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:

• Maine
• New Mexico
• Vermont
• Minnesota
• Alaska
• North Carolina
• South Dakota
• Alaska
• Oregon
  
• Wisconsin
• Washington D.C.
• Oklahoma
• Alabama 

ANOTHER ELLIPSIS

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!

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.

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.   

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:

• 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.

The gospel is as Paul wrote: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, ^{. . .} For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  . .  and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

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."