usually conclude with drunkenness, occasionally orgies, and (if certain conspiracy theorists are to be believed) sometimes even a human sacrifice or two.
Pastor Moore could have attributed this observation to just an aspect of Scalia's personality that enabled the jurist to find that murky balance between standing for one's principles and the degree of compromise necessary to prevent the political or judicial process from getting eternally mired in interminable gridlock. Instead, Moore utilizes the point to once again bash the mere pewfiller over the head.
Moore writes, “If our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with us or our politics, then it could be that politics is our god. And if our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with our theology, then maybe our talk about mission is just talk.”
If this is how Evangelicals in general and Baptists in particular act in Moore's estimation, much of that fault lies in how the leaders of the movement have indoctrinated their respective congregations, followers, and students (not necessarily in error) over the past several decades.
Among churches of a more doctrinally rigorous nature, it is simply not enough to earn the status of good or even satisfactory Christian by attending worship on a semi-regular basis and to attempt to apply what is taught in such gatherings in the normal course of life. Instead, formal organized religious exercises and church attendance are to become the focal point of one's existence.
For example, you are also obligated to attend Sunday school, Sunday evening, and possibly even a variety of small group studies during a given week if your church is sufficiently large enough where these cell groups are not necessarily so much about studying objective doctrinal content but more about confession and denunciation of shortcomings in a manner not surprisingly different from what might take place in a prisoner of war camp. But if your church isn't large enough to provide an assortment of such groups, fear not. For yours will likely include a midweek service.
This will likely be marketed or specifically presented as a “prayer meeting”. Pewfillers will also be shamed of manipulated into attending from the pulpit as well. The common rhetorical set up for this will begin with explaining how prayer is simply talking with God and who doesn't enjoy talking to or spending time with those we hold most dear. As such, it is concluded, if you fail to show up for prayer meeting, you must not really love God all that much.
But the thing about that conversation is that it really needs to be a two way exchange if the train of thought and ongoing dialog is to consist of more than the equivalent of a telepathic voice message. Furthermore, often what transpires is that pastorally led prayers end up being a combination of an extension of the sermon and newsletter announcements by other means. But at least when the sermon and newsletter announcements are made as sermon and newsletter announcements rather than as extended prayers, you don't have to sit there with your eyes clamped shut for fear of being called out for it by the pastor who must need the privacy to quickly pick his nose.
This extended exposition must seem like an unrelated tangent. However, it does provide a bit of explanation as to why the Christian probably doesn't have much time to hobnob with reprobates outside of the church.
Of course Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, and even Elena Kagin are probably going to hit it off. Though most aren't going to have the courage to say it, both Roman Catholicism and Judaism are two religions that love their booze. So what exactly are upper class Jews supposed to bond over with blue collar Baptists that have had it drilled into their heads their entire lives (and possibly even rightfully so) to avoid alcohol at all costs? A love of pork barbecue that the Jew isn't even supposed to eat unless they are of the variety that invokes that particular identity not so much because of a devotion to Old Testament teaching but rather as something to invoke quickly to justify an often noticeable hostility towards anything even remotely Christian?
In this situation of whether to interact or separate, the mere pewfiller cannot hope to prevail in terms of avoiding some manner of verbal chastisement. For often these clergy live by a double standard that they would not approve of if they saw it manifested in the lives of their fellow believers.
For example, in Spring 2015, there was a bit of ecumenical excitement in the air as it was announced that NBC planned to broadcast a dramatic miniseries titled “AD”. The purpose of the drama was to provide the viewer with a bit of narrative insight into what the early Church centered around the Apostles might have had to deal with following the Resurrection of Christ.
But instead of supporting this undertaking as a respectful attempt by the entertainment industry to present the founding of the Christian faith even if not entirely accurate down to the tiniest painstakingly exact detail but in a way that might spark the curiosity of an individual to investigate further if so inclined, a number of ministers and theologians openly criticized the production. Interestingly, instead of pointing out where the narrative might have strayed from the Biblical record, Pastor Randy White on an episode of “Standing For The Truth” droned on and on about the producer of the miniseries Roma Downey being a Roman Catholic sympathetic towards the New Age movement. White continued on by calling into question Evangelical leaders such as David Jeremiah that set aside differences with this competing system of theological interpretation to emphasize the common first century heritage shared by these distinct brands of Christianity.
From the vehemence of that particular episode, the average listener might come away with the impression of the importance of limiting one's exposure to Roman Catholics if one wants to be considered the kind of person that puts faith first in one's life. But apparently that is the kind of rule Pastor White expects everyone else to abide by with the exception of himself. This particularly seems to be the case when it comes to individuals that can advance Pastor White's own career or rather ministry (to put it in terms that sound less secular and more pious).
