Thursday, November 03, 2016
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Russell Moore Elevates White Guilt As Religious Sacrament
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
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Friday, October 28, 2016
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Monday, October 17, 2016
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
Headline Potpourri #91
A Muslim flight attendant is suing for being suspended for refusing to serve alcoholic beverages because doing so would violate her religion. Why shouldn't she be punished similarly to the Christian bakers refusing to prepare cakes for gay weddings? Will Hooters be required to alter its uniform policies to accommodate Muslim waitresses refusing to adorn themselves with the eatery's questionable apparel?
Do those jacked out of shape about Trump's Second Amendment remarks get as upset regarding the shocking number of Clinton associates and critics that have actually met unexpected and mysterious ends? Its probably why Obama selected Joe Biden as Vice President rather than Hillary.
The DEA has ruled against medical marijuna. So apparently terminal cancer patients will be denied access to that to which the Obama children apparently have at their fingertips.
Is Trump saying Obama created ISIS any worse than blaming the USA for Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden?
On Fox News, Geraldo insisted that Trump does not do saracasm well. But isn't it more that the contemporary liberalism is wound so tight in pursuit of revolutionary societal transformation that adherents of this ideology have lost whatever sense of human they might have initially possessed.
In a New York Times interview in which presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church Micheal Curry spent an inordinate amount of time reminding readers that he is Black, he said of the pending presidential election, “Love, at least as Jesus articulated it, has to do with seeking the good and the welfare of others before one's own enlightened self-interest. Our politicians must reflect that.” It must be from that renunciation of self-interest why the Episcopal Church drags congregations into court that have come to the conclusion that their own spiritual well being might be more fully met in another denomination such as the Anglican Church of North America. For nothing says loves like forcing someone to stay in a relationship against their will.
In January 2014, a marine biologist was convicted of a misdemeanor for feeding whales in a protected federal sanctuary. The prosecutor assured that the punishment wasn't an example of excessive punitive overreach. A strong message needed to be sent because, when these animals are fed by humans, they lose their instincts by becoming dependent and eroding their innate sense or wariness. Such a situation endangers both human beings and cetaceans. The science policy advanced by both academia and government contends that human beings are actually nothing more than animals ourselves. If that is the case, then wouldn't extensive ongoing handouts provided by the government also interfere with and alter the inherent instincts of the able-bodied that would otherwise be compelled to make at least a good faith effort to provide for themselves?
In the attempt to prevent Islamist immigration, Donald Trump has suggested that those seeking entrance into the United States need to be scrutinized to determine if these applicants harbor antisemitism or hatred towards gays and women. But dependent upon how these are defined, what guarantees will be put in place to prevent these ideological tests from being applied against Christians by the social engineers infesting numerous governmental bureaucracies? For in certain circles, antisemitism is defined as believing that Jesus is the only valid path towards God. Being anti-gay is increasingly defined as believing that a legitimate marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman. And hatred towards women is defined as little as failing to put the toilet seat down.
So long as someone is not out constantly awhoring, is it really the business of a church if someone is single? In a podcast posted at SermonAudio, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church bragged that they were all married in their early 20's. That means there wives were likely as young. So under what obligation are we second tier folks nobody wanted in the early round picks obligated to settle for other apparently less than desirables where no one is going to be happy and are for the most part settling out of a sense of socio-religious obligation imposed by these kinds of hardline religionists?
In a pastoral roundtable of Berean Baptist Church posted at SermonAudio, it was insinuated that children should be allowed to wander about pretty much unsupervised as they pleased. Will this church pick up the tab for the legal bill when the parents heeding this advise are slapped with accusations of neglect by child protective services? Will the church pay for the medical and even longterm care expenses when children are injured or even mangled in accidents? But that might divert funds from missionaries of the variety that do not so much love the souls they minister to as they do the opportunity to badmouth the American way of life from foreign shores.
