Click On The Headline
Tuesday, November 09, 2021
The Principles & Ideas Of Deism
One of the perplexities of philosophical and religious research is that it can be easy to misconstrue the personalities and movements one is attempting to study through the prism of one's own respective worldview. This tendency, if one is not careful to adjust for it, can be compounded when decades and even centuries separate those seeking to understand the past and those events, personalities, or ideas one is attempting to learn more about. This is especially true if the undertaking is of a more casual nature.
Often with the passage of such considerable lengths of time, entire ways of conceptualizing and categorizing the universe can come into existence, gain in popularity, and then recede from prominence long before an individual seeking to know more about them even comes into existence. One such system the contemporary enthusiast of the past might stumble upon is Deism. And if one is not cautious in the encounter, one could easily come away thinking that little of consequence separates this seemingly antiquarian perspective from more orthodox or Biblical expressions of Christianity. To get a better grasp on this worldview that one is not very likely to encounter from the standpoint of meeting in the flesh a professed adherent of it, it would perhaps be best to first examine the background of the world giving rise to Deism, to elaborate upon a number of basic Deistic beliefs so that they might be easier to spot if encountered in today's world under another name, and the divergent paths Deism took in the respective cultural settings in which the viewpoint manifested itself.
Contrary to popular conception, religion in some form or the other is one of the primary motivating forces of history. It is just that at times either man as an overall social organism is either moving towards or away from a particular understanding of this particular epistemological structure. As such, it might be best to think of Deism as a path away from one way of comprehending the world toward another or as a kind of inn or tavern at which a great epoch stopped to catch its breath as the popular perception looked back towards what it once professed but was not quite fully ready to openly embrace the outright or deliberately conscientious secularism set out before it.
Christians weary of the cultural rot brought about by the licentiousness and the permissiveness resulting from an expansive secularism that keeps claiming additional areas of life and endeavor as part of its purview might long for a time when there was little formally delineating religious authority and the administrative reach of the kingdom or the state. However, such romantics might think differently had they been alive during the waning years of the Middle Ages or even in lands where certain brands of Protestantism held sway or were struggling to establish themselves. For even though it was an era where courageous believers lived and died for their convictions, it was also an age where in pursuit of an idealized Christian order less than Christian means were at times utilized in the attempt to realize a theonomically proper milieu.
The episode that in many ways broke the camel's back of a political system not recognizing the distinction between the life of the mind and that of socioal obligation was the Thirty Years War. Fought between 1618 and 1648, the Thirty Years War was a conflict waged across significant portions of Europe that was sparked as a result of not only a complex series of international alliances and rival monarchs jockeying for position but also intense animosities as to which side professed the superior form of Christianity. Of the war, Glenn Sunshine writes in Why You Think The Way You Do: The Story Of Western Worldviews From Rome To Home, "To this day, the Thirty Years' War is still remembered in Germany as the most devastating war ever fought there (including World Wars I and II). Almost every territorial unit within the Holy Roman Empire lost 30% or more of its population...people were exhausted by the war (107-108)."
Such hardship and desolation would naturally cause the educated of a reflective inclination to stop and ponder. Was such a price really worth it to see that one form of the Christian faith prevailed over another where those beaten on the battlefield were not necessarily convinced of the matter in the depths of the heart? And was such a God requiring His followers to spread His truth in such a manner to such an extent in order to prove their devotion to Him really all that worthy of devotion? More importantly, was such a God the God that actually existed?
The Thirty Years' War was not the only development going on in Europe in the middle centuries of that particular millennium to shake the continent’s foundations of establishmentarian Christian orthodoxy. After all, it was not like the vast swaths of humanity had not had an acquaintance with suffering. With an average life expectancy of about 35 years and conditions such as malnutrition and disease quite common, part of the allure of the Church that allowed the institution to acquire and maintain a pervasive influence for so long was no doubt the promise of a blissful afterlife for its members in good standing.
For around the same era in which the unity and hegemony of so-called Christendom was beginning to be rest asunder, a number of other cultural forces were at play that would forever alter what has come to be categorized as the Western tradition. For better or worse, the prevailing orientation throughout much of the Middle Ages up until the cusp of the Modern Era was markedly other worldly in terms of its underlying nature. The importance of the material and physical aspects of reality were downplayed. Starting with the Renaissance where European scholars became reacquainted with the Greek and Roman literary works of classical antiquity, focus began to subtly shift away from God to a more earthly emphasis as embodied by those pagan empires that have now swayed the imagination for numerous centuries.
It could be argued that such a corrective was not without benefits when kept in check by Christian presuppositions. Francis Schaeffer writes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture , "The men of the Reformation did learn from the new knowledge and attitudes brought forth by the Renaissance. A critical outlook, for example, toward what had previously been accepted without question was helpful (81)."
For example, early practitioners of science often undertook their research and studies with motivations that could broadly be categorized as Christians. These natural philosophers realized that, though marred by sin, the created world still possessed a degree of worth as the handiwork of God. As itself a form of revelation in accord with Psalm 19:1 that assures that the heavens declare the glory of God, it was hoped that learning about such natural phenomena would assist mortal man in the attempt to think God’s thoughts after Him. Often in today’s climate of censorial secularism, such religious motivations of a traditional nature longing to better understand the material universe are conveniently overlooked or deliberately downplayed. However, they were confirmed by some of the foremost scientific minds of the twentieth century such as Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenhiemer who both admitted that Christianity was the “mother of science” even if neither of these men were themselves professed believers in Jesus as Lord and Savior (Schaffer, 132).
It has been said that history is like a drunken man reeling his head from one wall into the next. By this, it is meant that once one extremity of thought is corrected, the seeds of the next great philosophical imbalance can often be found taking root in the very same insight or innovation dragging the culture back from the abyss of desolation. Eventually, this tendency to value observation as a source of valid knowledge would eventually come to be seen more as an end in itself rather than simply as a tool for better understanding the overarching higher truth of God’s revelation.
The approach utilized by many Christian academics up until early modern times was known as scholasticism. In the method, according to Earle E. Cairns in Christianity Through The Centuries: A History Of The Christian Church , a scholar linked an authoritative general principle to a fact and from that drew a conclusion without necessarily pursuing experimental verification rather than relying upon the reputation of the source cited to support the assertion being made (377). However, in Novum Organum , Francis Bacon popularized an alternative approach known as the inductive method where, instead of accepting a premise on the basis of the authority invoked to support it, the researcher developed a hypothesis, made observations, checked them against experimental verification, and then developed a generalized conclusion. The thing of it was not so much that this inductive method would be used to learn about the natural world and the established deductive method used in theology as the so-called Queen of the Sciences ruling atop the other fields of inquiry. Rather, Bacon called for an inversion of the intellectual order with the physical sciences assuming a position of superiority over topics deemed speculative such as religion and metaphysics along the branches on the tree of knowledge (Currid, 141).