For example, on “Standing For The Truth” (the very same program on which nearly one year prior he condemned fellow Evangelicals that had cooperated with a Roman Catholic in terms of promoting a cinematic production inspired by Biblical sources), Randy White deliberately name-dropped how highly he thought of his good friend Brett Baier who just happened to be a Fox News anchor. White also confessed that Baier also happened to be Roman Catholic but one whom White was proud to call his friend because of Baier's sincerity to do the right thing despite the theological differences that White went out of his way to downplay in this instance. So why can't Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett be thought of in a similar fashion as an alley with whom Evangelicals can at times cooperate regarding shared aspects of the faith?
Towards the conclusion of his tirade, Russell Moore pontificated, “And if our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with out theology, maybe talk about our mission is just talk.” In essence, you, average Christian, are to be chewed out from the pulpit if you associate with people that are now Christian as defined in a narrowly dogmatic manner and you are going to apparently be chewed out nor if you don't have any friends that are not Christian in a narrowly defined dogmatic manner.
In response to Dr. Moore's catch 22, is it really the average pewfilling Christian that talks so much about mission? Or is that more so those that run or administer the church and related paraministries?
Missions does have its place in the life of the church and by extension the life of every believer. However, it is the occupational ministerial class that has placed what could legitimately be considered a disproportionate emphasis upon formalized missionary outreach to the exclusion of many other as legitimate Christian undertakings.
For example, back during what seemed the verge of a pending ebola epidemic, Ann Coulter dared question why couldn't those inclined towards acts of piety try rescuing their own homeland from the perils of spiritual destruction for a change rather than these backwards lands from which a single microbe hitching a flight on an unsuspecting airliner could potentially lay waste to much of the industrialized world. For enunciating such insightful speculation, professional religionists castigated and condemned Ann Coulter much more vociferously than they ever did for her apparel of questionable modesty.
If professional clergy such as Russell Moore want to talk up missions but do nothing about it in terms of their own lives, then it is indeed a problem and they should be criticized for it. However, if the average believer hears these admonitions but after reflection conclude that the Holy Spirit is leading them to focus upon other callings and areas of ministry just as essential to the fulfillment of God's will in this world, there really is not anything regarding this matter that the Christian ought to feel guilty about.
Justice Scalia will be remembered as one of the great minds of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. It is too bad the lesser minds of this era have invoked this jurist's name for the purposes of manipulating those over whom they have been granted a modicum of authority and influence.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, December 03, 2016
Friday, December 02, 2016
Thursday, December 01, 2016
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Insisting The Foretelling Of John The Baptist Is About The Elderly Attending Church Misses The Homiletical Mark
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to invoke the passage regarding the conception of John the Baptist to condemn the ailing elderly that aren't able to get to church as often as they used to?
The text implies that God intervened in regards to the withered reproductive tracts of Zacharias and Elizabeth. So unless God intervenes similarly in regards to dimmed eyesight and crippled legs, isn't He the one to be held responsible regarding this attendance issue?
The pastor insisted that, if an elderly individual can make it to the doctors or the supermarket, they can make it to church.
One is reminded of the line from the movie “Dodgeball”, “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”
But doesn't such a imperative analogy postulate a weak God bordering on the heretical?
The decrepit of advanced chronology are forced to go to the doctor's or the grocery store because such services are often physicalized in a singular location.
But doesn't the God of the Christian go out of His way to make it known that He is not confined by a structure built by the hands of man no matter how ornate or well intended such dedicated edifices might happen to be?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, November 25, 2016
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Because of Trump's questionable remarks, Billy Bush was suspended from The Today Show. What did he say so out of line? It couldn't have been much more offensive than Kathy Lee Gifford's borderline alcoholism. And how is NBC suspending Billy Bush for enthusiastically discussing his preferred modality of sexuality any different than the Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings? If someone is articulating morally questionable remarks, you do not necessarily have an obligation to stop them. What someone needs to do now is to modify the meme featuring that Bahai actor from “The Office” admitting you don't pay taxes in order to finance an assortment of civic minded programs but rather to merely avoid prison. It should read, “You don't refrain from lewd comments out of respect for women but rather for fear of losing your job.”
Regarding those that refuse to vote for Trump on moral grounds but are all gungho for the Libertarians this election. Doesn't that party go out of its way to advocate for legalized prostitution? So who are they to insist that things like those articulated by Trump are never to be said to or about women if that is what the customer and the service provider negotiate as an acceptable component of their carnal transaction? I don't imagine those that go to places like the Bunny Ranch make their selections based upon SAT scores and the size of the gal's moral character.
If Megyn Kelley is so opposed to lewd conversation, why did she go on Howard Stern where the primary topic of discussion was her lactating bosom?