There is no winning with most pastors. In sermons, a common complaint is that most parishioners after church briefly chat amongst themselves about mundane matters such as what they've watched on TV lately or what they will be doing once they get home. But it was handed down in a homiletical pronouncement that a church cannot tolerate those in attendance standing around on the property following the proceedings criticizing where the pastor might have fallen short in either doctrine or delivery. So the moral of the story is not to articulate amongst fellow believers what might be on your mind but rather that which will ingratiate yourself to the ecclesiastical authority structure.
In a Berean Baptist pastoral round table posted at SermonAudio griping about the state of American youth, the practice of giving at least a small token to each child that participates in organized athletics was condemned. The practice may have gotten out of hand. However, you are going to have to do something to keep the children that might not excel at athletics coming back or otherwise your league is going to collapse. Even the players on the NFL teams that consistently lose get handsome salaries even if they aren't given a Super Bowl ring. There are only so many Bible verses that can be stretched out of context to coerce compliance from the standpoint of old fashioned Fundamentalst guilt before that sort of manipulation no longer works.
President Obama played a round of golf with comedian Larry David. Given that David urinated on a picture of the Virgin Mary as part of a routine, isn't this a great outrage than if Obama invited Paula Deen to cater a White House State dinner?
In a sermon, an article was referenced lamenting that, each year, five percent of missionaries leave the field. How do we not know God is not leading them to another endeavor? For often is it really so much God that is leading people into this variety of ministry or rather overly zealous religious functionaries and administrators?
In a sermon addressing the Biblical text admonishing women to be keepers at home, a pastor remarked that his wife often babysat for women that worked outside of the home. But if women working outside of the home is sinful as the homily seemed to suggest, isn't providing babysitting services for such women akin to running a motel that charges rates by the hour for the purposes of facilitating adulterous liaisons?
A number of schools are implementing policies where biological males identifying as transgendered will be allowed to slumber (and possibly even horizontally frolic) with the females on overnight academic excursions. Does this require a track record of ongoing psychosis despising the reproductive pleasure anatomy with which God endowed you or can it be the result of a sudden pre-trip epiphany based largely upon whom you'd rather be snuggled up against and entwined with in the middle of the night?
In a Washington Post interview, the president of the leftwing think tank Demos Heather McGhee insisted that, out of a sense of patriotism, Americans must be willing to admit how profoundly prejudice they are and renounce economic policies that are the result of such. That translates as higher taxation imposed upon those that work to lavish additional handouts upon those unwilling to do so. Don't expect much to be said to discourage the destruction of private property in response to unpopular judicial rulings or police actions.
Regarding the so-called “burkini”, so long as a woman is clothed at the beach, on what grounds do you penalize someone for wearing one? For is the garment that markedly different in appearance from a scuba wetsuit?
A knife-wielding demoniac murdered at least 19 at a facility for the disabled. Will there now be a call for knife control legislation? After all, we really don't need knives. Food can be precut before purchase or officials can be placed on standby to be called when we mere subjects of the realm are faced with a situation requiring cutlery. For if you can wait around for police to take their sweet time in a life or death situation as they traverse the distance from the doughnut shop to your location, surely there is no inconvenience in waiting for someone to cut up the steaks environmentalists and meddlesome health officials insist we shouldn't be eating in the first place.
On a children's wildlife program, it was said EVERY living thing in an ecosystem is essential for its ongoing sustainability. Does that include plague causing microorganisms?
Of a review of “Orthodoxy” I posted at a Christian social network it was said, “For those that do not know, Chesterton was a Roman Catholic. He was a fine writer, and I've enjoyed his fiction, but couldn't recommend his books to believers.” So because Chesterton was Roman Catholic, that invalidates every last thing the man ever said even in those areas where Roman Catholics and conservative Evangelicals are in agreement? Whatever happened to the idea of selectively embracing the ideas of an author? And by holding to this prohibition, aren't you saying of your fellow believers that they are too stupid to sift the truthful from the questionable? Isn't this the kind of attitude that might nudge your coreligionists in the direction of the Vatican? Perhaps it might be more productive to turn this criticism for suggesting a book by Chesterton into an examination as to why Protestants are not as appreciative of those that can articulate basic Christian teaching and doctrine outside the formalized ecclesiastical authority structure when that brand of the faith claims not to be as dependent upon a centralized organization.
