A professor of theology made an astute observation when he said that Calvinists read only their own books and works, but don't read the opposition's. If they did, they'd run into questions that are very difficult, albeit it, impossible to answer. Before we get to one of those questions, let's back up.
WAIT. WHAT?
The Calvinist says that fallen man is so depraved that he has to 1) be regenerated by God, and then 2) be given the gift of faith by God to believe in Christ. That's what R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries says: "Where does that faith come from? And this question probably more than any other is what defines the essence of reformed theology. If there’s one phrase that captures the essence of reformed theology, it is the little phrase, regeneration precedes faith."
To the Calvinist's way of thinking, God chose to regenerate you, but you have no idea why; He chose you as one of the ones He regenerated and to whom He gave the faith to believe, that leaves billions and billions He chose not to regenerate and therefore, to be consigned to the Lake of Fire.
HOLD ON!
Yet, we read of God's desire: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9) Yet, according to the Calvinist, in spite of His desire that none should perish, He deliberately chose billions to do just that, perish. This means that God chose to do something against His will. What?
Gordon Olson, a non-Calvinistic scholar, writes: ". . . Calvinists put the new birth
before faith, since they believe that spiritually dead humans cannot
exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again before they can
believe.”
There are (at least) two Scriptures which rise up to smite this teaching that regeneration precedes faith: Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Faith comes by hearing; faith does not therefore, come by being regenerated.
We find the second text in Acts 16:29-31: "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your house.'"
Paul's answer was not, "Be regenerated and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ."
HOW DID THEY GET THERE?
So, why does the Calvinist say, "Regeneration precedes faith?" Because the system that he's imposing on the Bible is forcing him to do it. It's not that he's found a verse that says, "Regeneration precedes faith." The part of his system that's making him do that is the first part of Calvinism, "Total Depravity," which he pushes way, way too far.
THE QUESTION
So, we proceed and pose the question: According to the Calvinist position as stated above, "How does one know if his faith is the faith given by God, or his own faith, one not given by God, which would then be a spurious faith?" How does he tell the difference?
If the reply is, "His works will show it," then "How many works, of what quality must they be, and how long must they be done?"
The result is that the believer has lost his assurance of salvation, a salvation God wants the believer to know he possesses: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of
the Son of God; that you may know that ye have eternal life . . ." (I John 5:13) He's lost his assurance because he can't know in this life if God were the One who gave him the faith, or if the faith came from himself.
WITHOUT COST
Friday, December 27, 2019
Friday, December 20, 2019
WHY PASTORS DON'T TEACH PROPHECY
Prophecy conferences? Where are they? Biblical teaching on prophecy? Why aren't we hearing it? The whole field of eschatology, where'd it go? Better yet, why did it leave the building?
Listen to one pastor when he's asked about why he doesn't say anything about prophecy: "People ask me why I don't preach more on prophecy. I say, 'Why? Nobody knows. I could get up here and make some good guesses but they'd all be speculation. Jesus said, 'Nobody knows when it's going to happen.'” (Rick Warren)
But prophecy doesn't have to be speculation. One quarter to one-third of the pages of the Bible are on prophecy; teaching prophecy is part of preaching the whole counsel of God. People who are asking about prophecy are asking about the rapture, God's future for Israel, the Great Tribulation, the anti-Christ, and the aspects of the millennial kingdom. Those knowledgable aren't asking him to set a day, month, and year for any of those.
The truth is that he, like a host of other pastors, avoid prophecy. The cause of that avoidance appears to lie deeper. Let's examine why.
To teach prophecy would mean that their sermons wouldn't lead to touchy-feely-all-is going-to-come- up-roses-presentations. That's because prophecy tells us that world conditions are going to get worse, much worse (II Tim. 3:13). Prophecy tells us that the world is going to grow progressively more and more hostile to the faith and those who hold it, hostile to the point of "If they hated Me (Christ), they will hate you." Prophecy tells us that the church will not emerge triumphant.
And to teach those things would be the death knell of what Warren has proposed in his "PEACE plan." The PEACE plan is his call for a billion people from the churches to unite to bring an end to various "giants," those problems so complex and ingrained that "even the United Nations can't solve them, but the church united can." Really?
Two of those giants the UN can't solve are poverty and ignorance. But, to borrow the words of a famous politician, "Yes, we [in this case the untied church with the PEACE plan] can!" Under the PEACE plan, the church can do eliminate those giants from the face of the earth with its billion slingshots. But check out Matthew 26:11.
But biblical prophecy says, "No you can't." Prophecy tells us that the church will sink into apostasy. Prophecy says that only the Second Advent of Jesus Christ will bring about that kind of environment, it also tells us that no human government, no election, and certainly not the church will do so.
Warren and others like him are presenting the church as the answer to solve the world's problems; the Bible tells us that without Jesus Christ's coming back to the earth there will be no answer to these problems, they'll only increase.
In spite of all the pep rallies to whip up the troops by well-known pastors, the church has no command to transform the world or even to try to transform the world Such pep rallies calling on believers to get there and change the world may get the troops all fired up for an hour or two but then, when the pulsating music and the sermons are over and the Christian is facing the fallen world, the reality hits: we're not going to reverse the curse. There's no way for the church or a government to get us back to Eden.
Now we can see why any pastor who falls in line with the PEACE plan won't teach prophecy: it doesn't fit with the plan, in fact, it's diametrically opposed to the plan. Prophecy doesn't jive with rah-rah-feel-good-and-get-out-there-and-change-the-world-sermons. One thing is for certain: if they won't listen to the Bible, they will one day have to listen to the impact of reality hitting them in the face and the PEACE plan will wither and die. And within a short time, people will be asking, "The PEACE plan, what was that?"
Listen to one pastor when he's asked about why he doesn't say anything about prophecy: "People ask me why I don't preach more on prophecy. I say, 'Why? Nobody knows. I could get up here and make some good guesses but they'd all be speculation. Jesus said, 'Nobody knows when it's going to happen.'” (Rick Warren)
But prophecy doesn't have to be speculation. One quarter to one-third of the pages of the Bible are on prophecy; teaching prophecy is part of preaching the whole counsel of God. People who are asking about prophecy are asking about the rapture, God's future for Israel, the Great Tribulation, the anti-Christ, and the aspects of the millennial kingdom. Those knowledgable aren't asking him to set a day, month, and year for any of those.
The truth is that he, like a host of other pastors, avoid prophecy. The cause of that avoidance appears to lie deeper. Let's examine why.
To teach prophecy would mean that their sermons wouldn't lead to touchy-feely-all-is going-to-come- up-roses-presentations. That's because prophecy tells us that world conditions are going to get worse, much worse (II Tim. 3:13). Prophecy tells us that the world is going to grow progressively more and more hostile to the faith and those who hold it, hostile to the point of "If they hated Me (Christ), they will hate you." Prophecy tells us that the church will not emerge triumphant.
And to teach those things would be the death knell of what Warren has proposed in his "PEACE plan." The PEACE plan is his call for a billion people from the churches to unite to bring an end to various "giants," those problems so complex and ingrained that "even the United Nations can't solve them, but the church united can." Really?
Two of those giants the UN can't solve are poverty and ignorance. But, to borrow the words of a famous politician, "Yes, we [in this case the untied church with the PEACE plan] can!" Under the PEACE plan, the church can do eliminate those giants from the face of the earth with its billion slingshots. But check out Matthew 26:11.
But biblical prophecy says, "No you can't." Prophecy tells us that the church will sink into apostasy. Prophecy says that only the Second Advent of Jesus Christ will bring about that kind of environment, it also tells us that no human government, no election, and certainly not the church will do so.
Warren and others like him are presenting the church as the answer to solve the world's problems; the Bible tells us that without Jesus Christ's coming back to the earth there will be no answer to these problems, they'll only increase.
In spite of all the pep rallies to whip up the troops by well-known pastors, the church has no command to transform the world or even to try to transform the world Such pep rallies calling on believers to get there and change the world may get the troops all fired up for an hour or two but then, when the pulsating music and the sermons are over and the Christian is facing the fallen world, the reality hits: we're not going to reverse the curse. There's no way for the church or a government to get us back to Eden.
Now we can see why any pastor who falls in line with the PEACE plan won't teach prophecy: it doesn't fit with the plan, in fact, it's diametrically opposed to the plan. Prophecy doesn't jive with rah-rah-feel-good-and-get-out-there-and-change-the-world-sermons. One thing is for certain: if they won't listen to the Bible, they will one day have to listen to the impact of reality hitting them in the face and the PEACE plan will wither and die. And within a short time, people will be asking, "The PEACE plan, what was that?"
Saturday, December 14, 2019
CHAOS FROM OREGON TO GEORGIA TO ENGLAND
Reports are coming in from Oregon, Wisconsin, Georgia, and from places far, far away, like England: there's chaos in the classrooms worthy of dedicating the evening news and special programming to examine the phenomenon. Students are disrupting classes to the extent that the other students are in danger. They're overturning desks, running all over the building, screaming, and even throwing desks through windows. Not after school, but during school.
They're hitting other students, choking other students, throwing things at them, destroying laptops by slamming them on their desks over and over again. But it's not just their fellow students--they're hitting and slapping the teachers, calling them every name you can think of and then one more. Teachers are daily enduring bite marks, scratches, punches. The students steal from the teacher, taking the supplies she's bought for them, things like pencils and whatever else she has in her desk.
In Oregon, there's a protocol--the teacher can't put his or her hands on the disruptive and the rebellious student, no matter what he's doing. There's no expulsion. If they have to be escorted to the principal's office, it's not long before they're back in the same class and the chaos continues without penalty, without consequences. In some instances, the destruction of the classroom is so bad that it looks like a Texas tornado has come through the room--every desk overturned, bulletin boards ripped down, and the paraphernalia of the classroom on the floor and all over the place.
You might be saying, "I knew it was bad but not that bad in our high schools." But you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong. What you've just read isn't a description of our high schools. We're talking elementary schools in Oregon, Wisconsin, Georgia, and England. As a matter of fact, it's all over the map and all under-reported, swept under the rug and hushed up. And the teachers say the chaos happens every day without fail. They're having to deal with a pattern they see every working day. They're quitting in droves.
Oh, they've had meetings trying to figure out what to do. The solutions they've come up with always involve "We need more money to place more people trained to deal with such behavior, more people in the classroom than just the teacher." Their solutions don't mention the spiritual.
Could it be that what's going on is a Romans 1 situation? In Romans 1, Paul says that when a society has rejected God, very bad things will start showing up in that culture and one of those things is that the children will become "disobedient."
What we're seeing is just what Paul said and it's chaotic.
They're hitting other students, choking other students, throwing things at them, destroying laptops by slamming them on their desks over and over again. But it's not just their fellow students--they're hitting and slapping the teachers, calling them every name you can think of and then one more. Teachers are daily enduring bite marks, scratches, punches. The students steal from the teacher, taking the supplies she's bought for them, things like pencils and whatever else she has in her desk.
In Oregon, there's a protocol--the teacher can't put his or her hands on the disruptive and the rebellious student, no matter what he's doing. There's no expulsion. If they have to be escorted to the principal's office, it's not long before they're back in the same class and the chaos continues without penalty, without consequences. In some instances, the destruction of the classroom is so bad that it looks like a Texas tornado has come through the room--every desk overturned, bulletin boards ripped down, and the paraphernalia of the classroom on the floor and all over the place.
You might be saying, "I knew it was bad but not that bad in our high schools." But you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong. What you've just read isn't a description of our high schools. We're talking elementary schools in Oregon, Wisconsin, Georgia, and England. As a matter of fact, it's all over the map and all under-reported, swept under the rug and hushed up. And the teachers say the chaos happens every day without fail. They're having to deal with a pattern they see every working day. They're quitting in droves.
Oh, they've had meetings trying to figure out what to do. The solutions they've come up with always involve "We need more money to place more people trained to deal with such behavior, more people in the classroom than just the teacher." Their solutions don't mention the spiritual.
Could it be that what's going on is a Romans 1 situation? In Romans 1, Paul says that when a society has rejected God, very bad things will start showing up in that culture and one of those things is that the children will become "disobedient."
What we're seeing is just what Paul said and it's chaotic.