Fascinating how the ones applauding Paul Ryan as a statesman of principle for essentially withdrawing his support for Donald Trump rank among those insinuating that Ted Cruz might not even be a “real Christian” for not wholeheartedly endorsing Donald Trump.
Michael Savage flew into a rampage over Shephard Smith warning that those that did not heed hurricane evacuation warnings would likely die. So how was Smith's distinctively exuberant delivery appreciably different in style than Savage's own tirades?
When a pastor claims that the point of his sermon is not to persuade the listener one way or the other regarding Halloween participation but then proceeds to yell at the top of his lungs as to how wicked Halloween happens to be, isn't that the borderline bearing of false witness? Furthermore, will those found out to hold an opinion different the pastor even if they don't publicly rock the boat to the point of being disruptive be allowed to hold positions of ministry or leadership within the congregation? The ones insisting that Trump is now unfit for the presidency such as Albert Mohler than turn around and insist that a man that as a result of behaving properly around women was never deemed attractive by women and as a result remained single should regularly be berated by a litany of Biblical injunctions pulled out of context and be condemned as unfit for political or ecclesiastical office.
In a tirade against Halloween that turned into one against Christmas as well, a SermonAudio pastor condemned children that await Santa but don't await Jesus coming in the clouds. That's because they are children. Their lives are not yet necessarily so miserable that the joy has been sucked out (often by professional religionists) that they don't have anything else to look forward to. While he is at it, does the pastor also plan to condemn those anticipating life's other commemorative festivities or milestones?
In an interview with Bloomberg.com, Russell Moore lamented Evangelicals that align themselves with Mormons over political issues despite the vast theological differences between the two faiths. But isn't that less of an outrage than the resources of good Christians this Baptist functionary directed to support the building of Islamic mosques?
Too bad the federal government is not as eager to enforce the nation's laws as explicitly written as it is to prosecute Sheriff Joe Arpaio for enforcing the laws that at this particular moment the Obama regime deliberately refuses to uphold.
In a sermon against Halloween, a pastor claimed that there are certain things that man was not meant to know. As an example, the pastor provided the issue of whether or not there is life on Mars. The minister insisted that all that he needed to know is that God created Mars. There is a difference between knowledge that is considered occultic and that which is considered the physically scientific. The average human being is no more able to directly examine the workings of their respective innards as they are the minutiae of the Martian sands. If the pastor's mindset is to be applied to medical care, is there appreciable difference between the implications of this particular Baptist's worldview and that of the rigorous adherent of the Christian Science sect?
President Obama has admonished Donald Trump to stop his whining. One might respond physician heal thyself but one really ought not to overburden the medical system any further because of the doctor shortage caused by the “Affordable Care Act”.
A Hillary campaign commercial categorizes Donald Trump as “America's bully”. As if the Obama regime has allowed Christian bakers to pass on baking cakes for gay weddings because of their religious convictions and allowed those happy with their doctor to keep their doctor.
The leftwing media is insinuating that it is dangerous for Trump to insist that the election is rigged. Then how come the media does not take similar linguistic caution when covering trial verdicts where it is pretty much guaranteed that agitated minorities are going to loot electronics and haircare products?
Hegemonic elites thinking that political power ought to be their's by default like some sort of birthright are outraged and dismayed that in the third presidential debate that Donald Trump did not definitively agree to accept the alleged outcome of the election. But to paraphrase Bill Clinton's equivocation regarding the word “is”, what exactly does “accept” mean? One could “accept” the outcome of the election by not urging riots in the street but continuing to make remarks about the legitimacy of the outcome for years to come. Al Gore has pursued that particular approach for well over a decade now as a side hussle along with yo-yo dieting and fornicating with massage therapists.
If liberal propagandists are going to insist that Trump's allegation that the election is rigged threatens and undermines American democracy or rather the republic, do they intend to speak out as forcefully against Black Lives Matters activists and racialist subversives?
If you are of such diminished capacity that you can't vote on the designated day and can't think ahead to acquire an absentee ballot, perhaps the nation is better off if you don't vote to begin with.
It was insinuated that apparently people that don't smile much are full of themselves. Perhaps people that aren't inclined to smile were made that way by God. Therefore, aren't the ones thinking they know more than God as to what an individual's underlying personality as a reflection of the divine creator the ones that are really full of themselves?
During the debate, Hillary repeatedly mocked the financial support Trump received early in his business career from his father. So are we to assume Chelsea worked and clawed for everything she has in life, starting off mopping vomit from amusement park thrill rides and fetching carts from Walmart parking lots.
Why shouldn't nasty women be called nasty? Given the logic of those jacked out of shape over Trump's comment, are we to assume that Eva Braun should be spoken of in only the utmost of respect?