A pastor on SermonAudio asked why, in a church full of converted people, do Christians have to be begged to teach. Probably because many churches impose a litany of rules and regulations not necessarily clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture. A congregation can administer its affairs as the assembly sees fit. Just don't get upset when many decline to participate beyond a minimal level.
Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio oration condemned online ministry because of the tendency of those engaged in such to easily denounce those with whom they disagree as heretics. And how is that markedly different than the sort of Baptist church that practices radical blanket separationism rather than a discernment of degree based upon the issue under consideration?
Berating a depressed individual by yelling at them that they need to get their eyes off themselves and onto God isn't necessarily going to lift a person out of their funk. It's just going to cause a number to wonder what kind of self-absorption does God suffer from that He can't take a moment or two out of His schedule upon hearing that someone has the blahs.
In the attempt to spread fear and panic about, well, fear and panic, Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio homily warned that depression and a downcast spirit can spread from one person to the next. As evidence, he relayed the case of such an incident that transpired during street preaching. Street preaching is where the unsuspecting are verbally ambushed on the street regarding their need for Jesus. The person prone towards discouragement should have probably not participated in this form of confrontational outreach. But there is often no other way to advance or even retain status among this variety of militant fundamentalism.
In a sermon condemnatory of Christians suffering from depression, Pastor Jason Cooley remarked that often unbelievers exhibit more outward joy than many Christians. Maybe that's because they are not regularly harangued from the pulpit regarding a number of matters that are one's person opinion and not something clearly elaborated in the Word of God.
In a sermon critical of depression, it was asserted that most health issues are mental issues and that you cannot feel sorry for yourself. But is this kind of sentiment articulated out of concern for the suffering or rather because those purveying such advice don't want to be bothered hearing about other people's problems?
In condemnation of Internet ministry, Pastor Jason Cooley remarked that the primary failing of online critics is that they do not discuss the matter that they are addressing face to face. But if they are preemptively categorized as “Jezebel's” or as “women laden with sin” by this kind of pastor, what is the point in doing so? For isn't this pastor exhibiting a similarly unteachable spirit as well?
In reaction to a John MacArthur meme, a Calvinist theologian posted, “Exactly! We need to be judging and assessing the salvation of others. Churches and filled with undisciplined pagans professing to be Christian.” And what is the point of doing so if God has already through deliberative aforethought selected those who are bound for Heaven and whom He will allow to slip into Hell? Maybe there would be fewer of these crypto-pagans that nothing can allegedly been done for in church if we weren't constantly beaten over the head about being in church every time the door is open and the suggestion propagated by certain varieties of Calvinism that a number of opportunities should be denied to those that are not formalized members ranging from the recognition of one's marriage and the resultant children as legitimate in the eyes of organized religion to voting in civil elections and holding public office.
In the March 21, 2016 issue of Businessweek is a piece about a men's retailer that sells one pair of shorts for $75, another pair for $55, and a shirt for $98. Unless these also double as a working invisibility cloak, apparently some people have more money than common sense. $5 for a pair of brightly colored socks or a novelty tie is pushing it.
In a podcast, it was admonished that Christians are obligated to make their gardens more beautiful for Christ. If there is going to be that much stress in connection with something that is for the most part a leisure activity, why bother planting one in the first place?
Hillary Clinton has promised a new mental health program. If implemented, perhaps she will be the first to avail herself of these services.
Now that her own bosom is probably sagging and whithered beyond the uplifting hope of reconstructive repair, former Baywatch Bimbo Pamela Anderson is urging men not to gaze upon pornography.
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine has condemned Donald Trump's audience with the Mexican President as a “diplomatic embarrassment”. But wasn't this meeting where both figures agreed to the importance of mutually respecting each other's nation's borders more productive than Obama's own preelection preening here he sauntered to locations such as Berlin where he attempted to hoodwink the assembled throngs into believing he was the Messiah or some such equivalent?