Friday, December 6, 2019
YOU MEAN I CAN'T SAY "HELLO?"
II John 1:10-11 are warnings against a traveling teacher who does not bring the doctrine John has reiterated in I and II John. The believer is not to give any encouragement to the traveler. In the culture in which the first century Christians lived, there were those teachers and philosophers who made their living by traveling around and recruiting students who would then support him financially. The church had its traveling teachers as well, mostly evangelists. (Such teachers needed to be supported, as John will say in III John.)
John warns the readers not to support, help, or encourage any purported teacher who does not proclaim the truth about Christ. Since “you” and “your” are plural in the Greek, John is addressing the congregation. At the very least, “your house” refers to not giving a false teacher a meal or a place to stay. Even to invite them in gives the appearance of hospitality which violates the spirit of the text.
Verses 10-11 sound rude. Can’t we even say, “Hello”? How could “Hello” be a participation in his evil deeds? We find the answer in the Greek word for “greeting” that John used.
The standard greeting in the Greek John is using is the same as our saying, “Good luck,” or “Have a nice day.” The word John uses for "greeting" was standard in his day and literally meant, “Rejoice.” It was a perfunctory expression. Here is a reminder to the believer not to be superficial and insincere with our words, even words of greeting. There should be nothing hypocritical, fake, or insincere about the Christian, even in how we greet people.
If a false teacher had a “good day,” that would be a day that was bad for the truth. To wish the false teacher good luck or a nice day would be to participate in his destructive deeds.
Some biblical scholars are so offended by John’s remarks in this text that they say he didn’t write it. It’s true that this verse runs counter to the atmosphere of our day of multiculturalism because it is so judgmental. This text is pictured as a lack of love.
We live in a day when everyone’s ideas should be held as “true,” except the beliefs of the Bible-believing Christian. The question for the believer is just how much he’s been affected by the world-system. Do we offer a measure of respect and toleration for those we know to be false teachers? Check out your church libraries. Is false teaching tolerated there and a “welcome” given to authors who are false teachers?
This text reminds us to watch our casual remarks, even a greeting which can carry a measure of acceptance to a false teacher. If our remarks do that, then we become enablers of a false teacher’s desire to be liked and accepted. Please note, John is talking about the false teachers, not our relationship to those who have been deceived by them. Those deceived need rescuing (Jude 23).
John warns the readers not to support, help, or encourage any purported teacher who does not proclaim the truth about Christ. Since “you” and “your” are plural in the Greek, John is addressing the congregation. At the very least, “your house” refers to not giving a false teacher a meal or a place to stay. Even to invite them in gives the appearance of hospitality which violates the spirit of the text.
Verses 10-11 sound rude. Can’t we even say, “Hello”? How could “Hello” be a participation in his evil deeds? We find the answer in the Greek word for “greeting” that John used.
The standard greeting in the Greek John is using is the same as our saying, “Good luck,” or “Have a nice day.” The word John uses for "greeting" was standard in his day and literally meant, “Rejoice.” It was a perfunctory expression. Here is a reminder to the believer not to be superficial and insincere with our words, even words of greeting. There should be nothing hypocritical, fake, or insincere about the Christian, even in how we greet people.
If a false teacher had a “good day,” that would be a day that was bad for the truth. To wish the false teacher good luck or a nice day would be to participate in his destructive deeds.
Some biblical scholars are so offended by John’s remarks in this text that they say he didn’t write it. It’s true that this verse runs counter to the atmosphere of our day of multiculturalism because it is so judgmental. This text is pictured as a lack of love.
We live in a day when everyone’s ideas should be held as “true,” except the beliefs of the Bible-believing Christian. The question for the believer is just how much he’s been affected by the world-system. Do we offer a measure of respect and toleration for those we know to be false teachers? Check out your church libraries. Is false teaching tolerated there and a “welcome” given to authors who are false teachers?
This text reminds us to watch our casual remarks, even a greeting which can carry a measure of acceptance to a false teacher. If our remarks do that, then we become enablers of a false teacher’s desire to be liked and accepted. Please note, John is talking about the false teachers, not our relationship to those who have been deceived by them. Those deceived need rescuing (Jude 23).
Friday, November 29, 2019
WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT GEORGE WASHINGTON?
Impressionable school children and young adults sit in class and learn that George Washington was a deist. A deist is about as far away from Christianity as you can get because the definition of one holding to deism is one who believes that "God created the world but has since remained indifferent to it." By "since remained indifferent to it," the Bible, the Savior, any blessing, and all miracles are ipso facto omitted. Over and out.
One must wonder if there's a nefarious motive behind saying that George Washington was a deist: it leads to the conclusion that our Founder Fathers had no Christian orientation. But let us pause a moment and go to the source, Washington himself. That means researching what Washington himself said, not what somebody said that he said. (That makes sense.)
So, here's just one of the hundreds of times Washington referred to a God who intervenes in human history, a violation of the cardinal doctrine of deism:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor…. For the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed…”
"His protection" doesn't sound like a Creator who's walked away. "His favor" doesn't sound like a God who's no longer involved. "To be grateful for His benefits" has no reference to a God who doesn't care, but blesses.
How about another look? Washington doesn't write like a deist:
“And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions … to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed … and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord, to promote the knowledge and practice of the true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”
What did you say about George Washington? That he was a deist?
No.
One must wonder if there's a nefarious motive behind saying that George Washington was a deist: it leads to the conclusion that our Founder Fathers had no Christian orientation. But let us pause a moment and go to the source, Washington himself. That means researching what Washington himself said, not what somebody said that he said. (That makes sense.)
So, here's just one of the hundreds of times Washington referred to a God who intervenes in human history, a violation of the cardinal doctrine of deism:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor…. For the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed…”
"His protection" doesn't sound like a Creator who's walked away. "His favor" doesn't sound like a God who's no longer involved. "To be grateful for His benefits" has no reference to a God who doesn't care, but blesses.
How about another look? Washington doesn't write like a deist:
“And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions … to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed … and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord, to promote the knowledge and practice of the true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”
What did you say about George Washington? That he was a deist?
No.
Friday, November 22, 2019
EVERYTHING MUST GO!
Psalm 11:3 is an oft-quoted verse as one of despair: "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Then, upon quoting, it's left hanging with no context, as if you're supposed to answer, "Nothing."
Looking at the current milieu, we may not realize that what's going on is by deliberate, pre-planned, and in-your-face-design. David Horowitz was a one-time 1960's radical now turned one of the good guys at age 80. Speaking of his former days at UC Berkeley, he lets the cat out of the bag: the goal of the radical revolutionary can be stated in one sentence: "Everything must go!" The radical's definition of "everything" is simple: "everything." For the revolutionists to bring in their envisioned utopia, the old must go, i. e. everything must go. "Everything must go" explains what we're seeing today.
For example, we've seen that the Founding Fathers must go, statues in their honor must go, schools and streets which bear their names must find new ones. Athletic teams must adopt new mascots and names. Gender must go. Biology must go. Men's and women's, boys' and girls' restrooms and locker room facilities must go.
Male and female sporting competitions must go. The pronouns, he and she, must go (Ze and Zir are the new ones). Shakespeare must go. (At the University of Pennsylvania in December 2016, English students, with the approval of the head of the English department, replaced a hallway portrait of William Shakespeare with a photograph of poet/activist Audre Lorde (1934-1992). (Hardly a household name.) A sample of her "poetry" is:
"I am trapped on a desert of raw gunshot wounds
and a dead child dragging his shattered black
face off the edge of my sleep
blood from his punctured cheeks and shoulders
is the only liquid for miles . . ." (It's longer, but you get the idea)
To continue: the Pledge of Allegiance must go. The Boy Scouts must be destroyed. History courses in Western Civilization must be eliminated for graduation. (No wonder, because Western Civilization was founded on Christianity.) In short, everything must be called into question, even marriage, Christmas trees, and carols, the Salvation Army, polite and civil language replaced crude vulgarities and at this time of the year, school plays about and the story of the Pilgrims must go--everything must go.
These are foundational beliefs, so "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" is the question that's asked in the psalm then we abandon Psalm 11 as if the author were holding a sign that says, "The foundation's gone. There's nothing you can do."
But the reader needs to read the rest of the story where David answers the question:
"The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares;
Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face."
David says that the answer is to have his viewpoint, the divine viewpoint which is reality: "The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord's throne is in heaven." David's focus is on God whose "eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked." --God was aware of what was going on in Israel. He was testing both the believer and the unbeliever, leading to his punishing the wicked and rewarding the believer.
David is saying that the believer should remember that God is in control and He'll take care of those who are living for Him, no matter what the culture is doing. When the foundations are destroyed, it's beyond us, but not beyond Him. What can the righteous do? Pray, for one thing, and when God shakes things up, we put and keep our focus on building up the church, not building up one political party or another.That would be putting our hope in man, which is always and forever forbidden for the believer.
Looking at the current milieu, we may not realize that what's going on is by deliberate, pre-planned, and in-your-face-design. David Horowitz was a one-time 1960's radical now turned one of the good guys at age 80. Speaking of his former days at UC Berkeley, he lets the cat out of the bag: the goal of the radical revolutionary can be stated in one sentence: "Everything must go!" The radical's definition of "everything" is simple: "everything." For the revolutionists to bring in their envisioned utopia, the old must go, i. e. everything must go. "Everything must go" explains what we're seeing today.
For example, we've seen that the Founding Fathers must go, statues in their honor must go, schools and streets which bear their names must find new ones. Athletic teams must adopt new mascots and names. Gender must go. Biology must go. Men's and women's, boys' and girls' restrooms and locker room facilities must go.
Male and female sporting competitions must go. The pronouns, he and she, must go (Ze and Zir are the new ones). Shakespeare must go. (At the University of Pennsylvania in December 2016, English students, with the approval of the head of the English department, replaced a hallway portrait of William Shakespeare with a photograph of poet/activist Audre Lorde (1934-1992). (Hardly a household name.) A sample of her "poetry" is:
"I am trapped on a desert of raw gunshot wounds
and a dead child dragging his shattered black
face off the edge of my sleep
blood from his punctured cheeks and shoulders
is the only liquid for miles . . ." (It's longer, but you get the idea)
To continue: the Pledge of Allegiance must go. The Boy Scouts must be destroyed. History courses in Western Civilization must be eliminated for graduation. (No wonder, because Western Civilization was founded on Christianity.) In short, everything must be called into question, even marriage, Christmas trees, and carols, the Salvation Army, polite and civil language replaced crude vulgarities and at this time of the year, school plays about and the story of the Pilgrims must go--everything must go.
These are foundational beliefs, so "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" is the question that's asked in the psalm then we abandon Psalm 11 as if the author were holding a sign that says, "The foundation's gone. There's nothing you can do."
But the reader needs to read the rest of the story where David answers the question:
"The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares;
Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face."
David says that the answer is to have his viewpoint, the divine viewpoint which is reality: "The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord's throne is in heaven." David's focus is on God whose "eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked." --God was aware of what was going on in Israel. He was testing both the believer and the unbeliever, leading to his punishing the wicked and rewarding the believer.
David is saying that the believer should remember that God is in control and He'll take care of those who are living for Him, no matter what the culture is doing. When the foundations are destroyed, it's beyond us, but not beyond Him. What can the righteous do? Pray, for one thing, and when God shakes things up, we put and keep our focus on building up the church, not building up one political party or another.That would be putting our hope in man, which is always and forever forbidden for the believer.
Friday, November 15, 2019
JUDY GARLAND'S CON GAME
There's a movie out and about called, "Judy." It's a biopic of Judy Garland who earned her fame going to see a wizard, meeting a lion, a tinman, and a scarecrow and still having time to squeeze in a song called, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."
Judy had a hard life, some of it because of her choices but some not because of her self-inflicted decisions. To say she had an overbearing control freak of a mother would be an understatement. MGM put stringent restrictions of her, controlling her diet to the point that she wasn't permitted to enjoy a single slice of her own birthday cake. They were fanatical about controlling her weight.