It has been suggested that, because his father was against Catholics, Donald Trump should not have been at the Al Smith dinner. Given that logic, since his father despised the United States, shouldn't Barack Obama not been allowed to be President. Given this logic, since Cardinal Dolan has undermined Catholic teaching against homosexuality through acts such as issuing statements favorable of gay pride rallies and closing congregations in favor of those attended by homosexuals, perhaps that particular prelate should not have been invited either.
In a Washington Post column, Southern Baptist functionary Albert Mohler reflected upon the moral quandary of Evangelical electoral support for Donald Trump. Interesting how he did not publish a similar column in the Washington Post critical of the Evangelical support remaining behind C.J. Mahaney despite the denomination he headed not only falling into a child sex abuse scandal but also in light of the claims that Mahaney's former congregation Covenant Life Church was administered along the lines of a quasi-cultic philosophy. Mohler's support for Mahaney went far beyond holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils at a recent conference to a sickening display of ecclesiastical brown-nosing where Mohler assured Mahaney that the disgraced minister was there with the support of a thousand of his closest friends.
If assorted leftwing academics (of the sort that usually vote Democratic) insist that objective truth does not exist and to maintain that it does is an imposition of heteronormantive Eurocentricism, why are they getting so jacked out of shape if Trump creates his own cognitive milieu where the election results are not legitimate?
A webinar was titled “Cultivating Diversity and Inclusion at Museums and Historic Sites”. In other words, how to alienate your primary visitors and wonder why they don't come back.
The ultrapious in regards to this election have posted that “America is getting what it deserves”. The person making such a comment is an American. As such, if, in the future, police state goons bust the door in to drag this person off to a reeducation camp or a Muslim gangs rapes his wife and hacks off his head, as an American would he be getting exactly what he deserves?
Regarding those that have praised the President of the Philippines as a refreshingly strong leader for giving Obama the proverbial finger. Fine, let us leave and allow the Chinese to take over and brutalize them. Just make sure that it's made explicitly known that this time MacArthur isn't returning.
In a pastoral round table discussion posted on SermonAudio, one of the multiple clergy on staff at Berean Baptist Church remarked that he was not all that impressed with pundit Todd Barnes because the frequent Fox News contributor was often “over the top”. How is that different than numerous pronouncements broadcast by this particular church? For example, in the cover photo posted to the church's SermonAudio profile, the church building is surrounded by a perimeter of flags like the Washington Monument. Yet the church administrators have uploaded multiple podcasts to SermonAudio insisting that flags in the church and Fourth of July services are a form of idolatry. Isn't this akin to preaching a sermon against carnality while have a cage or pole dancer on either side of the pulpit?
It was asked in a podcast what do you do if in a Bible study group you have one set of parents whose children are allowed to Trick or Treat and a set of parents whose children are not allowed to do so. The solution is simple. Perhaps one ought not to attend these Bible studies nowhere mandated in Scripture. Secondly, if you still have a desire to attend, perhaps it is best not to tell the others in attendance what your family does it its free time and for you not to ask questions of others in attendance if the response could possibly cause you to come unhinged. Furthermore, shouldn't people be so tired at the end of the day that they don't need to be going to all of these group functions if they have already found a mate and procreated?
In a homily posted at SermonAudio against the evils of pragmatism, it was insisted that certain Americans are drawn to Trump because they are angry about not getting what they want. However, the matter goes deeper than an Obama voter demanding their free smartphone or a Sanders partisan rampaging for free college. The average Trump supporter is dismayed by a litany of elected officials repeatedly putting the nation's enemies ahead of our own particular wellbeing. As evidence, the pastor cited Trump's suggestion to ban the entrance of Muslims into the United States. Admittedly, such a proposal might have been too broad in its original enunciation. However, where is it elaborated in the Constitution that non-citizens are entitled to admission if they have not met certain predetermined criteria? Should mass numbers of have Germans been allowed entrance without considerable certainty as to where their loyalties were during World War II?
It was said in a sermon that, if a young man comes to church every week with a different girl, such ought to be condemned. But so long as he is not fornicating with her, is it really any of the church's business?
In an address at Ocean City Tabernacle, columnist Cal Thomas remarked that Muslims in their private schools should not be allowed to teach hatred of Jews and Christians. The American people ought to know what the adherents of the so-called religion of peace believe and are up to. However, does Thomas really want government bureaucrats to determine and decree what private educators may or may not teach in terms of doctrine and ideology? For what is to prevent such technocrats from declaring that Jesus is the only way or the superiority of heterosexual marriage as the ideal family arrangement in which to raise children as hateful beyond acceptability?