Russell Moore now laments Evangelicals deriving much of their identity from politics. What he probably means is that he is upset many Evangelicals disagree with his preferred politics. From his public pronouncements, it would seem Moore would need to be among the first to repent. For did not Moore rank the foremost calling into question the validity of the profession of faith those Christians expressing electoral support for Donald Trump? Does not Moore himself sit on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, a group dedicated to the advancement of a particular groups interests at the expense of another based primarily on skin color and related physical characteristics? If Moore believes that the primary concern of the Christian ought to be the evangelistic or doctrinal, why did he leave his original position as a seminary professor to head the Ethics and Public Policy Commission which is essentially the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention?
A Marvel Comic about a Black superhero that in part confronts gentrification has been canceled. The fact that it proudly focused on gentrification pretty much tells you why it was canceled.
More time has elapsed between the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation and now than between the premieres of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. So shouldn't the upcoming online series be Star Trek: The Next Next Generation rather than rehashed prequel material of everywhere we have already been before? Are producers that bereft of creativity? If nothing else, couldn't they focus on the Time Wars hinted at in Star Trek: Enterprise or a time ship like the one featured on an episode of Voyager?
So regarding a church that plans to hold a clothing swap but refuses to hold a flea market, garage sale, or craft fair from perspective that such activities are sinful, why is it acceptable to trade clothing on church property but wrong to sell it?
If someone says on 9/11 that the date is a commemoration of remembrance but that they refuse to fill their mind with such images, aren't they filling their minds with such by simply mentioning it? Furthermore, isn't this perspective not that much different than saying that one does not want to focus on the sufferings of Christ but rather concentrate on His moral teachings? Isn't the Christian, especially if the individual presents themselves as a spiritual leader, supposed to approach reality as it actually exists?
If a pastor says that he'd rather do something he finds satisfying rather than be paid for in order to manipulate people into doing things for the congregation, shouldn't he put his proverbial money where his mouth is by refusing any kind of financial reimbursement from the church? If we are supposed to only do things that satisfy rather than because they pay as counseled from a pulpit, who will end up funding a church and, perhaps more importantly, these numerous missionaries many of these churches like to finances often at the expense of the church's own financial viability?
Pulling Titus 3:13 entirely out of its exegetical context, a pastor insisted that it was mentioned that Zenas was a lawyer as proof that Christians practicing secular professions are obligated to offer their skills on behalf of the church gratis. But does not Scripture teach that a workman is worthy of his hire? Where does it say in holy writ that this teaching applies only to professional religionists?
The question should be asked. Did the principal that urged parents to have their children exempted from standardized tests in order not to bring down the school's average break any laws or regulations? If not, he cannot be made the scapegoat for utilizing a provision allowed by policy or procedure. It might not have been the politically correct thing to do, but he not only has to look out for his own position but he must also take into consideration jeopardized funding that would be denied to the more capable students at the school. Wouldn't the ones to blame be rather the legislators or regulators that implemented such a system?
Regarding those such as celebrities threatening to leave America if Trump is elected president. That should upset us why? Such consequences would probably make America a better place. Therefore, good riddance.
While addressing the Colin Kaepernick fiasco, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church lamented in a discussion uploaded to SermonAudio the rise of “Fox News Christianity”. By that, the gaggle of theologians meant a variety of religious devotion that conflates patriotism with the Christian faith. Is it that the two have become dangerously intertwined or are these professional religionists jacked out of shape that some people might have interests and concerns beyond constant church attendance? Interestingly, in these remarks the conservative Christian is admonished that Kaepernick is within his Constitutional rights to be as disrespectful as he wants to be. However, when the conservative believer articulates their particular social vision, these same pastors bore them a new one how the Bible and the Constitution are not the same and how we really have no rights. Usually that sort of rhetoric is invoked to opposition to mistreatment or abuse taking place within a religious context.
If your cutoff shorts are cut so short that the pockets dangle lower than the cut off, it's pretty safe to say that the shorts are now risque.