She pill-popped her way through her abnormal childhood and five marriages to David Rose, Mark Herron, Mickey Deans, Sidney Luff, and Vincente Minnelli. Her schedule was so frenetic that she took pills to stay awake, pills to go to sleep, and pills to take the edge off her hunger.
The PG-13 movie depicted all those things and one thing more. There's a scene in the movie in which Judy Garland, now an adult, is in London performing at one of its theaters. One night after her performance, she can't sleep so she begins to walk around London in the dead of night all alone.
Wait a minute! Judy Garland out and about alone pounding the now-deserted pavement and darkened London? That sounds dangerous.
Yes, it's in the movie. It just so happens that at that early morning hour, she comes across two men who tell her that they're her biggest fans. They chit-chat a while and then it's suggested that they find a place to have breakfast (at 2 or 3 AM), so they traipse over to a place but it's closed. At this point, the ever-resourceful Judy says, "Why don't we go to your place and I'll fix breakfast?"
The two men are taken aback at the fact that one so famous as Judy Garland, their idol, would even suggest such a thing, but they see she's serious so they betake themselves to their apartment. While Judy is in the kitchen displaying her culinary talents, one of the fellows says that they've been to every one of her London performances except one. Judy's curiosity now comes to the forefront.
Now comes the revelation: the one time they missed seeing her was when the other fellow was arrested on "obscenity charges." Now the movie audience figures out just who these two are. Now the scene has been set for Judy Garland to make a speech about how narrow-minded and awful people are, how they don't understand people who are different and how afraid they are of anyone who's like those two.
Wait a minute one more time. Judy Garland is out walking around unattended, by herself at 3 in the morning? This looks suspicious, so suspicious that it needs checking out. If one were to run a check on it, he would discover that such a meeting never happened. She was never out on the streets alone; she never met two such men. The entire scene was a setup, a con perpetrated on the audience so that Judy would have a context and a soapbox on which to make her speech. It was all contrived.
But that's not all. In the last scene of the movie, Judy is on stage for the last time in London and the request comes from the audience, "Sing 'Over the Rainbow.'" Judy is struck by the request and begins to sing, but she has an emotional moment and drifts off into silence mid-melody, not being able to finish her signature song.
After an awkward silence, all of a sudden, there are the two men again in the audience and lo and behold, one of them rises out of his set and begins to sing "Over the Rainbow." There he was, the hero to the rescue. As he sings, the audience, one by one, begins to stand, one by one and two by two and sing along as well. Then Judy, touched beyond measure, joins in and the whole place sings in unison.
Wait a minute. That too was contrived. It never happened.
The point is that scenes were contrived, inserted into the movie so that a message, a piece of propaganda could be delivered to the unsuspecting audience. It was a contrived shaming of those watching the movie.
The credits roll. The people in the theater go home having been conned and they don't know it.
Judy had a hard life, some of it because of her choices but some not because of her self-inflicted decisions. To say she had an overbearing control freak of a mother would be an understatement. MGM put stringent restrictions of her, controlling her diet to the point that she wasn't permitted to enjoy a single slice of her own birthday cake. They were fanatical about controlling her weight.
She pill-popped her way through her abnormal childhood and five marriages to David Rose, Mark Herron, Mickey Deans, Sidney Luff, and Vincente Minnelli. Her schedule was so frenetic that she took pills to stay awake, pills to go to sleep, and pills to take the edge off her hunger.
The PG-13 movie depicted all those things and one thing more. There's a scene in the movie in which Judy Garland, now an adult, is in London performing at one of its theaters. One night after her performance, she can't sleep so she begins to walk around London in the dead of night all alone.
Wait a minute! Judy Garland out and about alone pounding the now-deserted pavement and darkened London? That sounds dangerous.
Yes, it's in the movie. It just so happens that at that early morning hour, she comes across two men who tell her that they're her biggest fans. They chit-chat a while and then it's suggested that they find a place to have breakfast (at 2 or 3 AM), so they traipse over to a place but it's closed. At this point, the ever-resourceful Judy says, "Why don't we go to your place and I'll fix breakfast?"
The two men are taken aback at the fact that one so famous as Judy Garland, their idol, would even suggest such a thing, but they see she's serious so they betake themselves to their apartment. While Judy is in the kitchen displaying her culinary talents, one of the fellows says that they've been to every one of her London performances except one. Judy's curiosity now comes to the forefront.
Now comes the revelation: the one time they missed seeing her was when the other fellow was arrested on "obscenity charges." Now the movie audience figures out just who these two are. Now the scene has been set for Judy Garland to make a speech about how narrow-minded and awful people are, how they don't understand people who are different and how afraid they are of anyone who's like those two.
Wait a minute one more time. Judy Garland is out walking around unattended, by herself at 3 in the morning? This looks suspicious, so suspicious that it needs checking out. If one were to run a check on it, he would discover that such a meeting never happened. She was never out on the streets alone; she never met two such men. The entire scene was a setup, a con perpetrated on the audience so that Judy would have a context and a soapbox on which to make her speech. It was all contrived.
But that's not all. In the last scene of the movie, Judy is on stage for the last time in London and the request comes from the audience, "Sing 'Over the Rainbow.'" Judy is struck by the request and begins to sing, but she has an emotional moment and drifts off into silence mid-melody, not being able to finish her signature song.
After an awkward silence, all of a sudden, there are the two men again in the audience and lo and behold, one of them rises out of his set and begins to sing "Over the Rainbow." There he was, the hero to the rescue. As he sings, the audience, one by one, begins to stand, one by one and two by two and sing along as well. Then Judy, touched beyond measure, joins in and the whole place sings in unison.
Wait a minute. That too was contrived. It never happened.
The point is that scenes were contrived, inserted into the movie so that a message, a piece of propaganda could be delivered to the unsuspecting audience. It was a contrived shaming of those watching the movie.
The credits roll. The people in the theater go home having been conned and they don't know it.
Friday, November 8, 2019
PROBLEMS WITH ANNE FRANK
“In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can’t build my hopes on a foundation consisting of
confusion, misery, and death.” That was the way Anne Frank ended her diary.
Anne Frank became famous for the diary she kept as she and her family suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis during WWII. She eventually died in a Nazi concentration camp. There was only one reason for her suffering. Her crime in the eyes of the Nazis was that she was Jewish.
Those last words she wrote in her diary put on the Seven League Boots and made her famous all over the world after her death and the discovery and publication of her literary efforts. She's been the subject of biographies, plays, and movies which have told her tragic story. And with each telling, that sentence has been told and retold.
But therein lies the problem: the last sentence in her diary is a lie, a lie that has been believed for centuries, just as Anne Frank believed it and that lie has influenced the policies of government, the policies of higher education, the policies of parenting, and the teachings of the social sciences.
Not only is it a lie, but embedded in Anne Frank's words, we see that it's a naive lie in the fact that she began the sentence with, "In spite of everything . . ." That is, in spite of the empirical evidence, in spite of the Nazis, in spite of the evil-soaked record of history inscribed in every textbook, "I believe that people are really good at heart."
Among the many texts in the Bible showing her sentence to be fallacious, one will suffice: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were BY NATURE children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2:1-3)
Cameron Buettel records the results of this ancient lie: "Welfare programs flounder because of beneficiaries who prefer to extort the system rather than behave ethically. Psychologists continue to exclude the possibility of a sinful nature from their study of the human experience. Behavioral experts relentlessly try to solve bad behavior with better education. And society at large is now burdened with a younger generation that identifies as victims rather than perpetrators, refusing to be held accountable for its actions."
Buettel continues to show how the lie has infiltrated churches, citing the following from a sermon:
It's another popular lie that children possess wisdom, wisdom beyond adults, a wisdom beyond their parents. The implication of this lie is, "Listen to the children." We see this in the propaganda put out by movies and television and in the press showcasing and the quoting children as authorities on current controversial subjects all the way from climate control to the Second Amendment.
Our touchstone is, once again, as it should be, the Bible: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child . . ."
“The important concept here is that the adolescent brain is still developing and not yet fully mature,” says Andrew Garner, M.D., FAAP, member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.
“Scans of normal kids have revealed that different parts of the brain mature at different rates,” he says. “In fact, some parts of the brain — such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) that sits right behind the eyes — do not appear fully mature until 24 years old! Other parts of the brain, like the walnut-shaped amygdala (AMG) that sits deep in the brain, appear to be fully mature much earlier. Many neuroscientists think that this mismatch in brain maturity may explain a lot of adolescent behavior.”
As an example of the medical fact that the adolescent brain is still developing, I cite the following from a high school student's diary: "They all tried to tell me what to be and how to act. Who do they think they are? I've been alive for 16 years! I think I know how the world works. I think I can make my own choices."
Both Proverbs and the above medical findings would have ramifications in more ways than one. Proverbs 22:15 would be an argument against lowering the voting age to 16; an argument against allowing children to enter the office of and scream at a U. S. Senator; an argument against having children hold up signs and march for and against various positions; an argument against giving a platform to and granting interviews with high school students on gun control.
Anne Frank died in a concentration camp the month before Hitler committed suicide and the war in Europe was over. Hers was truly a tragic story. However, her conclusion about human nature is in error.
Anne Frank became famous for the diary she kept as she and her family suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis during WWII. She eventually died in a Nazi concentration camp. There was only one reason for her suffering. Her crime in the eyes of the Nazis was that she was Jewish.
Those last words she wrote in her diary put on the Seven League Boots and made her famous all over the world after her death and the discovery and publication of her literary efforts. She's been the subject of biographies, plays, and movies which have told her tragic story. And with each telling, that sentence has been told and retold.
But therein lies the problem: the last sentence in her diary is a lie, a lie that has been believed for centuries, just as Anne Frank believed it and that lie has influenced the policies of government, the policies of higher education, the policies of parenting, and the teachings of the social sciences.
Not only is it a lie, but embedded in Anne Frank's words, we see that it's a naive lie in the fact that she began the sentence with, "In spite of everything . . ." That is, in spite of the empirical evidence, in spite of the Nazis, in spite of the evil-soaked record of history inscribed in every textbook, "I believe that people are really good at heart."
Among the many texts in the Bible showing her sentence to be fallacious, one will suffice: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were BY NATURE children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2:1-3)
Cameron Buettel records the results of this ancient lie: "Welfare programs flounder because of beneficiaries who prefer to extort the system rather than behave ethically. Psychologists continue to exclude the possibility of a sinful nature from their study of the human experience. Behavioral experts relentlessly try to solve bad behavior with better education. And society at large is now burdened with a younger generation that identifies as victims rather than perpetrators, refusing to be held accountable for its actions."
Buettel continues to show how the lie has infiltrated churches, citing the following from a sermon:
You’re not born evil. It’s amazing how many teachings and theologies start with that thought. Anytime you start with that you will create a controlling, manipulative environment.Every government, every structure . . . every system fundamentally and theologically must start with the concept and the idea that people are good and they mean to do good. Even if they are not saved, we have to start from that premise. We have to adjust our theology. We have to adjust our fundamental stance when we look at people. . . . We have to adjust our perspective of people. We have to realize that people are good and they mean to do good.There's another problem with Anne Frank and it roars to the surface when we ask the question, "To whom are we listening and heeding when we believe and implement the lie in her diary? The answer: We're listening to a 15-year-old child. This reveals another lie believed by our society today.
It's another popular lie that children possess wisdom, wisdom beyond adults, a wisdom beyond their parents. The implication of this lie is, "Listen to the children." We see this in the propaganda put out by movies and television and in the press showcasing and the quoting children as authorities on current controversial subjects all the way from climate control to the Second Amendment.
Our touchstone is, once again, as it should be, the Bible: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child . . ."
“The important concept here is that the adolescent brain is still developing and not yet fully mature,” says Andrew Garner, M.D., FAAP, member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.
“Scans of normal kids have revealed that different parts of the brain mature at different rates,” he says. “In fact, some parts of the brain — such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) that sits right behind the eyes — do not appear fully mature until 24 years old! Other parts of the brain, like the walnut-shaped amygdala (AMG) that sits deep in the brain, appear to be fully mature much earlier. Many neuroscientists think that this mismatch in brain maturity may explain a lot of adolescent behavior.”
As an example of the medical fact that the adolescent brain is still developing, I cite the following from a high school student's diary: "They all tried to tell me what to be and how to act. Who do they think they are? I've been alive for 16 years! I think I know how the world works. I think I can make my own choices."