In a podcast griping about the status of youth in America, a group of pastors in a discussion uploaded to SermonAudio complained how quickly things are produced these days. Instead, they celebrated the pace from the hypothetical era of their grandfathers that relished true craftsmanship. Perhaps they'd also like to return to the conditions of their grandparents' era when people dropped dead from infected blackheads or from appendicitis in their 40's (don't tell me it didn't happen as two of my great grandparents befell such scenarios).
In a podcast regarding sermon preparation, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church said that the bivocational pastor is doing his congregation a disservice with two occupations competing for his attention. Unlike Berean Baptist Church, not every congregation is so rich that they can surround their church building with a perimeter of flags despite uploading numerous homilies to SermonAudio insinuating that it is an act of idolatry to have a flag in the church or even an occasional worship service incorporating patriotic elements into the liturgy. Regarding the denigration of bivocatioalism, it's interesting how some ministers seem to now exist on a level surpassing Peter, Paul, and apparently even Jesus.
Fuss is being made that the majority of Whites voting for Donald Trump lacked college degrees. As if the minorities voting for Obama for free cellphones and for thinking they would no longer be required to pay their mortgages because such would be taken care of from the President's stash were fonts of common sense and accumulated learning?
Fuss is being made that the majority of Whites voting for Donald Trump lacked college degrees. Given that those needing psychological intervention in the form of play-doh to deal with the election returns and rioting in the streets are primarily those in pursuit of formalized higher learning, it seems these programs aren't necessarily the measurement of education that they used to be.
Hillary in her concession speech says that America owes the Obama's an enormous debt. Wasn't the record debt accumulated under his regime enough already?
If DC residents are so outraged over the state of their Congressional representation, why don't they move elsewhere or might that disrupt receipt of whatever public assistance program they are on?
Multiculturalism holds all societies are equal with no country being better than any other. If so, why is it that the leftist deadbeats so exasperated over Trump's election victory insist upon fleeing to Canada (which is probably even more lily White than America) as their first destination of refuge rather than Mexico (which we are assured contains a population of only hardworking, law-abiding, family-oriented people).
So if California secession is to be encouraged, why were Southerners threatened, coerced, and intimidated into taking down their Confederate battle flags in the name of national unity?
The sad thing is how people comport themselves intellectually they are so dimwitted that they cannot run their own lives without a President. The government might need a President. Do you really need one directly telling you what to do if you do not work for the national government?
Propagandist Van Jones categorized Trump's election victory as a “whitelash”. If he speaks out against citizens working for change within the established system, is he as condemnatory of those that vocalize their alleged political disapproval through the looting of electronics and haircare products?
Van Jones excused Hillary for not making her concession speech election night because it was well past 2 AM when the winner was determined. But didn't Hillary advertise herself as being the candidate you could reach in the middle of the night if the situation warranted?
A caller to the Chris Plante Show remarked she never felt as proud of her nation as when Trump was elected President. Isn't that as bad a Michelle Obama saying nearly the same thing? The sad thing is that the greatest political investment is now made into the office that should really mean the least in terms of the influence that it ought to exert over our daily lives.
Countering the observation that there were no riots when Obama was elected it was claimed that's because “President Obama wasn't a sexist, racist, knee jerk kind of guy..Trump is not Presidential material and never will be.” That that justifies beating unsuspecting White motorists and destroying private property?
On an episode of “Jay Leno's Garage”, Vice President Joe Biden an Colin Powell made an appearance to drag race their Corvettes. Powell admitted that this was his third Corvette in eight years. I myself have never owned a new vehicle and the used one I purchased in 1999 functions just fine. Yet these are the same establishmentarian globalists that condemn those skeptical of climate change policy propaganda decreeing that private vehicular ownership ought to be discouraged for everyday needs to say nothing of recreational drag racing or as ostentatious replacements for a diminished masculinity.
Planet Fitness has produced a campaign featuring its anti-bullying campaign for the purposes of indoctrinating a “judgment free generation”. It's one thing to prevent bullying behavior. However, its quite another to condition people to be “judgment free”. For such would result in individuals unable to differentiate between right or wrong and unprotected against being taken advantage of.
In a SermonAudio homily, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church condemned those whom the extent of their church participation consisted solely of showing up for the service. Maybe he'd prefer they not even do that. Furthermore, how does he know what these folks do the rest of the time? Don't they at least get a few points for Christian character if they don't slap their spouses and go to work or something similarly constructive on a reasonably consistent basis?
In a sermon, it was said that a woman should marry a man to move her out of poverty. Will it be said from the same pulpit that a man should marry a woman to get someone to scrub the toilet or wash laundry?