Hillary Clinton said her pneumonia is the first time Republican men have ever expressed concern regarding women's health. This has got to be the first time the phrase “WOMENNNNNNN's health” wasn't employed as a euphemism for wanton fornication and infanticide. An infomercial is urging viewers to invest in a company developing the technology to hold 3D holographic events. In essence, you too can own a little piece of the Antichrist. The technology in itself is morally neutral. However, cannot help but have that verse come to mind about life being given to the image of the Beast.
Those wanting the name of Jefferson Davis Highway in Alexandria changed are probably carpetbaggers not even from Virginia.
Authorities are asking bystanders with possible recorded footage of the NYC dumpster bombers to come forward. When this video depicts perpetrators other than Whites of a conservative visage, will such vigilant citizens be harassed like those insisting that they saw a third Oklahoma City bomber?
The extent to which those in the ruling regime and their dutiful supplicants in the media are reluctant to categorize an act of violence as terrorism is evidence of the degree to which terrorists and allied subversives have eroded the American spirit.
Hillary's pronouncement in light of the NYC dumpster bombing that it is better to delaying arriving at a conclusion about a matter until more information is available reveals the thinking of a woman having spent a lifetime denying what is staring her right in the face such as about what Bill was putting into Monica's.
At the United Nation's, Obama insisted that we are obligated to throw our borders open to Islamist refugees. Maybe a number can be relocated to reside alongside him in the family quarters at the White House and at his assorted properties when he leaves office.
In a sermon where the modern believer was condemned for having a Walmart nearby unlike the humble ancient agrarian who only had God to rely upon, it was fascinating to hear the pastor stumble when the Power Point froze. For is not the pastor relying on images to compensate for lackluster homiletical delivery unlike the prophets of old who were empowered by God's spirit rather than Microsoft apparently?
In a sermon on singleness, it was decreed that singles not volunteering in the church are “not being accountable” (that nebulous catch all when professional religionists want to chew you out for something but really can't clearly point out exactly what you are alleged to have done wrong). If the pastor is getting paid, you are not obligated to do anything on behalf of a religious organization unless you have contractually agreed to for a predetermined amount of pay.
In a SermonAudio homily, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church lamented that the suburbanite is not required to rely upon the provision of the Lord to the same degree as the agrarian. So why is he the pastor of a religious entertainment complex in fairly modernized Fayetteville rather than somewhere in the remote mountains of North Carolina?
It was suggested in a sermon that singles ought to volunteer to babysit the children of the married people in the church. Shouldn't the children be taken care of by the parents that had the sex bringing the whelps into existence? And if these singles are obligated to babysit the married people's kids, shouldn't they be paid for this labor?
It was said in a sermon on singleness that viewing someone not married by the age of 25 as an old maid was from a certain perspective at one time rooted is supposedly Scriptural ideas. Nearly the same sort of thing used to be said about sending the Black folks to the back of the bus.
It was said in a sermon on marriage that most men enter into it selfishly. As if most wenches settle for ugly men with no bank account, automobile, property, or steady job.
So long as a “do good” initiative is voluntary, fine and dandy. Thing is, the contemporary dogooder is of the mind to force you to do good even if what they consider doing good is at variance with those eager to parade their virtue?
Fuss is being made that CIA director John Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate in 1976. Perhaps the more pressing concern ought to be that for the past several election cycles that the Communist Party simply endorses the Democratic candidate as its nominee?
If liberals can remove Confederate monuments and recognitions from public memory, perhaps conservatives should begin to lay the framework to eventually remove Obama's name from buildings where he was bestowed this honor for simply having emerged from his mother's birth canal half Black.
On the WRC 4 website regarding the story about proposed enhanced security measures at Arlington Cemetery, of all the military personnel buried there, the accompanying photo just happened to focus on the grave of a Muslim.
If one can't be compelled to show a photo ID in order to vote, then why should one be compelled to show a photo ID to enter Arlington Cemetery as proposed by the military? If one is to be made to feel like a criminal for making the effort to visit these solemn grounds, what is to prevent the average American from no longer caring about such places if they become yet another venue in which the state can practice its conditioning techniques resulting in increased docility?