Both Proverbs and the above medical findings would have ramifications in more ways than one. Proverbs 22:15 would be an argument against lowering the voting age to 16; an argument against allowing children to enter the office of and scream at a U. S. Senator; an argument against having children hold up signs and march for and against various positions; an argument against giving a platform to and granting interviews with high school students on gun control.
Anne Frank died in a concentration camp the month before Hitler committed suicide and the war in Europe was over. Hers was truly a tragic story. However, her conclusion about human nature is in error.
Friday, November 1, 2019
SEEING SOMETHING GOOD IN SECULAR UNIVERSITIES
Seeing something good in our American secular universities? Surely, I jest. Yet, we remember I Thessalonians 5:18: "In everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus."
Before we draw all this together, let's look at some of the content taught at various colleges, various incidents at those colleges, and the statements of some of the professors therein:
1. American University designed sessions to teach faculty “how to assess writing without judging its quality.” (Wait. How do you grade writing without judging the quality of its grammar and spelling?)
2. "Support for traditional marriage is the same as supporting the KKK." --from a professor
3. The University of Oklahoma's Women and Gender Studies Department is sponsoring an 'Abortion is Love' event. (The insanity of this is evident.)
4. Furman University students risk an investigation by the administration if they host Halloween parties that “encourage people to wear costumes or act in ways that reinforce stereotypes or are otherwise demeaning,” under the private school’s"Acts of Intolerance" policy.
5. The Big Sky Conference honored a transgender woman as its"Female Athlete of the Week" in cross country. (The "female" athlete was a male who considered himself a female.)
6. At Evergreen State College a furious mob of students berated and shouted at the college president, at one point even angrily instructing him on the correct position in which his hands should be held while speaking.
7. A student at the University of Michigan approached a group of Turning Point USA students and began stealing the entirety of the organization’s supplies — even the cookies and hot chocolate — before dismantling the group’s recruiting table.
8. Some of the titles in the most recent issues of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion—which proclaims itself as “the top academic journal in the field of religious studies" are:
“Dona Benta’s Rosary: Managing Ambiguity in a Brazilian Women’s Prayer Group”
“Death and Demonization of a Bodhisattva: Guanyin’s Reformulation within Chinese Religion”(Do the authors of such articles actually believe that anyone cares and that anyone will spend a second reading them? Who cares?)
9. Students at the University of Pennsylvania recently swapped out a portrait of William Shakespeare for a photo of an African American lesbian poet in an effort to diversify the school's English department. Shakespeare's picture had hung over the main staircase in Penn's Fisher-Bennett Hall for years when students took it down. In place of the legendary playwright, students tacked up a photo of Audre Lorde. English department head Jed Etsy said the Shakespeare portrait will not be rehung.
10. Arizona State University Associate Dean and Professor Asao Inoue tried to make the case that using proper grammar is racist during a recent speech at Ball State University.
11. Purdue University faculty have continued to fight against plans to bring Chick-fil-A to campus.
12. Do not address your class as "Boys and Girls."
13. On the New York subway system, the speaker on the public address system does begin with, "Ladies and Gentlemen."
14. There are 53 genders. (And you thought there were a mere 2.)
Well, that's enough of the examples of university follies, yet parents are paying thousands and students are incurring huge debts for all this. How in the world can we be thankful for this howling-at-the-moon-madness?
We can when we realize that, of all things, our university system is giving us and any other rational person an example of the truthfulness of Scripture and another piece of evidence that God does indeed exist. How so?
All these once prestigious institutions are giving testimony by their pronouncements that the Bible is true. In Proverbs 1:8, we read "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Since there is no fear of God ("fear of the Lord" is a positive response to God and His Word) on the secular campus and in the classes, what would we expect? No God, no wisdom. The above examples are only the tip of the no-wisdom iceberg on our campuses.
We find the summation of the matter in Psalm 2: 4: "He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them," and in Psalm 76:10: "For the wrath of man shall praise You." Little do they know that by their very wise-in-their-own-eyes-pronouncements-of-foolishness, they're verifying His Word!
Before we draw all this together, let's look at some of the content taught at various colleges, various incidents at those colleges, and the statements of some of the professors therein:
1. American University designed sessions to teach faculty “how to assess writing without judging its quality.” (Wait. How do you grade writing without judging the quality of its grammar and spelling?)
2. "Support for traditional marriage is the same as supporting the KKK." --from a professor
3. The University of Oklahoma's Women and Gender Studies Department is sponsoring an 'Abortion is Love' event. (The insanity of this is evident.)
4. Furman University students risk an investigation by the administration if they host Halloween parties that “encourage people to wear costumes or act in ways that reinforce stereotypes or are otherwise demeaning,” under the private school’s"Acts of Intolerance" policy.
5. The Big Sky Conference honored a transgender woman as its"Female Athlete of the Week" in cross country. (The "female" athlete was a male who considered himself a female.)
6. At Evergreen State College a furious mob of students berated and shouted at the college president, at one point even angrily instructing him on the correct position in which his hands should be held while speaking.
7. A student at the University of Michigan approached a group of Turning Point USA students and began stealing the entirety of the organization’s supplies — even the cookies and hot chocolate — before dismantling the group’s recruiting table.
8. Some of the titles in the most recent issues of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion—which proclaims itself as “the top academic journal in the field of religious studies" are:
“Dona Benta’s Rosary: Managing Ambiguity in a Brazilian Women’s Prayer Group”
“Death and Demonization of a Bodhisattva: Guanyin’s Reformulation within Chinese Religion”(Do the authors of such articles actually believe that anyone cares and that anyone will spend a second reading them? Who cares?)
9. Students at the University of Pennsylvania recently swapped out a portrait of William Shakespeare for a photo of an African American lesbian poet in an effort to diversify the school's English department. Shakespeare's picture had hung over the main staircase in Penn's Fisher-Bennett Hall for years when students took it down. In place of the legendary playwright, students tacked up a photo of Audre Lorde. English department head Jed Etsy said the Shakespeare portrait will not be rehung.
10. Arizona State University Associate Dean and Professor Asao Inoue tried to make the case that using proper grammar is racist during a recent speech at Ball State University.
11. Purdue University faculty have continued to fight against plans to bring Chick-fil-A to campus.
12. Do not address your class as "Boys and Girls."
13. On the New York subway system, the speaker on the public address system does begin with, "Ladies and Gentlemen."
14. There are 53 genders. (And you thought there were a mere 2.)
Well, that's enough of the examples of university follies, yet parents are paying thousands and students are incurring huge debts for all this. How in the world can we be thankful for this howling-at-the-moon-madness?
We can when we realize that, of all things, our university system is giving us and any other rational person an example of the truthfulness of Scripture and another piece of evidence that God does indeed exist. How so?
All these once prestigious institutions are giving testimony by their pronouncements that the Bible is true. In Proverbs 1:8, we read "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Since there is no fear of God ("fear of the Lord" is a positive response to God and His Word) on the secular campus and in the classes, what would we expect? No God, no wisdom. The above examples are only the tip of the no-wisdom iceberg on our campuses.
We find the summation of the matter in Psalm 2: 4: "He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them," and in Psalm 76:10: "For the wrath of man shall praise You." Little do they know that by their very wise-in-their-own-eyes-pronouncements-of-foolishness, they're verifying His Word!
Friday, October 25, 2019
SATAN'S PUNCTUATION
Mary Lou Follet is excited because today is the first day of her 8th-grade year at O. L Slaton Middle School. The school, trashing a 70+ tradition had changed their name from the Redskins to the Dell Peppers, but that didn't dampen Mary Lou's school spirit one bit. She's going to see all her friends again, catching up on who did what over the summer, and will be taking a new slate of subjects, like American history. She's an unusual kid because she likes history and has done some reading in it for the last two years. She particularly thrills to the adventures of the great explorers--men like Magellan, Cortez, Ponce de Leon, and of course, he who sailed the ocean blue in 1492, Christopher Columbus.
Little does Mary Lou know, but her history teacher this year is Mr. John Bookman fresh out of the University of Wisconsin with a major in history having graduated magna cum laude. Mr. Bookman is excited about his first year of teaching and is looking forward to the school year. He's decided that the course will begin with the landing of Columbus in the New World.
The students are in their seats as Mr. Bookman calls the roll. After taking care of his administrative duties, he gets into his first-ever lecture. Mary Lou is about to learn a great deal from her newly-minted instructor.
John Bookman looks over the bright and shiny faces in his classroom and begins: "I want to tell you the untold story of Christopher Columbus—his story is a shocking tale of severed hands, assaulted women, and gentle, enslaved people worked to death to slake the white Europeans’ lust for gold."
Bookman was just getting warmed up. He continued: "Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island’s beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log: ‘They . . . brought us parrots and balls of cotton, and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. . . . ’
And then came the knock-out blow of his lecture. Bookman's eyes narrowed as told the students, "Columbus wrote in his diary these words, 'The Arawaks have no iron. Their spears are made out of cane. . . . They would make fine servants. . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.'”
Mary Lou Follet is shocked. She'd never heard such before. But what she and the other students don't know is they've been conned. Mr. Bookman, following the required reading he'd been assigned at the University of Wisconsin, didn't know what Columbus recorded in his ship's log on October 12, 1492: “I warned my men to take nothing from the people without giving something in exchange” The book he was assigned to read, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, had omitted that October 12th recording.
Not only that, but Mr. Bookman had been tricked by Zinn's ellipsis, those three little dots between "fine servants" and "With fifty men." The ellipsis is hiding something. That punctuation is hiding the fact that "With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want" has nothing to do with the first part and is not even in the same paragraph as "They would make fine servants."
In fact, the "With fifty men" statement is from an entry Columbus made two days later where he was remarking on a theory he had, that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because they were so docile and obliging.
John Bookman, following the party line also either didn't know or failed to mention another entry in the ship's log in which Columbus wrote: “I want the natives to develop a friendly attitude toward us because I know that they are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Faith more by love than by force.” He had not come, as is now portrayed to work the tribe to death to fill his coffers and return to Europe.
But that one contrived and deliberately designed sentence in the book has caused a nationwide movement and a nationwide attitude which "has captured our education system and popular culture. The book has been translated into over a dozen languages, including French, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, and even the Arab world. The defacement of statues of Columbus with red paint has already become an annual ritual in many places." (Mary Grabar) By 2018, it was estimated that the book had sold more than 2.6 million copies. In April 2019, the book was considered a sacred object” when newly elected Oklahoma City council member JoBeth Hamon chose to place her hand on it for her oath of office.
That one sentence forged in deceit has caused these states to change the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day:
Satan has embedded an ellipsis in the minds of men. His ellipsis hides the word "alone," as in "faith alone." His ellipsis occurs in book after book, sermon after sermon in which people are told that a faith that is alone cannot save, that it must be accompanied by turning from sin, feeling sorry for sin, making restitution for sin, confessing one's sins, publicly confessing Christ, and additional ordinances or sacraments.
Whether you're reading "A People's History of the United States" or listening to a sermon or reading a theological work, beware the ellipsis!
Little does Mary Lou know, but her history teacher this year is Mr. John Bookman fresh out of the University of Wisconsin with a major in history having graduated magna cum laude. Mr. Bookman is excited about his first year of teaching and is looking forward to the school year. He's decided that the course will begin with the landing of Columbus in the New World.
The students are in their seats as Mr. Bookman calls the roll. After taking care of his administrative duties, he gets into his first-ever lecture. Mary Lou is about to learn a great deal from her newly-minted instructor.
John Bookman looks over the bright and shiny faces in his classroom and begins: "I want to tell you the untold story of Christopher Columbus—his story is a shocking tale of severed hands, assaulted women, and gentle, enslaved people worked to death to slake the white Europeans’ lust for gold."
Bookman was just getting warmed up. He continued: "Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island’s beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log: ‘They . . . brought us parrots and balls of cotton, and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. . . . ’
And then came the knock-out blow of his lecture. Bookman's eyes narrowed as told the students, "Columbus wrote in his diary these words, 'The Arawaks have no iron. Their spears are made out of cane. . . . They would make fine servants. . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.'”