In light of slurs against Catholics on the part of Clinton campaign functionaries, the Federalist is urging Americans of conscience to adopt the phrase “We are all Catholics now” as a sign of solidarity. Interesting how little is being said how those email exchanges were less than complimentary regarding Evangelicals as well. It must be remembered that this very same conservative website not long ago posted a headline, even though done in the name of humor, referring to Protestants as “heretic scum”. Maybe Podesta found his remarks against Catholics to be similarly mirthful and said in jest.
If deadbeat Europeans burn their own cities over the Trump victory, why should we feel shame about it? Such is the result of their own stupidity.
So why is Steve Bannon's wanting to limit the “Jewish influence” over his children a form of antisemiticism that must be eliminated but we are supposed to open our borders wide open to those advocating the kind of antisemitism that advocates outright violence against a particular group of people?
About the harshest punishment for students from the DC suburbs will face for walking out in protest over the Trump electoral victory will be an excused absence. Would educators go as lightly if students had bolted out of class to pray around the flagpole, to march in solidarity with prolife activists, or chanting “Build the wall”?
Attending the University of Virginia while being driven into your safe space at the sight of a Jefferson quote is nearly the same thing as attending Liberty University and insisting that the mention of Jerry Falwell sickens you.
Apparently with Trump's electoral victory radical leftists now insist that states' rights and local control are the ways in which America was intended to be governed.
If Californians wanting to secede and urban centers vowing to remain sanctuary cities in defiant of presidential order are to be applauded as expressions of robust localism, shouldn't the rest of America remind its own business as to what one hillbilly mayor from West Virginia posts online about Michelle Obama?
A Maryland school is being commended for allowing for the selection of a “gender neutral” homecoming court. But shouldn't these pedagogues still be condemned for the continuation of this practice promoting non-egalitarian classism?
Was the establishmentarian media as ever concerned about Van Jones' profession of being an avowed Communist, Anita Dunn's confession of Mao being her favorite political philosopher, and Barack Obama's political career beginning in the living room of convicted terrorist Bill Ayers as they are regarding Steve Bannon's alleged ties to the “alt right”?
Much hullabaloo is being made over the “60 Minutes” video in which Donald Trump urges his supporters to stop heckling minorities. Is “60 Minutes” as concerned about the candidate's opponents and detractors destroying property, blocking roadways, and beating unsuspecting citizens on the basis of their electoral decision deduced primarily from the basis of race?
Clothing designer Sophie Theallett, who has designed for Michelle Obama, has announced her refusal to dress Melania Trump primarily for ideological reasons. So shouldn't she be destroyed financially in a way similar to the Christian bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay nuptials?
The cast of the play "Hamilton" chewed out Vice President Elect Mike Pence for being in the audience. Could a Christian baker be allowed to bake the gay cake anyway and tell the couple off as the cake and money are exchanged with there being no legal repercussions?
In responding to the Trump electoral victory, President Obama admonished that we must be cautious of a tribalism that promotes a mentality of Us vs. Them. Does he intend to make similar pronouncements against the Occupy Movement, Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and even his own presidency?
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 21, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Monday, November 07, 2016
Saturday, November 05, 2016
Friday, November 04, 2016
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Moore commences his analysis by detailing the plight of an Alabama church in decline as the vicinity of the congregation's physical locality transitions from a predominantly White to Black population. Moore blames the decline on the fact that during the tumultuous years of the civil rights movement, often marked by shocking and noteworthy acts of violence, the church decided to focus on its primary mission of “simple gospel preaching”.
But how was the activism Moore would hope for in that historic setting appreciably different than the cultural Christianity that this theologian now explicitly celebrates the demise of? Interesting how Moore calls for the law and justice imperatives heralded in Scripture when it is minority lives and property on the line but seemingly downplays the physicalized expression of outage when it is Whitey's or a capitalist's window being shattered.
In mentioning this tragic violence, Russell Moore hopes to link its perpetrators with Donald Trump and any that might vote for the blunt real estate tycoon. As I have mentioned in previous columns, if we are to pursue this line of reasoning, why shouldn't we conclude that Russell Moore through his assorted ecclesiastical relationships must believe pedophile pastors and the churches that shelter them haven't done anything all that wrong and shouldn't be sanctioned so severely?
For at a recent pastor's conference, Moore's mentor and close colleague Albert Mohler did not chastise C.J. Mahaney for allowing a sex abuse scandal to spiral out of control. Instead, Mohler instead assured the megachurch minister that he was in the company of thousands of his closest friends. Mind you, these are the very same kinds of people that will call the validity of your faith into question if you are not in church multiple nights per week or aren't married by the time you are 23 years old.
In the indictment of Trump that reads reminiscent of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Moore writes, “This election has cast light on the darkness of pent-up nativism and bigotry ...There are not-so-coded messages denouncing African-Americans and immigrants; concerns about racial justice and national unity is ridiculed as 'political correctness'. Religious minorities are scapegoated for the sins of others, with basic religious freedoms for them called into question.”