Thus, rather than continuing to derive religious and philosophical truth from the authoritative revelation of God's Holy Word and interpreting the data collected through investigation through such a prism, these thinkers began to critique the veracity of divine writ in light of their empirical research. And their conclusions were impacted significantly by developments taking place during the Age of Exploration.
Europeans had long known of the existence of the Muslim world as evidenced by the Crusades where armies in the name of Christ and Church attempted to retake the Holy Land by force of arms and the Battle of Poitiers where Charles Martel repelled invading Islamic forces. However, it was during the Age of Exploration that Europeans were confronted in a bold new manner with the idea that entire civilizations and cultures existed beyond the frontiers of their own. And despite the vast differences between cultures separated by considerable distances, those enthused by the influx of knowledge often concluded that humanity as a whole shared a great deal in common in terms of the underlying religious nature of the species.
Herbert of Cherbury is credited as the Father of English Deism. In his work On Truth, he set down the following principles: (1.) There is one Supreme God (2.) He ought to be worshipped (3.) Virtue and piety are the chief parts of worship (4.) We are to be sorry for our sins and repent of them (5.) God dispenses rewards and punishments (Geisler, 153). On the surface, there is little on that list that the traditional Biblical Christian would disagree with and most of these principles could in fact be incorporated as part of one's own personal statement of faith or as part of a church's formalized doctrinal creed. However, as Norman Geisler points out in Christian Apologetics, Herbert of Cherbury insisted that these ideas available to all mankind through what is often referred to as natural religion were not simply a prompt to set the individual soul in search of the true and perfect salvation found only in Jesus Christ, but that these principles were enough to achieve a blissful afterlife for all of humanity. Without necessarily attacking the Bible directly, Herbert of Cherbury asserted that dogmatic accoutrements such as sacred texts, sacrifices, and miracles were not essential components of valid religious experience and knowledge.
This initial attack upon orthodox Christian theism was somewhat subtle. However, as Deism gained ground and momentum, the assaults of its exponents grew increasingly bold and blatant. For example, in The Reasonableness Of Christianity, John Locke embraced the unitarian view of God that denied the deity of Christ (Geisler, 155). Other deists such as Matthew Tindal in Christianity As Old As The Creation attempted to undermine the Christian faith by broadening the attack on the Bible itself. The perspective taken was that the revelation of nature was itself sufficient for all and that any book attempting to add to such was either redundant or in fact detracted from the sublime message of the natural world with fables and myths that either contradicted what we know by reason or addressed a time mankind had since advanced beyond.
Having summarized to an extent the background giving rise to deism, it might be best to describe somewhat broadly what a majority of deists believed. As James Sire points out in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog , an important thing to remember is that “...deism historically is not really a school of thought...These men held a number of related views, but not all held every doctrine in common (44).”
As noted in the comments regarding Herbert of Cherbury, as in the case of Christianity, Deism held that God created the universe. In so doing, deists believed that, in the spirit of the Scientific Revolution, God created the world to operate in accord with rational principles or laws. These laws were moral as well as physical and man could learn about the nature of the Creator and His intentions as thinkers reflected upon the grandeur and intricacy of the world at large.
It is after this point that Deism and traditional Christianity part ways. Influenced by the Newtonianism of the day consisting of seemingly irrefutable aphorisms such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, deists postulated that God created a universe so perfect in its complexities of cause and effect that He did not need nor desire to intervene in the cosmos or on the behalf of its inhabitants. Detached and disinterested from the workings of creation and the machinations of those occupying it, God does not relate personally to what He has made. It also flows from this notion of an absolutarian conception of cause and effect that deists denied the possibility or necessity of miracles.
This was a polar opposite of what Christianity believed. Christianity did, indeed, share the assumption with Deism that God created the universe and established it in accord with a system of laws noted for considerable regularity. However, Biblical theism held that, in accordance with John 3:16, that not only did God so love the world but that He entered into that world physically in the person of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. And that was not a trip undertaken like some wildlife safari to enjoy a vacation among the natives. Jesus came not into the world to be ministered unto but to minister and to give His life as a ransom for many, according to Matthew 20:28. John 15:12 insists no man can possess a love greater than to lay his life down for his brother. That is exactly what the lowly Jesus did for each person and that is about as far as one can get from the God of pure reason as expounded by the Deistic intelligentsia.
Throughout history irrespective of era, one of the undeniable truths that man as a creature stained by sin recoils from is the fact that Jesus came primarily into the world to die in our place for our sins. Elaborate alternative explanations have been provided as to his significance such as the one provided in our own day by John Dominic Crossan that Jesus was actually a revolutionary out to topple the prevailing political order. And more in keeping with the theme of this analysis, Thomas Jefferson, heavily influenced by deist assumptions, edited his own version of the Bible redacting the miraculous events such as the Resurrection of the life of Christ emphasizing instead how the Galilean handyman (though no more spectacular than anyone else in terms of cosmic powers and deity) still set a sterling moral example for everyone else to follow.
Apostates across the millennia have attempted to deny mankind’s need for a savior. Those of the deist persuasion were no different. To those initially shocked by the deist claim that there are no miracles and that the fundamental nature of Jesus was really no different than the rest of us, deist’s would assure that humanity really did not need a savior after all because there is really nothing wrong with man. In his points summarizing Deism, James Sire writes, “The cosmos is understood to be in its normal state; it is not fallen or abnormal (46).” Since people are as much a part of nature as the planets themselves or physical forces such as gravity, anything we do cannot really be said to be going against our nature.
Try as sophisticates might to convince themselves and to manipulate those around them that there really is not anything flawed about the world, the human heart retains enough sensitivity to long for a better world even if the individual is not fully aware of what it will actually take for the transformation each soul longs for to come about. Thus, in the deist worldview, the shortcomings observable in the world and within the individual are the result of man failing to realize just how splendid and excellent he really is. Many of the deists borrowed or endorsed the Platonic notion that to know the right would be all that was necessary to prompt the individual to do the right.
As with nearly all other worldviews, Deism did not merely promulgate isolated notions about God and the underlying nature of the universe bearing no implications for other areas of thought and existence. Inevitably, one’s anthropology or ideas about man flow from one’s theology or what one believes about God.