Mary Lou Follet is shocked. She'd never heard such before. But what she and the other students don't know is they've been conned. Mr. Bookman, following the required reading he'd been assigned at the University of Wisconsin, didn't know what Columbus recorded in his ship's log on October 12, 1492: “I warned my men to take nothing from the people without giving something in exchange” The book he was assigned to read, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, had omitted that October 12th recording.
Not only that, but Mr. Bookman had been tricked by Zinn's ellipsis, those three little dots between "fine servants" and "With fifty men." The ellipsis is hiding something. That punctuation is hiding the fact that "With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want" has nothing to do with the first part and is not even in the same paragraph as "They would make fine servants."
In fact, the "With fifty men" statement is from an entry Columbus made two days later where he was remarking on a theory he had, that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because they were so docile and obliging.
John Bookman, following the party line also either didn't know or failed to mention another entry in the ship's log in which Columbus wrote: “I want the natives to develop a friendly attitude toward us because I know that they are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Faith more by love than by force.” He had not come, as is now portrayed to work the tribe to death to fill his coffers and return to Europe.
But that one contrived and deliberately designed sentence in the book has caused a nationwide movement and a nationwide attitude which "has captured our education system and popular culture. The book has been translated into over a dozen languages, including French, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, and even the Arab world. The defacement of statues of Columbus with red paint has already become an annual ritual in many places." (Mary Grabar) By 2018, it was estimated that the book had sold more than 2.6 million copies. In April 2019, the book was considered a sacred object” when newly elected Oklahoma City council member JoBeth Hamon chose to place her hand on it for her oath of office.
That one sentence forged in deceit has caused these states to change the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day:
- Maine
- New Mexico
- Vermont
- Minnesota
- Alaska
- North Carolina
- South Dakota
- Alaska
- Oregon
- Wisconsin
- Washington D.C.
- Oklahoma
- Alabama
Satan has embedded an ellipsis in the minds of men. His ellipsis hides the word "alone," as in "faith alone." His ellipsis occurs in book after book, sermon after sermon in which people are told that a faith that is alone cannot save, that it must be accompanied by turning from sin, feeling sorry for sin, making restitution for sin, confessing one's sins, publicly confessing Christ, and additional ordinances or sacraments.
Whether you're reading "A People's History of the United States" or listening to a sermon or reading a theological work, beware the ellipsis!
Friday, October 18, 2019
HE DARED TO SAY WHAT?
Recently, a high-ranking cabinet official of the government gave a speech at Notre Dame University. If I may paraphrase, he said:
1. Promiscuous sexual behavior is not a good thing.
2. Drug addiction is not advisable.
3. The breakdown of the family is not healthy for society.
4. Single motherhood is not the best environment in which to raise children.
5. Education should involve a search for the truth.
6. The truth exists.
7. Moral relativism brings do-your-own-thing-chaos.
He spoke on those seven topics much more eloquently than they appear in my paraphrase above, but I'm sure you get the idea.
THE "SHOULD BE" IN THIS SITUATION
Those seven truths should be accepted by one and all as bedrock, foundational, and simple statements. We should expect people to tell the speaker afterward, "That's all so simple. Your talk was like listening to a book review of Dick and Jane Go to the Farm; don't waste our time going over them because everybody knows that." But, whereas people would have said that just a few years ago, they don't think that way now. Things aren't as they once were.
HE DARED TO SAY WHAT?
That speech and that speaker have come under attack, an attack centering on outraged cries of "He wants to establish a theocracy!" And "Whatever happened to the separation of church and state!" The problem is that "theocracy" is a word they don't define and it hangs in the air as a threat of gloom and doom to come.
Does anybody ever say, "Hold on, Sparky. What's a theocracy?" No. They don't. So let's do that. What's a theocracy? A theocracy is a form of government in which priests rule the roost. Or to say it with more balanced precision: "A theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, God's or a deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities are the laws of society."
In a theocracy, a person would be punished for not attending church or for blasphemy. In a theocracy, a person might be fined or executed for working on the Sabbath. So, one must ask, "Is that what the speaker at Notre Dame was advocating?" Of course not. Any common-sense reading or listening to his speech tells you that.
On the other hand, was Mr. Speaker advocating the establishment of a government church and thereby destroying the separation of church and state? Was he advocating mandating that the Southern Baptist church as the only church that would be legal in America? Of course not. But since people don't understand what a theocracy is, those who hurled the word like a dagger against the speaker get away with it and the speaker is labeled as evil. (One critic wrote that he deserved to go to hell for the speech.)
NOW TO SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT
But it would seem more important to look at their outrage at its foundation: it's a revolt against and a loss of common sense. We're seeing this on many different fronts. For example, a large contingent of parents turns out for a school board meeting to debate the issue of who can use which bathroom. These are adults arguing the topic. Where's common sense in all of this?
Then there are those people who demand the right to choose which pronoun in the English language refers to them and a teacher can be fired for not using whatever pronoun each person chooses. Where's common sense? Does not birth reveal the proper pronoun? But, no, there's further nonsense. Did you know that as of last year, the third Wednesday in October is International Pronouns Day?
Then there's the furor over how many genders are there. For uncountable thousands of years, everyone has known there are two. According to one source, there are a total of 112 as of this year, 2019. (Genesis 1:27 ends the debate. There are a mere two.) But these are seeming educated adults sho are seriously discussing the pronoun and gender issues.
Then if you were to ask for a listing in alphabetical order of all these 112 genders here's the first one: "Abimegender: a gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox." (I have no idea what that means.)
The point of all this is Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord (that is, a positive response to God and His Word) is the beginning of wisdom." A society bereft of the fear of the Lord will spend its time fighting over the correct number of genders, who can use which bathroom, and a host of other topics which no man can number. The destabilization of our society continues at record speed.
1. Promiscuous sexual behavior is not a good thing.
2. Drug addiction is not advisable.
3. The breakdown of the family is not healthy for society.
4. Single motherhood is not the best environment in which to raise children.
5. Education should involve a search for the truth.
6. The truth exists.
7. Moral relativism brings do-your-own-thing-chaos.
He spoke on those seven topics much more eloquently than they appear in my paraphrase above, but I'm sure you get the idea.
THE "SHOULD BE" IN THIS SITUATION
Those seven truths should be accepted by one and all as bedrock, foundational, and simple statements. We should expect people to tell the speaker afterward, "That's all so simple. Your talk was like listening to a book review of Dick and Jane Go to the Farm; don't waste our time going over them because everybody knows that." But, whereas people would have said that just a few years ago, they don't think that way now. Things aren't as they once were.
HE DARED TO SAY WHAT?
That speech and that speaker have come under attack, an attack centering on outraged cries of "He wants to establish a theocracy!" And "Whatever happened to the separation of church and state!" The problem is that "theocracy" is a word they don't define and it hangs in the air as a threat of gloom and doom to come.
Does anybody ever say, "Hold on, Sparky. What's a theocracy?" No. They don't. So let's do that. What's a theocracy? A theocracy is a form of government in which priests rule the roost. Or to say it with more balanced precision: "A theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, God's or a deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities are the laws of society."
In a theocracy, a person would be punished for not attending church or for blasphemy. In a theocracy, a person might be fined or executed for working on the Sabbath. So, one must ask, "Is that what the speaker at Notre Dame was advocating?" Of course not. Any common-sense reading or listening to his speech tells you that.
On the other hand, was Mr. Speaker advocating the establishment of a government church and thereby destroying the separation of church and state? Was he advocating mandating that the Southern Baptist church as the only church that would be legal in America? Of course not. But since people don't understand what a theocracy is, those who hurled the word like a dagger against the speaker get away with it and the speaker is labeled as evil. (One critic wrote that he deserved to go to hell for the speech.)
NOW TO SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT
But it would seem more important to look at their outrage at its foundation: it's a revolt against and a loss of common sense. We're seeing this on many different fronts. For example, a large contingent of parents turns out for a school board meeting to debate the issue of who can use which bathroom. These are adults arguing the topic. Where's common sense in all of this?
Then there are those people who demand the right to choose which pronoun in the English language refers to them and a teacher can be fired for not using whatever pronoun each person chooses. Where's common sense? Does not birth reveal the proper pronoun? But, no, there's further nonsense. Did you know that as of last year, the third Wednesday in October is International Pronouns Day?
Then there's the furor over how many genders are there. For uncountable thousands of years, everyone has known there are two. According to one source, there are a total of 112 as of this year, 2019. (Genesis 1:27 ends the debate. There are a mere two.) But these are seeming educated adults sho are seriously discussing the pronoun and gender issues.
Then if you were to ask for a listing in alphabetical order of all these 112 genders here's the first one: "Abimegender: a gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox." (I have no idea what that means.)
The point of all this is Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord (that is, a positive response to God and His Word) is the beginning of wisdom." A society bereft of the fear of the Lord will spend its time fighting over the correct number of genders, who can use which bathroom, and a host of other topics which no man can number. The destabilization of our society continues at record speed.
Friday, October 11, 2019
THE LAST TOOL OF DEMOCRACY
The
Roman Republic is a field of study which yields a crop ripened for
serious thought. Had the Romans had a man like Benjamin Franklin at the
inception of their government to whom they could have asked the question
Americans asked him about what they had for their new government, the
ancient Romans would have heard the same answer he gave them: "A
Republic if you can keep it."
Later in their history, the Romans learned that they couldn't do it; they couldn't keep it. The Republic fell and in so doing, it became a case study of how a republican (small "r") form of government is lost.
As the destructive storm broke over the Republic it brought harbingers of the demise of the Republic. The leaders began to encourage and utilize the last political tool of democracy: violence. Various factions began to form in the Republic, factions at odds with each other, violent factions.
One of the tools put into play was a group would begin to harass the officials of the government with whom they disagreed. Whenever those officials went from place to place in the city, a mob of harassers would form to follow them, shout at them, and throw rocks or whatever they could find at them. These beleaguered officials found their homes surrounded, their families harassed, even threatened. Those who could do so used bodyguards when in public. But it got worse.
When one group gathered in the Forum to hold a rally, to listen to a speech from one of their leaders, the opposing group, now a mob, would be there to disrupt the proceedings causing the orator to flee to escape injury. It got so bad, the angry mob might beat him to death or slit his throat if and when they caught him. One faction in power would pass laws so as to put an opponent under arrest or in exile or death. The old laws were breaking down.
Yet, worse days were to come--election days. As the people voted by casting their ballots in various urns as they voted by tribes, one faction, realizing that the vote was not going their way, would break into the polls and smash the urns or a person in a position of power from the opposing side would cancel the election if he saw it wasn't going his way.
Wait a minute. Hold on. This is beginning to sound familiar. At the last hearing to examine a Supreme Court nominee, for all intents and purposes, a mob was in the hearing room sometimes shouting and disrupting the proceedings. That sounds familiar.
Then there was a mob descending on the Supreme Court building, attacking its doors. Some senators or other officials saw their homes surrounded; others couldn't go to a restaurant alone or with their families without experiencing angry people who demanded they leave. Private citizens had an offending cap taken from them or a sign in their yard stolen. Students shout down speakers with obscenities, pull fire alarm levers in the building as they surround the campus property. Speakers have to be escorted to and from the campus by armed guards. That sounds familiar.
What's going on? Rome, America, and any other republic and democracy eventually descending into chaos? Why? The reason is in Ephesians 2: "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."
In spite of time, education, environmental improvements, man's nature cannot be eradicated and remains the same whether that nature resides in an ancient Roman or a modern American, those in a republic will eventually turn to the last tool of democracy.
Later in their history, the Romans learned that they couldn't do it; they couldn't keep it. The Republic fell and in so doing, it became a case study of how a republican (small "r") form of government is lost.
As the destructive storm broke over the Republic it brought harbingers of the demise of the Republic. The leaders began to encourage and utilize the last political tool of democracy: violence. Various factions began to form in the Republic, factions at odds with each other, violent factions.
One of the tools put into play was a group would begin to harass the officials of the government with whom they disagreed. Whenever those officials went from place to place in the city, a mob of harassers would form to follow them, shout at them, and throw rocks or whatever they could find at them. These beleaguered officials found their homes surrounded, their families harassed, even threatened. Those who could do so used bodyguards when in public. But it got worse.