Daniel Patrick Moniyhan (a Democrat actually) was credited with popularizing the concept of the bigotry of low expectations. Dr. Moore craves nothing more than to be applauded as a Southerner that has come around to the perspective of the Yankee elite regarding racial issues. However, given that he does not apply the same standard to all individuals irrespective of skin color, it must be asked does Brother Moore view minorities as fully human in the same manner as he would his fellow Caucasians?
If Dr. Moore is so concerned about the causes of national unity and racial justice, why doesn't he resign his position from the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference? For by the organization's very name, the National Hispanic Leadership Conference is exclusionary of the interests of Caucasians of a non-Iberian ethnography. If Caucasians of a more northern European extraction are not worthy of status and privilege (to invoke the parlance of these crypto-Marxists) on the basis of what color they emerge from the birth canals of their respective mothers, why are Hispanics deserving of such on the basis of Scripture which says that before God there is neither Greek nor Jew?
Despite whatever errors he might have made in terms of his presentation on the Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck is to be lauded for making the public aware that the notion of “social justice” is not about justice at all but rather about in the name of socialism downplaying the rights and protections afforded to the individual in favor of the collective and what is allegedly better for specific groups as determined by largely unaccountable technocrats. That is the kind of threat posed by Russell Moore in his raising the battle cry of “racial justice”.
If persons are not to be considered as individuals and the totality of their accomplishments but rather upon the shortcomings inflicted by and/or on certain groups, what if Dr. Moore's string of highly prestigious positions were seized from him and bestowed upon someone that has hardly cracked a book open a day in their lives but instead knocked over a few liquor stores and sired a number of out of wedlock children by as many women because a life of study and delayed gratification were categorized as acting just “too White”? By the very standards advocated by Dr. Moore, wouldn't a response other than affirmative agreement to such a course of action not only undermine social cohesion but also negate a number of Biblical imperatives such as submitting to authority and turning the other cheek?
Dr. Moore goes on to lament, “The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's 'I Have A Dream Speech' did not envision that more than 50 years later 'Go back to Africa' would be screamed at black protesters.” Probably because, as someone enamored in part with the delusions of socialism, Martin Luther King might not have been able to fathom Black people often lavished with a standard of living enviable by world standards descending into debaucheries most of them avoided when the status of this demographic was at its lowest in terms of material prosperity.
Perhaps Dr. Moore should have provided additional context such as where and to what particular group this directional imperative was being directed. For example, could these have been the sorts of protesters that express their disagreement with particular trial verdicts or police actions by appropriating the latest electronics or haircare products unencumbered by medium of exchange after the proprietors of such establishments have left the premises for the evening or in fear of the repercussions the mob might decide to inflict upon bystanding property owners?
Russell Moore is making quite a reputation for himself regularly publishing tirades against what academics such as himself might lament or denounce as White majoritarian culture. Does he ever intend to speak out as eloquently against outrages such as the knockout game?
In Moore's column, one is given the impression that the remark “Go back to Africa” is a negative or bad thing. Yet doesn't fostering this impression expose Moore's own ethnocentricism or White privilege?
For in a world where, as Moore writes, “The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner' who is probably not all that impressed by chants of 'Make America great again', who is to suggest America is a more desirable place to live than Africa?
Moore continues, “The center of gravity for both orthodoxy is not among Anglo suburban evangelicals but among African Anglicans and Asian Calvinists and Latin American Pentecostals.”
The first part of that statement that ought to be like fingernails across a chalkboard to the mind of the discerning reader is the way in which “Anglo suburban” is articulated like a slur. What it means is that Moore has a problem with Whites that work hard and save their resources to provide for a reasonably comfortable dwelling where the occupants are able to stay to themselves and their individual families.
What the communitarian new urbanists of whom Moore is probably an enthusiast prefer is to chorale people into congested population centers where the residents probably don't even own their property, where they are more easily controlled, and where it is easy to snoop into someone's private affairs. For nowhere in his comments did Dr. Moore condemn the largely White beatnik hipsters that prefer to habitate in largely metropolitan settings.
While we are at it, even if he does not provide his address outright, perhaps Dr. Moore should describe in which manner of dwelling he hangs his own ecclesiastical robes or clerical collars. It is doubtful it is in a rundown apartment project where English is about as dead as Latin.
For in the mind of this theologian under scrutiny in this particular analysis, Mrs. Moore and the little ones are no doubt deserving of a safe and spacious place in which to live and thrive. It is your obligation, dear pewfiller, however to put your own family at risk for reasons little more than because some pulpit blowhard tells you to in order to assuage his ever expanding sense of racialist guilt.