In the first 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton criticized Donald Trump for capitalizing upon and speaking favorably of the real estate crisis. How is what Trump did appreciably different than the actions of Clinton financier George Soros who deliberately conspires to collapse entire currencies and economies?
In the first 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton condemned the American people for their implicit prejudice that prompts them to think in ways not authorized by tolerancemongers and selected social engineers. Does she intend to speak as directly against those that help themselves without benefit of recognized economic transaction to the inventory of nearby merchants following an unpopular trial verdict or police action?
Apparently pink gloves denote breast cancer awareness. Don't gloves prompt you to think more of prostate cancer?
USA Today has declared Donald Trump unfit to be President. Some have always insisted that USA Today isn't fit to be considered a newspaper.
A NYC councilman insists he's no less patriotic for refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Probably because he wasn't very patriotic to begin with.
The U.S. Navy has announced that personnel will be addressed by rank rather than job classification in the attempt to avoid articulating the profanity “man”. Does the Russian or Chinese militaries sit around wringing their hands about such banalities?
In a homily posted on SermonAudio, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church condemned those not risking their lives for Christ in the same manner as the Apostles and early Church Fathers. Such exhortations might carry more weight if the pastor wasn't sitting so comfortably as the head honcho of a sizable religious entertainment complex. If the pastor replies to mere pewfillers perceptive enough to raise these sorts of observations that he is exactly where God wants him to be, the retort to that ought to be is how does he know that the mere pewfiller isn't exactly where God wants them to be?
According to Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church, the Christian ought to take risks for Christ with little consideration of the consequences. If they do and loose their jobs, will the church pick up the tab or do new vacation Bible school puppets every year take precedence in terms of the disbursement of the offering?
Some are building bunkers and emergency shelters fearing the prospects of a Trump election victory. See, he's already stimulating the economy with many of these jobs no doubt going to migrant laborers.
Donald Trump has been condemned for wondering how Hillary would fair without an armed Secret Service detail. His son has been condemned for suggesting that those willing to allow entrance to poorly vetted refugees should be willing to eat a handful of Skittles from a bowl where only a few of the candies are poisoned. Apparently on the part of liberals there is an expectation that those subjected to their totalitarian brand of social engineering are to be forbidden from speaking out against the consequences or implications of misguided policies.
Hillary Clinton is urging millennials to participate in a day of service to give to something larger than themselves. How about urging them to look for jobs and to pay their own way in life?
Frau Obama condemned birther propaganda as undermining her husband's regime. Did she ever speak out as forcefully against “that guy from their neighborhood” Bill Ayers whose subversive acts actually resulted in the destruction of government property? Does the First Lady condemn contemporary acts of subversion where businesses are vandalized and looted following unpopular police actions or trial verdicts not even involving these victimized merchants?
Isn't it also an insult to accuse a campaign of being insult-driven?
Did those now accusing Trump of bigotry for at one point questioning the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship condemn Obama of bigotry for insisting that those residing in rural Pennsylvania bitterly clung to their God and their guns?
Regarding the imperative of evacuating from the path of the oncoming hurricane, President Obama insisted that property can always be rebuilt. Those confronted with FEMA regulations and prohibitions following the destruction of a dwelling might legitimately argue otherwise.
A CNN propagandist reminded Fox News broadcasters that they don't work for Donald Trump. Will he as deliberatively conscientious in directing a similar admonition to the moderator of the Vice Presidential debate that similarly she does not work for the Clinton campaign?
For purchasing advertising time on the Weather Channel ahead of the pending hurricane, the Clinton campaign is accused of attempting to benefit from fear and panic. When is this different than any other time? For without fear and panic, would politicians as an occupational class even exist. Will erectile dysfunction cures and feminine hygiene products be accused of attempting to grow their audience share during the crisis brought on by this natural calamity as well?
That's quite revealing in regards to the historic Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell spat that the take away from that was how horrible it was that Trump dared ridicule a WOMANNN's appearance (the term “woman” used loosely in regards to Rosie) rather than his suggestion free speech ought to be curtailed.
By Frederick Meekins