When one group gathered in the Forum to hold a rally, to listen to a speech from one of their leaders, the opposing group, now a mob, would be there to disrupt the proceedings causing the orator to flee to escape injury. It got so bad, the angry mob might beat him to death or slit his throat if and when they caught him. One faction in power would pass laws so as to put an opponent under arrest or in exile or death. The old laws were breaking down.
Yet, worse days were to come--election days. As the people voted by casting their ballots in various urns as they voted by tribes, one faction, realizing that the vote was not going their way, would break into the polls and smash the urns or a person in a position of power from the opposing side would cancel the election if he saw it wasn't going his way.
Wait a minute. Hold on. This is beginning to sound familiar. At the last hearing to examine a Supreme Court nominee, for all intents and purposes, a mob was in the hearing room sometimes shouting and disrupting the proceedings. That sounds familiar.
Then there was a mob descending on the Supreme Court building, attacking its doors. Some senators or other officials saw their homes surrounded; others couldn't go to a restaurant alone or with their families without experiencing angry people who demanded they leave. Private citizens had an offending cap taken from them or a sign in their yard stolen. Students shout down speakers with obscenities, pull fire alarm levers in the building as they surround the campus property. Speakers have to be escorted to and from the campus by armed guards. That sounds familiar.
What's going on? Rome, America, and any other republic and democracy eventually descending into chaos? Why? The reason is in Ephesians 2: "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."
In spite of time, education, environmental improvements, man's nature cannot be eradicated and remains the same whether that nature resides in an ancient Roman or a modern American, those in a republic will eventually turn to the last tool of democracy.
Friday, October 4, 2019
CONFESSION TIME
I John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
The fear of the Lord: a positive response to God and His Word.
Let's put those texts together, beginning with the definition of "the fear of the Lord" as stated above. When a person or culture has a negative response to God and His Word, playing it out to the end of the line, they and the culture of which they are a part become foolish.
Romans 1 says the same, that such a society pays the consequences: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." The previous sentence is particularly striking.
We could call as a witness about those who "profess themselves wise, become fools" a seminary in New York, and a famous one at that, but one with a hoary history of having lost the fear of the Lord. Union Seminary, in its own words, gives a vivid description of its foolishness in their report of a September 2019 chapel service: "Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt, and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor." Here we have those in training to become pastors, authors, and professors naming their sins to potted plants.
This is but one instance of their foolishness. On July 26, 2019, Union Seminary declared, "The social gospel is the gospel." (Direct quote) The social gospel in the words of its originator is "not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven." In other words, the social gospel is trying to fix the Fall of man, although the originator of the social gospel didn't believe there was a historical fall.
Paul's definitive statement of the gospel shows us what the gospel is and is not:
The gospel is not legislating or eradicating social injustices in this world. Jeff Maples writes:
There is an old, old story that fits this seminary's chapel service:
"A vain emperor who cares too much about wearing and displaying clothes hires two weavers who claim to make the most beautiful clothes and elaborate patterns. The weavers are con-men who convince the emperor they are using a fine fabric invisible to anyone who is either unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".
"The con lies in that the weavers are actually only pretending to manufacture the clothes. Thus, no one, not even the emperor nor his ministers can see the alleged "clothes," but they all pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions.
"The weavers report that the suit is finished and they mime dressing the emperor who then marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid.
"Finally, a child in the crowd blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is then taken up by others but the emperor continues the procession."
Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
The fear of the Lord: a positive response to God and His Word.
Let's put those texts together, beginning with the definition of "the fear of the Lord" as stated above. When a person or culture has a negative response to God and His Word, playing it out to the end of the line, they and the culture of which they are a part become foolish.
Romans 1 says the same, that such a society pays the consequences: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." The previous sentence is particularly striking.
We could call as a witness about those who "profess themselves wise, become fools" a seminary in New York, and a famous one at that, but one with a hoary history of having lost the fear of the Lord. Union Seminary, in its own words, gives a vivid description of its foolishness in their report of a September 2019 chapel service: "Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt, and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor." Here we have those in training to become pastors, authors, and professors naming their sins to potted plants.
This is but one instance of their foolishness. On July 26, 2019, Union Seminary declared, "The social gospel is the gospel." (Direct quote) The social gospel in the words of its originator is "not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven." In other words, the social gospel is trying to fix the Fall of man, although the originator of the social gospel didn't believe there was a historical fall.
Paul's definitive statement of the gospel shows us what the gospel is and is not:
The gospel is not legislating or eradicating social injustices in this world. Jeff Maples writes:
- The gospel is NOT acknowledging “white privilege” and turning from it.
- The gospel is NOT reparations.
- The gospel is NOT redeeming the culture.
- The gospel is NOT loving others or seeking justice.
There is an old, old story that fits this seminary's chapel service:
"A vain emperor who cares too much about wearing and displaying clothes hires two weavers who claim to make the most beautiful clothes and elaborate patterns. The weavers are con-men who convince the emperor they are using a fine fabric invisible to anyone who is either unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".
"The con lies in that the weavers are actually only pretending to manufacture the clothes. Thus, no one, not even the emperor nor his ministers can see the alleged "clothes," but they all pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions.
"The weavers report that the suit is finished and they mime dressing the emperor who then marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid.
"Finally, a child in the crowd blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is then taken up by others but the emperor continues the procession."
Friday, September 27, 2019
WHERE AMERICA IS
History is the neglected teacher, a veritable Cassandra as spurned as the proverbial red-headed stepchild. History has much to teach and we have much to learn. Our Founding Fathers knew her teachings; they walked into her classroom and learned from ancient Greece and Rome.
Take the Roman Republic and its eventual tragic fall for example. What were the factors in her sad collapse? There were many; let's think about one. It has to do with what we might call their unwritten code. (The Romans called it the mos maiorum, "the ancestral custom" or "the way of the ancestors") It was the unwritten code from which the ancient Romans derived their social norms.
What we need to understand about this unwritten code is that it didn't consist of laws engraved in stone or written down somewhere. They just "were" . . . the code consisted of those unquestioned customs by which all Romans lived. No one questioned them, everybody knew them. The code was one of those things shared by all, holding the Republic steadfast in one united fabric.
But then, in the last 100 years of the Republic, little by little, step by step, that which was never questioned was questioned, coming under fire and up for debate, and the Republic began to become destabilized, just a bit, here and there until after a while, the code, the unity, and the stability it brought were no more.
This is all starting to sound familiar to the American ear. America once had its mos maiorum: everyone knew what marriage was; everyone knew that in sports males competed against males and females against females; every one knew there were two genders; ever one knew there was to be one person who could be valedictorian and another person could be salutatorian because they had achieved and worked hard for the high honor; everyone knew that disobedience in school got you in big trouble at school and later more grief at home. Everyone knew a student passed or failed, he was not promoted to the next grade level just because he could fog a mirror. Everyone knew that there were various authorities built into society for its protection and nurture.
The Bible talks about this in the book of Romans. Paul doesn't call it the mos maiorum; he calls it the works of the law written in their hearts: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."
Over and over again in the Old Book, God keeps reminding Israel of the history of His grace to them as He was the One who brought them out of Egypt; He was the one who fed them everyday and carried them on the wings of eagles; He was the One who gave them and brought them to their land .
He had them build visible memorials as teaching tools and He told them to observe various ceremonies during their calendar year so they would never forget.
History, history, history, our neglected teacher.
Take the Roman Republic and its eventual tragic fall for example. What were the factors in her sad collapse? There were many; let's think about one. It has to do with what we might call their unwritten code. (The Romans called it the mos maiorum, "the ancestral custom" or "the way of the ancestors") It was the unwritten code from which the ancient Romans derived their social norms.
What we need to understand about this unwritten code is that it didn't consist of laws engraved in stone or written down somewhere. They just "were" . . . the code consisted of those unquestioned customs by which all Romans lived. No one questioned them, everybody knew them. The code was one of those things shared by all, holding the Republic steadfast in one united fabric.
But then, in the last 100 years of the Republic, little by little, step by step, that which was never questioned was questioned, coming under fire and up for debate, and the Republic began to become destabilized, just a bit, here and there until after a while, the code, the unity, and the stability it brought were no more.
This is all starting to sound familiar to the American ear. America once had its mos maiorum: everyone knew what marriage was; everyone knew that in sports males competed against males and females against females; every one knew there were two genders; ever one knew there was to be one person who could be valedictorian and another person could be salutatorian because they had achieved and worked hard for the high honor; everyone knew that disobedience in school got you in big trouble at school and later more grief at home. Everyone knew a student passed or failed, he was not promoted to the next grade level just because he could fog a mirror. Everyone knew that there were various authorities built into society for its protection and nurture.
The Bible talks about this in the book of Romans. Paul doesn't call it the mos maiorum; he calls it the works of the law written in their hearts: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."
Over and over again in the Old Book, God keeps reminding Israel of the history of His grace to them as He was the One who brought them out of Egypt; He was the one who fed them everyday and carried them on the wings of eagles; He was the One who gave them and brought them to their land .
He had them build visible memorials as teaching tools and He told them to observe various ceremonies during their calendar year so they would never forget.
History, history, history, our neglected teacher.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
THE SADDUCEES ARE COMING FOR YOU
Consider Virginia, the state whose motto is, "Thus always to tyrants," adopted in 1776. Consider a realtor in Virginia who signs off on her e-mails with phrases like "Jesus Loves You." Going further, she includes on her website the most famous text from the Bible, John 3:16.
A few short years ago, even within the memory of most of the younger generation in Virginia, such inclusions would have been looked upon with approval or, at the very least, indifference. But that day is history in Virginia.
Because of the inclusion of Scripture and a few statements based on the same in her correspondence and her website, the Virginia Real Estate Board, a state agency, filed a complaint against her, accusing her of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes.
The basis of the filing is that somebody, somewhere, who reads those words might feel that she and the realty company are practicing discrimination. That is, that someone somewhere might "feel" a certain way. (The filing of this complaint indicates that rationality is not part of the mental landscape of the state agency bringing it.)
Another key word is "might," as in someone, somewhere might feel a certain way. But in all her years, no one has ever felt that way; no one has ever brought such a complaint against her. Her livelihood has now been threatened and is in jeopardy.
The word "feel" is also problematic to the Virginia Real Estate Board. A quick look at the Bill of Rights will show that the right not to feel discriminated against, not to feel disrespected, and not to feel insulted is not in the document. If there is someone somewhere who doesn't want to hear that Jesus loves them and get their feelings hurt, it would be a simple matter to turn to the Yellow Pages or search their computers to find another realtor who won't tell them that Jesus loves them.
This is yet one more indication that it's getting spiritually darker out there in the world-system which goes to irrational lengths to leave God out.
But, guess what? There's nothing new under the sun. Two thousand years ago, the self-pious and self-holy Sadducees, a "state agency" in Israel tried to do the same thing to Peter and John whom they had arrested. Upon interrogating them and after meeting sub rosa, they told the two apostles "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4)
The question is, how does one give the gospel without saying the name "Jesus?" They must identify who the Savior is. Had the disciples obeyed the decree, it would have meant the end of witnessing for Christ which was the Sadducees' intent from the beginning.
That's the way it is with the world-system, the Sadducees or the Virginia State Realty Board, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
A few short years ago, even within the memory of most of the younger generation in Virginia, such inclusions would have been looked upon with approval or, at the very least, indifference. But that day is history in Virginia.
Because of the inclusion of Scripture and a few statements based on the same in her correspondence and her website, the Virginia Real Estate Board, a state agency, filed a complaint against her, accusing her of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes.
The basis of the filing is that somebody, somewhere, who reads those words might feel that she and the realty company are practicing discrimination. That is, that someone somewhere might "feel" a certain way. (The filing of this complaint indicates that rationality is not part of the mental landscape of the state agency bringing it.)
Another key word is "might," as in someone, somewhere might feel a certain way. But in all her years, no one has ever felt that way; no one has ever brought such a complaint against her. Her livelihood has now been threatened and is in jeopardy.