What must be asked next about this assertion that contends that the center of theological gravity is to be found among African Anglicans, Asian Calvinists and Latin American Pentecostals is why is it acceptable for Christians of these particular phenotypes to clump together for the purposes of religious identity and affiliation but not acceptable for White believers to do so? And if you were to grill members of each of these demographics they would probably admit that they are no more eager for their traditional way of doing things to be overwhelmed by the nebulous “other” postmodernist sociologists are always droning on about as those attending the aging Caucasian congregation.
Furthermore, just how much doctrinal compromise ought the Christian to agree to in pursuit of Russell Moore's demographic amalgamation before we are verbally reamed for abandoning those ballyhooed “Baptist distinctives”? After all, the problem with the church initially mentioned by Moore was not necessarily doctrine but rather because it was “too White”.
The Anglicans no doubt practice infant baptism and don't fly into a frenzy as to whether or not adults seeking membership have been dunked or sprinkled in what is considered this Christian act of initiation. This particular modality of ecclesiology also tends to follow a highly ritualized liturgy many Baptists would denounce for stifling the move of the Spirit.
With the Latin American Pentecostals, at the bare minimum the problem would arise at the opposite end of the decorum spectrum from the Anglicans. For an old joke describing how to tell the difference between Baptists and Pentecostals observes that Pentecostals jump over the pews while Baptists sleep in them.
Wanting to look as multicultural as possible, those such as Russell Moore will respond that Whites more uptight in church will just have to adopt the more exuberant forms of religious expression often practiced in minority communities. For if you ask the overly rambunctious to tone it down a bit, you will be accused of demanding that these other groups “act White” before their worship is deemed acceptable in the eyes of God.
But who was it that taught these aging White Baptists so despised by Moore to stifle the expression of their feelings in favor of an order of worship that emphasizes the rationally didactic over emotionalism? Why none other than the professional religionists and denominational functionaries once holding the kinds of prestigious positions now occupied by the likes of Russell Moore! It is amazing how these leaders seldom take responsibility for the policies or decisions of their particular class without first blaming it on the mere pewfillers and concocting ways to make the common church goer feel that they are nothing more than someone obligated to keep the collection plate filled.
Beyond the Pentecostal tendency towards emotional outbursts, for the sake of ethnographic solidarity, just how much Charismatic buffoonery is the average Baptist expected to put up with to placate the honchos flagellating themselves on the floor of the annual convention? Kenneth Copeland has insinuated off and on over the course of his ministry that those of his theological persuasion can resurrect the dead both feline and human. Joyce Meyers believes that she is so important that she shouldn't have to do her own housework. Todd Bently socked an alleged cancer patient in the stomach in the name of curing that particular affliction.
Critics will respond that each of these is White. Fine, if you want to play the game that character is indeed determined by the color of skin, I will be more happy to comply with such a silly standard.
T.D. Jakes has denied that the Godhead is a unity composed of three distinct persons known as the Trinity. Instead, this particular televangelist holds that the verbal identifiers of “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are rather masks or roles assumed by the singular unitary God.
Frederick Price is yet another Black pastor that espouses doctrinal notions nearly as aberrant. The website LetUsReason.org in an article titled “Fred Price: Is The Price Right Or Is The Price Wrong” examines a number of these. Among these rank the idea that we enjoyed a preincarnate existence (not unlike Mormonism) and that Jesus was rich while He dwelt upon the Earth despite Scripture teaching that he didn't even have a place to lay his head.
As errant as these happen to be, Prince propagates others that are even more dangerous. According to Price, the believer is so assured of bodily healing in this life that the truly faithful can even forbid sickness to enter into one's home, meaning that the Christian is in no need of medical interventions such as surgery. Unless of course you are Mrs. Price who had a cancer operation despite similar procedures being frowned upon for the less prominent amongst their flock.
But hey, that's no big deal. If Russell Moore wants to remain consistent, doesn't he have to assure us that compromise for the sake of superficial appearances and heartwarming photo op is more important than sending the wrong impression resulting from standing for the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Galatians 3:28 says that before God there is neither Greek nor Jew. It is also through the providence of the Almighty that all of humanity that traces its origin back to one single family now finds itself distilled into a variety of nations, tongues, ethnicities, and races largely to prevent for the time being the equivalent of another Tower of Babel. As such, a church should extend kindness and courtesy to anyone showing up on its doorstep sincerely seeking the Lord. Yet if particular varieties of people show up more at certain congregations more than others, there is no reason for controlling snobs at denominational headquarters (whose own offices are described nowhere in the pages of Scripture) to hand down pronouncements as to how ungodly such natural affiliation happens to be in their particular eyes.
By Frederick Meekins