Whereas Christianity believed that the primary flaw that needed to be overcome which Jesus died for was the sin nature of each individual, deists believed that, if the environment could be perfected or idealized, man would be living large and on easy street. At the heart of the conception of man held by those sympathetic to the Deistic viewpoint was the notion of progress. Similar to what would be popularized under the banner of evolution in the 19th and 20th centuries, the notion of progress expounded by thinkers such as Bacon, contended that because of the innate goodness of man and the superiority of the scientific method for acquiring knowledge, humanity was on an inevitably upward path that would only accelerate with the triumph of reason over baser instincts and superstitions (Smith, 166). Just as they had crafted entire ways in which it was claimed to know all that could be known about God apart from divine revelation, Deistic thinkers were no less ambitious in their plans for mankind.
Inspired as they were by Greek thought and myth, a number of these thinkers were drawn to the legend of Atlantis, Plato's account of an idealized kingdom believed to be beyond the Pillars of Hercules that was ultimately brought to ruin through a great cataclysm that to Christian ears rings with a number of elements similar to those in the Genesis narrative of Noah's Flood. With the discovery of the New World, the desire to reestablish this fabled utopia in either these newly discovered lands or even in the familiar environs of the European Old World were kindled afresh. Where these thinkers differed to an extent was what were the best means to such ends and what exactly would things look like once civilization had reached the metaphorical and sometimes even literal shores of this brave new world. For among the deists, these journeys began to diverge largely in relation to what the particular deist in question believed regarding traditional religious belief and the value of the individual.
For example, though he believed in a God as a first cause stripped of any Christian understanding which might have imbued that concept, Thomas Hobbes did not believe that this God had any relationship with man or nature other than getting the ball rolling. As such, man is nothing more than a composite of matter moving through time and space disconnected from any higher spiritual realm (Currid, 142). Stranded in such a reality, life in such a state of nature is (as Hobbes famously mused) nasty, brutish, and short.
The best that man can hope for is to extend that brief existence for as long as possible and to ameliorate as many of these deprivations as possible. In Leviathan, Hobbes proposed this would be best accomplished through an arrangement known as a social contract. Though most Americans look favorably upon that phraseology from the way it would be utilized by later authors to limit what the state could do in favor of the individual, in the sense used by deists inclined to look less favorably upon the role played by traditional religion, the term “social contract” was used just as much and perhaps even more so to curtail the liberties of the average subject or citizen.
In the Hobbesian understanding, for protection and the opportunity to lead a life above the level of a war of all against all, the individual swore a high degree of authoritarian allegiance to a sovereign. Though not uncharacteristic for Hobbes’ day, nearly no area of life was left untouched or unscrutinized. In the system advocated by Hobbes, the sovereign could decide which opinions would be deemed inimical to public wellbeing, who could speak before multitudes, and what books were fit to be published. No act perpetrated by the sovereign in pursuit of his duties could be considered unjust; thus the figure could theoretically rule with an impunity that would make a 20th century dictator envious.
As the Age of Enlightenment progressed, notions such as the social contract took on an increasingly democratic veneer. However, in the minds more blatantly eager to undermine God's intended order, the concept could still be invoked to curtail the liberties of the individual rather than as a tool to protect them. Another Deistic figure in the more authoritarian branch of that worldview was Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Rousseau elaborated his ideas on these concepts in a book titled, of course, The Social Contract . Whereas many thinkers of his day believed scientific advancement and increasingly sophisticated forms of social organization were the means through which man would achieve his fullest potential through unleashing the innate goodness within, Rousseau believed these accoutrements led to enslavement. Instead, man was at his most pure in a blissful state of nature. In a manner not unlike the Emergent Church theologians of our own day with their deliberate affectation of unkempt Bohemianism, Rousseau contended the path to utopia did not lie necessarily through a multilayered bureaucracy but rather through the organic voice of the community known as the general will. Once this alleged consensus that sounds quite similar to mob rule had been reached, the individual would not be allowed to disobey this authoritative voice even if that meant the force of the community compelled the individual to be free against his own will. As Francis Schaeffer observed in How Should We Then Live, “The utopianism of this concept was shown by the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, during which the purification of the general will not only meant not only the loss of freedom for the individual but the reign of the guillotine (155).” Schaeffer emphasized of Rousseau’s insistence that those failing to obey the collective wisdom should be forced to be free, “Once more a humanistic utopianism ends in tyranny...(155).”
Deists not quite as hostile towards traditional religious belief did not veer as closely towards homicidal anarchy and dictatorship. The system’s more balanced thinkers tended to promote were more grounded in protecting many of those rights that had been hard-won over the course of history rather than upending nearly every last social institution on the spot with the hopes that doing so might usher in heaven on earth. It also helped that the milieu in which such a variety of Deism did exert some influence was one in which the population was itself sufficiently grounded in the Bible and sound theology that believers would only allow things to go so far and not much further.
One figure giving inspiration to this more subtle form of Deism was none other than John Locke. In works such as The Reasonableness Of Christianity, Locke did not exhibit as much vehemence against the Christian faith as would later deists such as Rousseau or Voltaire. Nor did Locke believe as Thomas Hobbes did that a centralized sovereign ought to exercise considerable authority and curtailment in matters of religious opinion. According to Francis Schaeffer, rather than destroy an established social order and weave an entirely new fabric, Locke attempted to preserve what had been or had the potential to be right but seldom adhered to in the political order by secularizing the principles found in Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. These included inalienable rights, the separation of powers, and right of revolution or resistance to unlawful authority (109). The synthesis of Locke's own internal spiritual struggle would result in the development of a system that, when delicately and precariously balanced, rested upon the necessity of public virtue but not necessarily upon the need to bring the wrath of civil authorities down upon those that lived their lives within the parameters of a broadly Biblical morality. John Locke would go on to play a profound role in influencing the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the Declaration of Independence's phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a reflection of Locke's own emphasis on the ideals of life, liberty, and property.
In the rush to counter a secularist fanaticism bent on removing any acknowledgment of religion in American public life, for the purposes of drumming up support for assorted causes and public awareness campaigns there has been the temptation to paint a number of the Founding Fathers of the era of the American Revolution as so undeniably in the born again camp that these figures in terms of their theology and applied Christian living differed little from the rigorous independent Fundamentalism of today. The truth, as well as these men themselves, is much more complicated than that.