The word "feel" is also problematic to the Virginia Real Estate Board. A quick look at the Bill of Rights will show that the right not to feel discriminated against, not to feel disrespected, and not to feel insulted is not in the document. If there is someone somewhere who doesn't want to hear that Jesus loves them and get their feelings hurt, it would be a simple matter to turn to the Yellow Pages or search their computers to find another realtor who won't tell them that Jesus loves them.
This is yet one more indication that it's getting spiritually darker out there in the world-system which goes to irrational lengths to leave God out.
But, guess what? There's nothing new under the sun. Two thousand years ago, the self-pious and self-holy Sadducees, a "state agency" in Israel tried to do the same thing to Peter and John whom they had arrested. Upon interrogating them and after meeting sub rosa, they told the two apostles "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4)
The question is, how does one give the gospel without saying the name "Jesus?" They must identify who the Savior is. Had the disciples obeyed the decree, it would have meant the end of witnessing for Christ which was the Sadducees' intent from the beginning.
That's the way it is with the world-system, the Sadducees or the Virginia State Realty Board, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Friday, September 13, 2019
P. J. O'Rourke
P. J. O'Rouke is a conservative political and cultural commentator with a touch of humor but he didn't start out that way. He was a product of the 60s, long hair, unkempt, and ready to riot at a moment's notice against the Viet Nam War and protest any and all authority in the meantime.
For him, like all of his companions, God was of no moment; the government was there to solve all the problems if his people could get into the corridors of power. P. J. especially liked the communal concept of sharing the wealth, as he said, "Especially with me." Communes (which have never worked) were big back then.
One day in the 1970s, he was walking along and passed a department store window in which, from a sideways angle, he caught a glimpse of someone in a mirror. He looked at the scroungy, aging hippie's reflection which showed his unruly hair, his thrift-shop, early-bed clothes and thought, "That guy's looking pretty silly for someone his age." Then he realized he was looking at himself.
He came to another conclusion about that same time: the cause to which he had dedicated himself was boring. (Causes come, go, and trickle out.) His friends were boring. His life was boring. He began to realize so much of his life was, as he said, "silly."
But then he started to think about something else. He said that it seemed silly not to believe in God. How so? The answer to the question, "Is it silly to believe in God," is in Psalm 19. No, it's not silly, it's logical and all one has to do is look up because"the heavens declare the glory of God."
O'Rouke began to think about that question about the existence of God and wrote, "Existence, my existence, can't be accidental. Existence is too intricately organized. If the random forces of quantum physics were all that were in play, then those forces had dropped butter and eggs and mushrooms and cheese and lit a match on the kitchen floor and gotten an omelet. . . there is an incredulity about [believing] things organize themselves."
When he came to that point, he's right where Ps. 19 wants him to be. He had brought to the surface what he'd been suppressing in the midst of all his demonstrations, protests, riots, and causes: a powerful creator God exists.
Next should come an important question: will P. J. O'Rouke say, "I want to know Him"? If so, God will be faithful to get him the information he needs to trust Christ alone as Savior. (Acts 10; John 7:17)
For him, like all of his companions, God was of no moment; the government was there to solve all the problems if his people could get into the corridors of power. P. J. especially liked the communal concept of sharing the wealth, as he said, "Especially with me." Communes (which have never worked) were big back then.
One day in the 1970s, he was walking along and passed a department store window in which, from a sideways angle, he caught a glimpse of someone in a mirror. He looked at the scroungy, aging hippie's reflection which showed his unruly hair, his thrift-shop, early-bed clothes and thought, "That guy's looking pretty silly for someone his age." Then he realized he was looking at himself.
He came to another conclusion about that same time: the cause to which he had dedicated himself was boring. (Causes come, go, and trickle out.) His friends were boring. His life was boring. He began to realize so much of his life was, as he said, "silly."
But then he started to think about something else. He said that it seemed silly not to believe in God. How so? The answer to the question, "Is it silly to believe in God," is in Psalm 19. No, it's not silly, it's logical and all one has to do is look up because"the heavens declare the glory of God."
O'Rouke began to think about that question about the existence of God and wrote, "Existence, my existence, can't be accidental. Existence is too intricately organized. If the random forces of quantum physics were all that were in play, then those forces had dropped butter and eggs and mushrooms and cheese and lit a match on the kitchen floor and gotten an omelet. . . there is an incredulity about [believing] things organize themselves."
When he came to that point, he's right where Ps. 19 wants him to be. He had brought to the surface what he'd been suppressing in the midst of all his demonstrations, protests, riots, and causes: a powerful creator God exists.
Next should come an important question: will P. J. O'Rouke say, "I want to know Him"? If so, God will be faithful to get him the information he needs to trust Christ alone as Savior. (Acts 10; John 7:17)
Friday, September 6, 2019
WHY? WHY DID YOU DO THIS!
(The following account is true; only the names have been changed)
When Brad was a child in early elementary school, he began to show signs that something was wrong, very wrong. One day his mother and older sister returned home to find the den in chaotic disarray, papers cut up and strewn on the floor, toys and other childish paraphernalia turned over, cluttering the floor.
Brad's mother told the child, "Clean it up." Brad stood up, looked her in the eye, and said, "No." She repeated her words. Brad stood stock still, ramrod straight and screamed, "No! No! You can't make me! I don't have to do what you say! I will not!" He didn't. It was one incident after another like that one which made his mother and sister not only frustrated but also fearful, even terrorized at times by his defiance.
But as Brad grew older, things calmed down. There were no more defiant episodes. Then in his teenage years, his family noticed a strange behavior going on in their darkened basement. Brad was down there, hour after hour. He had placed candles all over the place, would light them, and spend his time poring over his special books. When his mother and sister asked what they were, Brad was honest. They were books on the occult. To be specific, books of occult spells. Brad was spending hours and hours studying and memorizing them.
The years passed; Brad met a girl, her name was Lucy. They dated and after a while, Brad proposed marriage and she accepted. She recalled years later that the night before the ceremony, she had what she called a premonition that if she did marry Brad, she would regret it for the rest of her life. We'd say that it's common for many brides to be to have second thoughts just as they're about to make one of the biggest changes of their lives. The next day, Brad and Lucy became man and wife.
One day Lucy announced some good news; she told Brad that she had gotten a job and Brad was as happy as she was. It was then that he, with joy, told her, "I knew you'd get it; I cast a spell and you got it!"
Lucy, dumbfounded, asked, "You did what?" He said it again and she backed off a bit and told Brad that she didn't want to have anything to do with that and that he could have his beliefs and she would have hers, that never the twain shall meet. Brad passed it off, still happy about his success in casting a spell.
Brad began to act strangely--he became controlling, accusing Lucy of breaking her marriage vows when she'd done nothing of the kind. He wanted to isolate her from any and all friends. He became controlling of their three girls, the oldest of whom was now almost a teenager. They couldn't seem to do much that was right in his eyes.
But things were going normally for a while. One normal morning Lucy goes off to work; Brad has promised to take the little girls to school. Nothing unusual. Everything was fine and going well early that day. It was that day and that morning that it happened, something that changed their lives forever.
Lucy was at work when she got the call--her house was on fire. Brad had vanished. Her girls were in the hospital. Lucy rushed to the hospital and outside the room to which she was directed stood a policeman. She told him that she wanted to see her girls and asked, "How are they?"
The officer stands there silently. Lucy asks again. He tells her that he can't say, but that a doctor and a chaplain are on the way. Lucy collapses in his arms, overcome with dread and fear.
The doctor, the chaplain, and the police tell her the news: her little girls are dead, all three. They had been assaulted by their father, he had cut their throats and set the house on fire. They now have Brad in custody at the police station; he's confessed everything.
Lucy, in a rage, asks if she can see him immediately and they agree with one condition: she can see him, but she can't touch him. If she does, they will immediately remove her from the room.
They take her to the station and escort her into the place where they're holding Brad. She walks up to him, looks him in the eye, and asks, "Why? Why did you do this!"
Brad, head down, and sitting in a chair, answers with tears, "I don't know." Lucy, not accepting that answer, asks again, "Why" Why did you do this!" Again, putting his head in his hands he tells her that he doesn't know why he did it.
For the last time, she asks the same question and he finally answers her: "I cast the wrong spell!"
The occult. Those books. The spells. These things wreak of the demonic. The Bible tells us that there is a dark, evil side of the universe. Brad had made contact with it.
When Brad was a child in early elementary school, he began to show signs that something was wrong, very wrong. One day his mother and older sister returned home to find the den in chaotic disarray, papers cut up and strewn on the floor, toys and other childish paraphernalia turned over, cluttering the floor.
Brad's mother told the child, "Clean it up." Brad stood up, looked her in the eye, and said, "No." She repeated her words. Brad stood stock still, ramrod straight and screamed, "No! No! You can't make me! I don't have to do what you say! I will not!" He didn't. It was one incident after another like that one which made his mother and sister not only frustrated but also fearful, even terrorized at times by his defiance.
But as Brad grew older, things calmed down. There were no more defiant episodes. Then in his teenage years, his family noticed a strange behavior going on in their darkened basement. Brad was down there, hour after hour. He had placed candles all over the place, would light them, and spend his time poring over his special books. When his mother and sister asked what they were, Brad was honest. They were books on the occult. To be specific, books of occult spells. Brad was spending hours and hours studying and memorizing them.
The years passed; Brad met a girl, her name was Lucy. They dated and after a while, Brad proposed marriage and she accepted. She recalled years later that the night before the ceremony, she had what she called a premonition that if she did marry Brad, she would regret it for the rest of her life. We'd say that it's common for many brides to be to have second thoughts just as they're about to make one of the biggest changes of their lives. The next day, Brad and Lucy became man and wife.
One day Lucy announced some good news; she told Brad that she had gotten a job and Brad was as happy as she was. It was then that he, with joy, told her, "I knew you'd get it; I cast a spell and you got it!"
Lucy, dumbfounded, asked, "You did what?" He said it again and she backed off a bit and told Brad that she didn't want to have anything to do with that and that he could have his beliefs and she would have hers, that never the twain shall meet. Brad passed it off, still happy about his success in casting a spell.
Brad began to act strangely--he became controlling, accusing Lucy of breaking her marriage vows when she'd done nothing of the kind. He wanted to isolate her from any and all friends. He became controlling of their three girls, the oldest of whom was now almost a teenager. They couldn't seem to do much that was right in his eyes.
But things were going normally for a while. One normal morning Lucy goes off to work; Brad has promised to take the little girls to school. Nothing unusual. Everything was fine and going well early that day. It was that day and that morning that it happened, something that changed their lives forever.
Lucy was at work when she got the call--her house was on fire. Brad had vanished. Her girls were in the hospital. Lucy rushed to the hospital and outside the room to which she was directed stood a policeman. She told him that she wanted to see her girls and asked, "How are they?"
The officer stands there silently. Lucy asks again. He tells her that he can't say, but that a doctor and a chaplain are on the way. Lucy collapses in his arms, overcome with dread and fear.
The doctor, the chaplain, and the police tell her the news: her little girls are dead, all three. They had been assaulted by their father, he had cut their throats and set the house on fire. They now have Brad in custody at the police station; he's confessed everything.
Lucy, in a rage, asks if she can see him immediately and they agree with one condition: she can see him, but she can't touch him. If she does, they will immediately remove her from the room.
They take her to the station and escort her into the place where they're holding Brad. She walks up to him, looks him in the eye, and asks, "Why? Why did you do this!"
Brad, head down, and sitting in a chair, answers with tears, "I don't know." Lucy, not accepting that answer, asks again, "Why" Why did you do this!" Again, putting his head in his hands he tells her that he doesn't know why he did it.
For the last time, she asks the same question and he finally answers her: "I cast the wrong spell!"
The occult. Those books. The spells. These things wreak of the demonic. The Bible tells us that there is a dark, evil side of the universe. Brad had made contact with it.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY
481,000 men and women are on the way and they're dangerous. It won't be long before they're here. That figure is accurate, give or take. Those 481,000 comprise the enrollment of the University of California System, the largest university system in the US of A.
What makes them dangerous will be the indoctrination their education will have imposed upon them via a required course for every one of the 481,000 students: they will (if the bill passes the California legislature) have to take a course in "Ethnic Studies."