Probably the most undeniably deist among those honored for giving voice to a number of ideals considered intrinsically American was none other than Thomas Jefferson. Serving as a testament to Jefferson’s beliefs is the so-called “Jefferson Bible”. In this document, the Sage of Monticello retained the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus while expunging those passages pertaining to miracles such as the Resurrection of Christ. This tendency to view Jesus as nothing more than a good man was a constant throughout Jefferson’s religious life. In The Shaping Of America, John Warwick Montgomery quotes from a letter in which Jefferson gleefully predicted, “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian (53).”
Jefferson’s unconventional religious viewpoints were such a widespread concern among sincere Christians that Richard Hofstader suggests in The Paranoid Style Of American Politics that Jefferson’s ascent to high office sparked considerable alarm as to what extent the Illuminati had penetrated American society and whether or not violent upheaval like that in France could break out in the United States if vigilance was not maintained. However, even if Jefferson himself did not have a personal relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior, he did recognize the role or providence in the rise and fall of nations. Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is the following quote from his Notes On The State Of Virginia: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever (Gingrich, 46).” Other support Jefferson extended towards religion in the United States included the use of public buildings for church services, a $100 per year donation to a Catholic priest laboring among the Kaskaskia Indians, and including the Bible and Watt’s hymnal as part of the curriculum he formulated for the schools of the District of Columbia.
The next enigmatic figure in terms of religion who is beloved or at least respected by a vast majority of Americans is Benjamin Franklin. As in the case of Jefferson, the objective historian must admit that there is little conclusive proof that Franklin threw himself on the mercy of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. There were also a number of things in the life of this monumental founder that the Christian could not endorse.
To his credit, Franklin believed the following: "That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to men (Montgomery, 57).” Though Franklin's personal creed might have been a point or two above standard Deism as he at least believed God governed the world rather than relate to it through a sense of disinterested detachment, like the earlier formulations of Deism described in this analysis, the problem was not so much with what Franklin positively affirmed but rather with what he omitted.
In the friendly correspondence that developed between two giants of colonial America, revivalist George Whitefield pleaded with this renowned early American renaissance man to turn his formidable intellect to a serious consideration of the claims of Christ. But as in the case of Jefferson, one can catch glimpses of the internal struggle for Franklin's soul. For the very same statesman who observed at the Constitutional Convention that how he had grown convinced that Providence governed in the affairs of men himself never formally married the mother of his children. Franklin was also believed to have frequented the Hellfire Club, a secret society that was essentially a sex club that took particular delight in mocking traditional religion and virtue.
Devout patriots that love both God and country, though unsettled by these claims, are no doubt thinking that they will not be similarly disappointed by George Washington, the father of our country. Alas, as with these two previously mentioned Founding Luminaries, debate is no less settled regarding the first President of the United States.
To his credit, Washington was a member in good standing with the Episcopal Church. He was also said to be motivated by deep religious convictions. It was Washington that added the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential inaugural oath (Gingrich, 34). During his service in the Revolutionary War, Washington promoted a code of conduct that encouraged soldiers to attend worship services and to refrain from coarse behavior such as cursing. And Washington’s Farwell Address suggesting that the habits of morality and religion are indispensable to the continuation of a free republic is a cornerstone of American political theory and philosophy.
But as in the case of Franklin and Jefferson, things in Washington's own background prompt the Christian to pause despite all of the contributions Washington made to establish the nation on what appears to be a steady course and foundation irrespective of whether or not George Washington's name really will be heard up yonder. For you see, George Washington was a member of the Free Masons.
Some might respond such a thing is not really that big of a deal as many join that fraternal order for the purposes of networking and status, not fully comprehending what exactly the organization professes. Especially in the past, members on the lower rungs of these kinds of brotherhoods would simply remain on their periphery in order to, as is said, succeed in business without really trying since membership has often been seen as the route to enviable careers in commerce and government. However, Washington was more than a mere member.
Washington served as Master of the Alexandria, Virginia lodge in the late 1780's. In that town just outside the nation's capital, the George Washington Masonic National Memorial was erected to commemorate publicly his affiliation with the secret society. Holding such a position of honor and distinction among the organization’s ranks, Washington would have known that Free Masonry held to what John Warwick Montgomery described in The Shaping Of America as a kind of liturgical Deism (56). Like Deism, Free Masonry holds that God is the Great Architect of the universe that set up the world to run on its own without interference on His behalf to keep it going. Rather than salvation being found alone through faith in the person and work of Christ, the individual is responsible for his own spiritual advancement with each of the world's religions simply expressing its own unique set of truths and viewpoints on essentially the same cosmic deity.
Learning that the Founders they had so admired might not have had a walk as close to God as initially assumed, some Christians might be inclined to so radically separate from the federal constitutional system established in the late 1700's as to call for something entirely new all together in terms of sociopolitical organization. Such a call might be too hasty and might play more into the hands of those seeking to establish a New World Order than one might suspect. John Warwick Montgomery points out in The Shaping Of America, "The single most paradoxical aspect of American history is that though the country's Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christians, the nation got off to a Christian start nonetheless. Both the American Revolution and the founding documents arising from it turned out to be --- often in spite of the motives of their creators --- fully compatible with the historic Christian faith (57).”
In the coming years ahead, to prevent the land that we love from descending into either the abyss of anarchy or tyranny, the Christian will be required to exercise the utmost discernment. Since one of the best ways to proceed forward is to look back at from where we have come, that will require each of us to grapple with the founding of this nation as it actually was rather than how we might like it to be. The Founding Fathers were by no means perfect and a number fell short in a number of areas such as perhaps in ideas regarding the person and nature of Christ. However, what they did grant to the nation was a system that would allow for a public recognition of God while allowing the individual to work out the specifics of their respective walks with the Almighty on their own in fear and trembling.
by Frederick Meekins
Bibliography
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through The Centuries: A History Of The Christian Church (Third Edition) . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.
Currid, John D. "From the Renaissance to the Age of Naturalism." Building A Christian Worldview: Volume 1 (God, Man, and Knowledge) . Ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker (pages 138-159.) Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1986.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988.
Gingrich, Newt. Rediscovering God In America: Reflections On The Role Of Faith In Our Nation’s History And Future . Nashville: Integrity House Publishers, 2006.
Montgomery, John Warwick. The Shaping Of America . Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1976.
Schaeffer, Francis. How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture . Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1976.
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog (Third Edition). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Smith, Gary Scott. "Naturalistic Humanism." Building A Christian Worldview: Volume 1 (God, Man, and Knowledge). Ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker (pages 161-181) Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1986.
Sunshine, Glenn S. Why You Think The Way You Do: The Story Of Western Worldviews From Rome To Home. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009.
Megachurch Conspires To Ban Neo-Lepers From Attendance
Those that comply should deduct the cost of the test from what they put into the collection plate.
Click On The Headline
Monday, November 08, 2021
Sunday, November 07, 2021
Flag Called On Christian Anti-Sports Playbook
A problem or concern with those the most enthusiastic about their faith in God is not that they are necessarily zealous but rather that they expect you to embrace their interpretation regarding those issues where those sincerely holding to the essentials of Christianity can view a particular moral conundrum differently. Take for example the issue of sports.
No Christian in their right mind will deny that professional athletic spectacles can potentially get out of hand to the point where those participating in them can be tempted by explicit sins such as greed, corruption, and even idolatry. However, in his essay “Professional Sports An Abomination To God”, theologian Michael Jeshurun argues that the sincere devout Christian ought not to have anything to do with sports beyond an occasional pick up game or ball toss in the backyard. In his condescension, Jeshurun provides a number of detailed reasons.
Jeshurun begins his analysis with an examination of the act of “Tebowing”. The name of the gesture is derived from Tim Tebow's practice of kneeling with head bowed in a posture of adoration following the completion of a play deemed successful on the part of the penitent supplicant.
To Jeshurun, it's not enough that a professional athlete amidst the hustle and bustle of the gridiron takes a moment to direct his thoughts as well as those with eyes upon him towards the reality of a higher overseeing power. To Jeshurun, the prayer is not complete unless the athlete enunciates a lamentation of his transgressions and heaps condemnation upon the venue in which the athlete finds himself. While he's at it, perhaps the athlete ought to rend his garments and adorn himself sackcloth and ashes. A little flagellation might also be in order. That would raise at least an eyebrow of interest in San Francisco.
Jeshurun's basic argument is that the Christian ought to avoid professional and organized athletics because sports is an idol and a work of the flesh. His first evidence raised in the attempt to prove such is Luke 16:15 proclaiming, “That which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”
Jeshurun writes, “This verse alone should settle it once and for all whether 'professional sports' is well pleasing to God or an abomination to Him.” Without additional context, that verse might not apply in every situation but more a general principle that applies when a particular activity or situation is inherently evil.
There is overlap where both God and man highly esteem certain things. For example, both God and even the unredeemed that have not succumbed to outright debauchery value a good name as counseled in Proverbs 22:1. Both God and a number of non-Christian belief systems value the married heterosexual two parent household as the foundation of a stable family.
Next, because a sizable percentage have elevated sports to an unseemly position in their lives, that does not necessarily mean that sports is inherently evil or that the Christian should not participate in them. For a number of the criticisms leveled against sports could be directed just as easily at organized religion in general and even Christianity in particular.
As a statistic, Jeshurun cites a 1983 survey that 7 out of 10 Americans watches, reads, or talks about sports every day. Another statistic from that year lamented by Jeshurun from the World Almanac and Book of Facts states that, of 2000 students polled of whom they admired most, there was not a single name on the list that was not an entertainer nor an athlete.
What is so wrong if coworkers discuss sports? Isn't that preferable to a religious war breaking out in the office? And such a topic is certainly more pleasant to discuss than either your coworker's hemorrhoids, the fact that he needs a Viagra, or that it's his wife's “cranky week” on the calendar.
As to the statistic about children, what is to be expected? They are children. Aren't their answers supposed to reek of stupidity?
Regarding these kinds of surveys, those taking them can't really win. If the respondent answers truthfully, they are reamed a new one for answering in a way that displeases either the pollster or the polemicist co-opting the researcher to make a point. If the respondent attempts to game the situation by telling the researcher what the researcher wants to hear but does not live their life in a manner reflective of the answers provided, they are reamed yet again for the transgressions of deception and hypocrisy.
Following the elaboration of this statement, Jeshurun provides a number of examples as to why he concludes that professional athletics is idolatrous. He first turns to the preeminent and learned theologian Howard Cosell.
In reflecting upon the devotion of Dallas Cowboy fans, Cosell decreed, “The Cowboys are more than a football team; they are a religion.” To show that this just wasn't a fluke on the part of a sportscaster renowned for his flair at turning a colorful phrase, Jeshurun cites an incident where 75.000 fans of the Devner Broncos showed up for a game despite a blizzard that crippled a metropolis like Denver that was no stranger to harsh wintry conditions.
What can one say? The world is full of people that don't have common sense that do plenty of things they should not that endanger their lives largely because they are told to. There are some that would risk their life and limb to go to church in foul weather when they would be better off staying at home.
For example, one particularly snowy Sunday in the mid 1980's, my unabashedly devout grandmother decided that the weather was too cold and treacherous to risk the pilgrimage through the elements to the Baptist church my grandparents attended about 15 miles away. But come perdition or high water (or on this case about five inches of snow), my grandfather insisted he just had to have his Sunday edition of the Washington Post (by that point the Washington Star had folded and most good Christian folk were still leery regarding the Washington Times at that point as “that Moonie newspaper”).
My grandmother relented to the request, thinking it would be no more than a 5 to 10 minute trip to the corner neighborhood convenience store. She waited and waited. As her mind balanced that fine line between concern and worry, she called my parents wondering where grandpop could be.
Given this was several decades ago, I don't recall precisely whether my dad set out to the corner store looking for him or that Dad himself might have been at work that day. Irrespective, the entire family spent that morning quite unsettled until grandfather returned home around 12:45 PM.
For you see, he hadn't just ventured forth to acquire a newspaper. To paraphrase the title of Bilbo Baggins' adventure, my grandfather had gone all the way to church and back again without telling anyone where he set out to which he insisted wasn't even his wife's business despite the questionable weather.
Admittedly, that anecdote veers a bit from the main point but will be tied into this exposition for a matter of emphasis. Just because it might not have been the wisest thing for my grandfather to not only drive to church in treacherous weather but also not inform my grandmother where it was that he was going, his antics did not invalidate the central claims of the Christian message and their benefit in the life of the individual when parsed in a balanced and reasoned manner. Likewise, when free individuals without direct coercion decide to pursue sports in instances when participation could be a detriment does not invalidate the legitimacy of professional athletics altogether.
Jeshurun attempts to further buttress his arguments with a number of additional criticisms that could just as easily be applied to religion. A number of these aren't even necessarily incorrect in and of themselves if looked at from a different perspective.