It's not an optional course like, say, Latin or First Aid to Athletic Injuries. If your major is mechanical engineering or biology or business, you will, like every other student, have to take Ethnic Studies if you want to strut on the graduation stage no matter your major.
This means that 481,000 will be taking a course that's anti-Israel, that advocates the boycotting of Jewish businesses, that advocates the destruction of the state of Israel, and that denigrates, disparages, and destroys Western Civilization which is based on Christianity.
Not only that, but also it's course that won't have your Bible-based values in it. It'll be a course in which--regarding marriage and gender--481,000 students will be instructed that they can make up their own definitions. As far as truth is concerned, they'll see it as being in the eye of the beholder. Things like that.
These 481,000 will graduate to become our doctors, lawyers, judges, senators, presidents, and legislative representatives, federal and state. They will be our Boy Scout and Girl Scout leaders, our Sunday school teachers and pastors. They will teach in seminaries, elementary, middle, and high schools. They will write the textbooks, the best-sellers, and bring us the news on cable, the networks, newspapers, and magazines. They will raise their children with the same lack of biblical principles as they have as well as with a hostility or an indifference toward the church. Their children will join the ranks of the anti-Semites and stand shoulder to shoulder with their parents.
But remember--God always has a remnant. Maranatha!
What makes them dangerous will be the indoctrination their education will have imposed upon them via a required course for every one of the 481,000 students: they will (if the bill passes the California legislature) have to take a course in "Ethnic Studies."
It's not an optional course like, say, Latin or First Aid to Athletic Injuries. If your major is mechanical engineering or biology or business, you will, like every other student, have to take Ethnic Studies if you want to strut on the graduation stage no matter your major.
This means that 481,000 will be taking a course that's anti-Israel, that advocates the boycotting of Jewish businesses, that advocates the destruction of the state of Israel, and that denigrates, disparages, and destroys Western Civilization which is based on Christianity.
Not only that, but also it's course that won't have your Bible-based values in it. It'll be a course in which--regarding marriage and gender--481,000 students will be instructed that they can make up their own definitions. As far as truth is concerned, they'll see it as being in the eye of the beholder. Things like that.
These 481,000 will graduate to become our doctors, lawyers, judges, senators, presidents, and legislative representatives, federal and state. They will be our Boy Scout and Girl Scout leaders, our Sunday school teachers and pastors. They will teach in seminaries, elementary, middle, and high schools. They will write the textbooks, the best-sellers, and bring us the news on cable, the networks, newspapers, and magazines. They will raise their children with the same lack of biblical principles as they have as well as with a hostility or an indifference toward the church. Their children will join the ranks of the anti-Semites and stand shoulder to shoulder with their parents.
But remember--God always has a remnant. Maranatha!
Friday, August 23, 2019
SHE'S STARING AT US
She lay buried for 1,750 years, but there she was, big as life, in Pompeii, that city buried in volcanic ash and debris measured by the megaton. The results of the explosion which blew half of Mt. Vesuvius to kingdom come had hidden and preserved the wall painting of a young Pompeian woman for a long, long time.
She stares at you with a pensive look; she's thinking about something and we wonder as we look at her, "What's on your mind?" but we'll never know. We note that she's like 90% of the world, right-handed. She's holding a stylus (a writing instrument) in her right hand; it's poised delicately on her lips, tip downward. In her left hand is a tablet on which she'll write. Dangling from the top of the tablet, there appears to be a ribbon, perhaps a bookmark.
Her clothing is green with what appears to be a purple shawl draped over her shoulders. Her hair is fashionable; her earrings are gold. She looks like she just stepped out of a bandbox, i. e. perfect. From that fresco, we know that she was both educated and rich.
It's from Pompeii, the city sealed in time, sealed in 79 AD to be exact. It's from that sealing by volcanic debris that we know most of what we know about the day-to-day life in the 1st century, back then in the ancient days, the days of the Apostles. And that's where the New Testament enters the picture. When the Apostles wrote their books, who were they writing for? Illiterate bumpkins? A small group of literate people? Let's go to Pompeii and find out.
Archaeological discoveries reinforce the impression that literacy was more widespread than we once believed. Hundreds of texts written in ink on postcard-sized slips of native wood, such as ash — as opposed to engraved with a stylus on the kind of tablets we see in the fresco — have been found at a military base, in the area of Pompeii, mostly dating from the period just after the destruction of the sealedand now silent city.
The texts cover a wide range of subjects--from Claudia Severa inviting a friend to a birthday celebration to personal messages and orders for food and other military supplies. Some may have been written by scribes, but with many, the writing shows that the authors weren't professionals. The military was more literate than might have been expected — indeed, material from Egypt from around 79 AD shows that about a third of the members of the camel corps could write their names.
In addition, graffiti is all over Pompeian walls as the tourists see while walking the streets of Pompeii. There are political slogans, a list of the prices of wines, the typical "Marcellus loves Cornelia" messages, and advertisements. Such mundane writings for and by the common man indicate a fairly good literacy rate.
When we turn to the New Testament, Pilate has written on the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" in three languages. This would indicate literacy. When Jesus confronts a hostile crowd concerning the woman taken in adultery, He stoops to write something in the ground. Fishermen like Peter, James, and John were literate, very much so.
This was the world of the New Testament, a more literate world than you might think. A world prepped for the written Word of God.
_______________________________________________________________________
She stares at you with a pensive look; she's thinking about something and we wonder as we look at her, "What's on your mind?" but we'll never know. We note that she's like 90% of the world, right-handed. She's holding a stylus (a writing instrument) in her right hand; it's poised delicately on her lips, tip downward. In her left hand is a tablet on which she'll write. Dangling from the top of the tablet, there appears to be a ribbon, perhaps a bookmark.
Her clothing is green with what appears to be a purple shawl draped over her shoulders. Her hair is fashionable; her earrings are gold. She looks like she just stepped out of a bandbox, i. e. perfect. From that fresco, we know that she was both educated and rich.
It's from Pompeii, the city sealed in time, sealed in 79 AD to be exact. It's from that sealing by volcanic debris that we know most of what we know about the day-to-day life in the 1st century, back then in the ancient days, the days of the Apostles. And that's where the New Testament enters the picture. When the Apostles wrote their books, who were they writing for? Illiterate bumpkins? A small group of literate people? Let's go to Pompeii and find out.
Archaeological discoveries reinforce the impression that literacy was more widespread than we once believed. Hundreds of texts written in ink on postcard-sized slips of native wood, such as ash — as opposed to engraved with a stylus on the kind of tablets we see in the fresco — have been found at a military base, in the area of Pompeii, mostly dating from the period just after the destruction of the sealedand now silent city.
The texts cover a wide range of subjects--from Claudia Severa inviting a friend to a birthday celebration to personal messages and orders for food and other military supplies. Some may have been written by scribes, but with many, the writing shows that the authors weren't professionals. The military was more literate than might have been expected — indeed, material from Egypt from around 79 AD shows that about a third of the members of the camel corps could write their names.
In addition, graffiti is all over Pompeian walls as the tourists see while walking the streets of Pompeii. There are political slogans, a list of the prices of wines, the typical "Marcellus loves Cornelia" messages, and advertisements. Such mundane writings for and by the common man indicate a fairly good literacy rate.
When we turn to the New Testament, Pilate has written on the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" in three languages. This would indicate literacy. When Jesus confronts a hostile crowd concerning the woman taken in adultery, He stoops to write something in the ground. Fishermen like Peter, James, and John were literate, very much so.
This was the world of the New Testament, a more literate world than you might think. A world prepped for the written Word of God.
_______________________________________________________________________
Friday, August 16, 2019
WHAT SHOULD I WEAR TO CHURCH?
On the long-vanished Sundays of old, going to church was a time of dress-up. Men and boys wore coats and ties, shoes shined to a shiny hue. Women wore dresses, occasionally a hat, maybe gloves.
Things changed. Formality was out. Relaxed was in. Things became so informal, let's call it, "early bed"--flip flops, shorts, sneakers, whatever, but certainly and absolutely no dress shirts and ties dotted the ecclesiastical landscape. The preachers eschewed the formal and they replaced their time-honored sartorial splendor in the pulpit for the Casual Joe look.
This brought a generational confrontation. The older, coat-and-tie faction looked down on the younger Casual Joes as those who were, in rebellion, were shaking their fists at authority and choosing their attire to be in tune with the anti-authority times. Those times, as the song said, "were a-changin'." Dad was coat and tie, carried his Bible to church, sang from the hymnal; his son, Joe Casual, in sneakers and tee-shirt, looked at a screen to show the book chapter, and verse. Rousing choruses appeared on the large screen. Dad read his King James, Joe C. preferred "The Message" on a screen. Dad, sitting bolt upright, occupied his pew, while Joe C. lounged in movie theater seating.
The stage was set for a generational war, one fought in church after church The war's over; Joe Casual emerged the victor--he's the pastor, the deacon, the elder today. But what of this battle? Was it worth it? Should war have been declared and fought? The question is, "What does the Bible say about the proper dress for Sunday-go-to-meeting?"
And the answer is . . . nothing, absolutely nothing. There's no dress code prescribed for church attendance whether attendees meet in a humble home or in a cavernous cathedral. In the early church, slaves came in work clothes, the patricians dressed in togas with a purple stripe to show their status.
However, although there is no physical dress code prescribed in the Bible, there is a spiritual one for the believer which Peter publishes in I Peter 5:5, no matter where he worships (Peter isn't writing to a church). "You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Self-centeredness is a natural condition of the fallen person. Though appeals to self-interest can move us in positive ways, we need more than self-interest to function optimally for the Lord. We need humility. But just what is this thing called humility?
Things changed. Formality was out. Relaxed was in. Things became so informal, let's call it, "early bed"--flip flops, shorts, sneakers, whatever, but certainly and absolutely no dress shirts and ties dotted the ecclesiastical landscape. The preachers eschewed the formal and they replaced their time-honored sartorial splendor in the pulpit for the Casual Joe look.
This brought a generational confrontation. The older, coat-and-tie faction looked down on the younger Casual Joes as those who were, in rebellion, were shaking their fists at authority and choosing their attire to be in tune with the anti-authority times. Those times, as the song said, "were a-changin'." Dad was coat and tie, carried his Bible to church, sang from the hymnal; his son, Joe Casual, in sneakers and tee-shirt, looked at a screen to show the book chapter, and verse. Rousing choruses appeared on the large screen. Dad read his King James, Joe C. preferred "The Message" on a screen. Dad, sitting bolt upright, occupied his pew, while Joe C. lounged in movie theater seating.
The stage was set for a generational war, one fought in church after church The war's over; Joe Casual emerged the victor--he's the pastor, the deacon, the elder today. But what of this battle? Was it worth it? Should war have been declared and fought? The question is, "What does the Bible say about the proper dress for Sunday-go-to-meeting?"
And the answer is . . . nothing, absolutely nothing. There's no dress code prescribed for church attendance whether attendees meet in a humble home or in a cavernous cathedral. In the early church, slaves came in work clothes, the patricians dressed in togas with a purple stripe to show their status.
However, although there is no physical dress code prescribed in the Bible, there is a spiritual one for the believer which Peter publishes in I Peter 5:5, no matter where he worships (Peter isn't writing to a church). "You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Self-centeredness is a natural condition of the fallen person. Though appeals to self-interest can move us in positive ways, we need more than self-interest to function optimally for the Lord. We need humility. But just what is this thing called humility?
William Temple, archbishop of Canterbury, said, “Humility does not mean thinking less of yourself than of other people, nor does it mean having a low opinion of your own gifts. It means freedom from thinking of yourself at all.” We see a classic example of humility in Acts 16 in which Luke describes the incident when, after an earthquake, Paul could have easily fled his cell, letting the jailer commit suicide.
However, Paul did not let the jailer kill himself. He immediately called out, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” (v. 28). Paul naturally thought of others. He faced the test of character, which occurs with virtues, and he passed the test. He gave up his own freedom and risked being killed because of the trumped-up charges he faced. Yet Paul prevented the jailer’s suicide. Paul was a model of humility. The Philippian jailer and his household, became Christians that very night. Everett L. Worthington Jr.)
Humility attracts. Thinking of yourself repels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)