The first reason given by Jeshurun is that professional sports is based on greed. Jeshurun writes, “When the well known evangelist Billy Sunday turned his back ... on a baseball career in 1893, he gave ten reasons for leaving. Reason number two was 'Because it develops a spirit of jealousy and selfishness; one's whole desires are for professional success regardless of what befalls others.'.” Jeshurun continues, “As a matter of fact, sports teaches us to be happy when our opponents fail or when another player is injured so that I can be promoted to his position.”
And organized religion does not? It's just that organized religion has been better at formulating a series of pious platitudes that an individual can enunciate that mask the true intentions of the individual verbalizing them and can position the individual from the perspective of the most spiritually profound light possible.
For example, in many churches, the same handful of people hold the recognized positions of leadership for year after year, decade upon decade. For anybody new to be allowed to try there hand at anything, eventually someone has to not so much be but out to pasture but rather six feet under it. Even if the congregation is magnanimous and free of cliques, there is only so much opportunity to go around in terms of teaching positions or for talent to even be developed if there is a single Sunday school class with that either taught by the pastor or head deacon.
The next argument as to why the Christian ought not to participate in sports is because professional athletics is full of covetousness. Most Christians think of covetousness as wanting what someone else has to such an extent that one is willing to fall into explicit sin in order to obtain the obsession. Apparently Jeshurun's definition is quite a bit different.
He writes, “Covetousness is one of the definitions of modern professional sports. Loyalty to the team or country is out of the question. Unlike the true Christian who is not for sale (because Christ has already bought him) the professional sportsmen will play against his own for a price!”
That barely makes sense. Despite the easily drawn and often at times appropriate analogies, contemporary athletics are not the Roman gladiatorial spectacles or even the Thunderdome of the Mad Max series. We are not quite yet at the point where the assembled crowds chat “Two men enter. One man leaves.”
As a hardline Calvinist, Mr. Jeshurun has probably published a number of diatribes against Roman Catholicism; however, his economic vision is not that markedly different than the viewpoints expounded by Pope Francis. For both of these theologians have cloaked barely disguised anti-capitalist sentiments in the garb of other issues.
For example, an athlete owes “the team” no more loyalty than the common laborer the average employer. Like an employee, the professional athlete agrees to provide services in terms of performance in exchange for compensation for an agreed upon time.
Is what Jeshurun prefers some sort of economic feudalism? In that particular sort of system, the laborer is not allowed to ply his craft or trade in an environment where he can negotiate to obtain either the working conditions or compensation most suited to his liking. Instead, the human capital is bound to either a particular piece of land or even member of the nobility. Such can only be dissolved through extraordinary legal effort.
Equating that the labor of the athlete should not be for sale because the true Christan has already been bought by Christ doesn't even make sense. These two concepts aren't even related.
One is in the sphere of the economic. The other is in the realm of the soteriological or in relation to salvation. Should messianic metaphors be applied to other aspects of existence that the Scriptures were not intended to be applied to so literally?
For example, if Jesus is the bread of life, should we condemn those connected with the production and consumption of the more mundane conventional baked good? Likewise, since perfect love is found in Christ, should those that desire the emotional and carnal love that flows from the marital relationship with a human spouse be looked down upon in contempt?
Relatedly, Jeshurun emphasizes that “Professional sports stinks of commercialism.” Why is commercialism always spoken of as if it was a bad thing? Fundamentally, commercialism is simply the making available of products and services in exchange for currency.
Jeshurun writes, “Today, by contrast, the commercial aspect of professional sports is all pervasive...Star players are granted million dollar contracts merely for permitting a company to use their name...The names and logos of businesses appear...everywhere. The stadiums are literally plastered with advertisements.”
What in society is not? Even religion has not escaped this tendency. Granted, those such as Jeshurun certainly denounce the likes of Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren or Rick Warren. But don't the fastidious dogmaticians also commercialize in their own ultrapious manner?
For example, these critics might not take in the book sales of these headliners listed above. However, many times before their respective denunciations draw to a close, they will put out their own outstretched hand hoping you will feel guilty enough to deposit at least a financial pittance.
Christians often receive in their mailboxes --- both physical and electronic --- every week numerous direct epistolary fund raising appeals that would put them in the poor house if they complied to the extent demanded by each. Many are from large institutional ministries that would rival global corporations in terms of organization and the number of professionals on the payroll.
However, size is not always an indicator of brashness. For in many cases in terms of ego, at times it can be hard to beat the missionary letter. In these epistles often sent to nearly everyone the missionary has ever known irrespective of whether or not the aspiring itinerant has even extended the targeted common human decency or courtesy in decades, the recipient is expected to reply with a token of financial gratitude for essentially just having had their own particular culture demeaned in favor of a less developed one, had the legitimacy of their own profession of faith called into question because they themselves are not pursuing some career along the path of ministry like the missionary in question, and that this piece of dreck in the kingdom of God is being extended a privilege that they are even worthy of being permitted the opportunity to contribute to this sanctified undertaking.
Jeshurun writes, “What is it that professional sports thrives on? You guessed it --- PRIDE! 'He is the best; WE are the best; WE win the most; hit the best; run the best; the best defense; the best offense; the best goalkeeper.”
Do not professional religionists in their respective spheres strive for this as well? Does not the Christian minister strive to hone their rhetorical craft in order to gain the widest possible audience? Even among ascetics, don't those prone towards acts of humility and mortification attempt to be the best at such? Doesn't every church that forms with the exception of a congregation that sets itself up in a previously unreached area say, “Hey, we are just maybe a smidgen holier or closer to God than the church right down the street”?
Jeshurun further condemns, “Professional sports stars are frequently in the news for their moral perversions, for rape and assorted charges, for public drunkenness, for drug arrests, ugly divorces.” Sadly, how is this appreciably different than what goes on in the circles of professional religionists?
When one ponders religious figures that have fallen into carnality, one cannot help but think of the Roman Catholic molestation allegations that came out probably in the 1990's or the televangelist scandals of the 1980's. However, in profound honesty, hardline Baptist and Reformed leaders have behaved little better. Despite talking a good game, a number have comported themselves in a manner that would make the employees of the fleshpots along the Vegas strip blush.
For example, supporters were shocked to learn of R.C. Sproul Jr.'s confession that his name ranked among those exposed in the Ashley Madison data breech. However, his wandering imagination seems as quaint as Jimmy Carter's Playboy confession that he had lusted in his heart in light of the transgressions alleged regarding others.
Interestingly, these shocking transgressions don't simply transpire among those that happen to profess traditional trinitarian orthodoxy and strive to live by the moral code of spelled out in the great commandments. Rather it seems these acts of lewdness are also committed by those that profess and advocate the most thoroughgoing varieties of the faith invoked to call into question the soteriological sincerity of anyone that fails to aspire to the same level of rigorous external devotion.
For example, most are no doubt familiar with the Duggars. To this family, it simply wasn't enough for the parents to homeschool their children in order to prevent their brainwashing at the hands of secularist progressive educators. Rather, the daughters were expected to wear dungaree skirts dragging the floor while growing their hair nearly as long. And out of well over a dozen children, not a single was seemingly allowed to pursue higher education of any organized variety be it traditional secular, religious, or even apparently unaccredited correspondence training.
Yet from the news that leaked out in conjunction with the Ashley Madison data breach it was learned the one Duggar son didn't just cheat on his wife with call girls famous among enthusiasts for alternative exhibitionist entertainment commonly referred to as “porn”. He also apparently couldn't keep his hands off his prepubescent sisters.
Some might reply that the example of one individual unable to keep his most depraved inclinations in check does not refute the values stood for by the Duggar family as a whole. After all, parents are not responsible for the decisions of their adult children.
However, if one steps back for a moment in reflection, one cannot help but notice that this kind of disturbing pattern appears to be endemic among those upheld as leaders in the sorts of circles in which the Duggars operate and are extolled as the ideal family.
Amongst the homeschool movement, it is not enough for individuals and families to aspire to the Biblical ideal of reserving sex for marriage and trying to avoid particularly raunchy entertainment. One is considered not “good enough” in the eyes of God and man unless one goes all out in pursuit of an extensive list of externalities.
In particular, one is viewed as little better than a brothel whore if you are a young women or a patron of such an establishment if you are a young man if you date rather than allow your parents to select your spouse for you by the age of 25 at the latest. Anyone waiting much later than that to wed is probably some kind of homosexual and guilty of compromising the number of compliant missionaries one will likely procreate as divine breeding stock.
Of course these rules did not seem to apply for decades to Bill Gothard. Despite teaching that the married were to be viewed as superior to the single and that taught nowhere in the pages of Scripture, Gothard himself never married. And really why should he have? For along with being heralded as a superstar of the faith in the theological circles in which he operated, Gothard was regularly having any number of his base desires at least momentarily satisfied by imposing his carnal affections upon one intern after another. Just don't you dare hold hands in a darkened movie theater or kiss your gal goodnight afterwards irrespective of how many toes Gothard is alleged to have sniffed.
Other ministers insisting that hardcore fundamentalism is the only form of Christian life acceptable in the eyes of God haven't done much better in setting a good example. For example, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and the accompanying Hyles/Anderson College in some respects make Bob Jones University look like Animal House in terms of the extra-Biblical standards imposed upon those that attend. At the height of his power, Pastor Jack Hyles would call the deacons forward before the congregation to basically swear a loyalty oath expressing a willingness to die at their pastor's command.
Had these ecclesiastical functionaries fulfilled this obligation, they would have done so for someone that was probably every bit a pervert as Hugh Heffner. At least Old Heff had the decency to leave God out of his lechery. For you see, it was not enough for Pastor Hyles to get the hots for the church secretary and run off with her in a classic church adultery scandal. Instead, the horny clergyman concocted an elaborate theory that the church secretary was his true celestial companion with whom he shared a bond more profound than that which he shared with his wife. In a gesture of magnanimity not seen most likely since the early days of Mormonism, Hyles was willing to swap wives with the husband of the church secretary if the parties had been amicable to the arrangement (no doubt with a copious and enthusiastic laying on of hands as well).
It will be retorted that Jack Hyles was just a single man that went astray into these temptations following a life of dedication as a servant of the Lord in the Independent Fundamentalist movement. He cannot be scrutinized as some kind of example from which patterns or theories of prediction can be deduced.
Maybe not. Yet one cannot help but begin to speculate if something is happening here systematically when Hyle's successor and son-in-law Jack Schaap fell into a number of behaviors nearly as shocking and perhaps even more so. After all, similar moral failings are invoked by Fundamentalist pulpiteers as proof regarding the theological interpretations and ecclesiastical traditions they find distasteful such as Roman Catholicism.
Given his faults, one has to give Jack Hyles at least a bit of credit that he had the decency to prefer skirts closer to his own age or at least over the age of consent. For it seems that his son-in-law preferred to let his freak flag fly in the company of minors or around those over which he was in a position of educational authority.
The first sign something was amiss was when Schaap spoke before a solemn assembly at his church's Bible college about the importance of shaft polishing. Perhaps it must also be pointed out that for rhetorical emphasis the oration was accompanied by a gesture more suited for a bawdy Saturday night comedy club rather than a church sanctuary. For it was not that much different than what got Pee Wee Herman arrested at a porn theater in the early 1990's.
Yet it would seem that Pastor Schaap was more than a homiletical exhibitionist deriving his jollies from pulpit shenanigans. Seems that he also, like Bill Gothard, could not resist the allure of young maidens. As a result, the defrocked Schaap now sits in a prison cell for going after jail bait hook, line, and sinker.
It would be reasonable to ask what does all of that have to do with professional athletics, idolatry, and why Christians ought to have nothing to do with such pursuits? It was a detailed way of pointing out that a number of those very behaviors and depravities that Mr. Jeshurun rightfully condemns taking place in the arena of compensated sports also occur in the realm of structured spirituality (or what might more commonly be referred to as organized religion) that the dogmatically enthusiastic such as Mr. Jeshurun suggest that we not only make an important part of our lives but rather must be in explicit exclusive constant consideration of during every waking moment.
As such, if his suggestion is that as a morally concerned or ethically aware individual that we ought not have anything to do with something where a number of its foremost practitioners or adherents end up committing unseemly or even heinous acts, does that principle also apply to outwardly manifested expressions of religion as well? After all, to the individual raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord, the ensnaring temptations of sports are rather obvious to spot. It is often those in life's more explicitly spiritual arena more likely to lure even the most devout slowly into compromise and even outright doctrinal error.
Seemingly the Christian is obligated to remain part of the visible church in terms of participating in organized religion despite the numerous dangers prowling for victims in the shadowy corners. Then why can't the believer utilize a similar variety of judicious discernment in regards to professional athletics?
One ought to indeed be cautious of the extremes to which sports is taken by some in contemporary postmodern American society. However, nearly the same thing could be said of a religious devotion so encompassing so as to crowd out the other good things that the Father in Heaven has created or allowed to develop as part of His world.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, November 06, 2021
Friday, November 05, 2021
Thursday, November 04, 2021
Wednesday, November 03, 2021
Tuesday, November 02, 2021
Monday, November 01, 2021
Should We Celebrate Halloween?
Well, played. A pastor claims Halloween is so evil that he can’t explain why it is.
Saturday, October 30, 2021
CBN Milks Satanic Panic For Click Bait Ratings
In light of Halloween, the CBN website and social media accounts are
making a fuss over claims made by alleged ex-Satanist John Ramirez.
Foremost among his claims is that Satan use to talk to him and confided that all parents need to do for Satan to assert a legal claim to their children is to allow them to Trick or Treat even if they do not explicitly swear an oath of fidelity to the Prince of Darkness.
However, there are a few things that the discerning should take into consideration.
It is said that Satan is the father of lies and that in him there is no truth.
So even if “Satan” literally spoke to Mr. Ramirez about these matters, why should we then necessarily believe that this is all it takes for parents to lose their children to the Devil?
One would think God would be more ticked off about Pat Robertson's cold reading “Word Of Faith” scam (“I see someone on the viewing audience. The winds of the spirit are blowing coolly on their inflamed hemorrhoids” ) than on kids in costume trick or treating door to door.
Satanism is a real danger.
However, the average Christian child probably has a greater chance of being molested by the youth pastor than being snatched off the streets Halloween night by this variety of pernicious occultists.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, October 29, 2021
Thursday, October 28, 2021
Hit & Run Commentary #136
It almost reeks of conspiratorial collusion that some of the worst riots in contemporary history just happened to transpire at the exact same moment when these destructive vagrants can’t be punished for concealing their faces with a mask but rather could be if they did not.
On the podcast “Pastoring In A Pandemic”, it was suggested that a church could stagger the concentration of congregants by placing them in different rooms throughout the church property. Individuals could be spaced sufficiently apart and extended the privilege of viewing a video feed of what was transpiring in the main sanctuary. But if you have to remain that far apart from one another while looking at the proceedings on a screen, how is that any better than watching from home? At least there in your own domicile it won’t feel like you are going to be shot from the guard tower overlooking the prison yard.
Sophisticates sneer that wearing a facemask indoors is no more an imposition upon legitimate liberty than requiring customers to wear pants. So what such intellects are insinuating is that your face hole is obscene as your tail hole. These articles of clothing and the anatomical regions they conceal are not inherently the same in terms of propriety. If they were, if one removes one’s trousers upon exiting the supermarket, does that mean one will no longer be arrested for nudity or placed on an offender registry forbidding you to be in the vicinity of young children? If facemasks and pants are the same, does that mean media professionals calling for federal muzzle mandates while not wearing one are as lewd as strippers or porn stars? If facemasks and pants are moral equivalents, does that mean you can expect a visit from the police should you forget to close your curtains and the neighbors catch sight of you prancing around your home unfettered without a mask with your lips dangling in the breeze?
The so-called “Black National Anthem” is to be played before the Star Spangled Banner at the commencement of NFL games. Will those refusing to stand before it or kneel be celebrated as heroes of conscience? Will a ditty be played in honor of every specific ethnicity or only for those prone to destroy private property and loot electronics when they don’t get their way in terms of public policy?
If jurisdictions eliminate police, how and on what grounds will facemask mandates which for the most part are not based upon actual laws but fiat executive orders be enforced?
An agitator interviewed on Fox News hypothesized in response to a mascot being eliminated because of allusions to “Gone With The Wind” that the university should be allowed to change it to whatever it wants if that is what a COMMUNITY desires. But are such changes being made because of a true consultation of prevailing sentiment or because those in a particular constituency are afraid of violent reprisals if the decision reached does not comply with that demanded by a cadre of violent revolutionaries? And if the COMMUNITY, heralded as morally superior to any mere individual, decides in its infinite wisdom, after a time of deliberation to reverse these hastily derived alterations?
Fox News pundit A.B. Stoddard remarked that she hoped President Trump would wear a mask as a show of solidarity with those fighting Coronavirus. So apparently the covering is not about preventing the spread of disease but about the imposition of an ideological conformity bordering on the religious after all.
In calling for defunding the police, if Joe Biden wins the presidency, does that include the Secret Service and, more importantly, the enforcement bureaucracies intended to impose the confiscatory tax policies and racialist agenda advocated by much of the Democratic Party?
In a sermon on racism, a Baptist pastor lamented why must we feel the need to declare our way is the only way or to meet violence with violence? So just how many ways are we obligated to relent to as legitimate? The pastor rhetorically responded that we do so for fear or losing power or control. So to what extent are we obligated to compromise and to allow violence or the threats of such to be used against us as competing systems attempt to impose their preferred worldview and policy vision? Would the pastor gladly surrender the church building as an Antifa encampment should a cell of this revolutionary movement show up in the narthex demanding as such? Should the nation as a whole similarly refuse to defend itself should radical jihadists attempt to establish some sort of caliphate in areas where control by civil authorities might be precarious at best as we see beginning to take place in decayed urban environments?
In a sermon on racism, a Baptist pastor remarked that it is an attempt to grab personal glory to point out that a statement made by someone else is incorrect. As an example, he pointed out an individual that says “All Lives Matter” in response to the the slogan “Black Lives Matter” or when someone says that they do not see how someone could support President Trump. According to the pastor, such statements are a declaration that one person claims to possess greater knowledge of good and evil than someone else. But isn’t he himself making such an assertion by insisting that he knows the motivations behind all articulated ethical propositions? If one cannot point out the ethical implications of Black Lives Matter as a sociopolitical movement, then on what grounds is one justified in opposing similar sentiments when articulated by White power activists? And if the pastor really believes that any articulated verbal qualifiers that create a sense of “otherness” are unacceptable, why does he not condemn the ecclesiastical assembly that he leads for calling itself “Baptist Church” rather than simply “Church”?
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Preacher Boy Blasphemes Christ
Hopefully he will come to the realization that what he does not like is organized church and not the Resurrected Christ.
He claims he’s now OK living in the gray area of “I don’t know.”
Hope he lives a very long life.
However, if I don’t know going to suffice as the seconds of his life click down as the inevitably do for all of us?
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
Sunday, October 24, 2021
Saturday, October 23, 2021
Friday, October 22, 2021
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
Monday, October 18, 2021
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)