REMEMBER THE ALAMO

There's this Texas history textbook for 7th-grade students which includes the following 16 words as a unit title: "The siege of the Alamo and all of the heroic defenders who gave their lives there."

The unit title is a reference to Travis, Bowie, and Crockett who are included in the approximately 200 heroes who knew they were going to die and did die to free Texas from the despotic rule of Mexico's Santa Anna. It was their defense of the mission Alamo which gave Sam Houston the time he needed to raise the troops and win the decisive Battle of San Jacinto. Because of what the defenders of the Alamo did, Santa Anna's victory that March day in 1836 was a pyrrhic one.

HISTORY DOWN ORWELL'S MEMORY HOLE

But that title has upset working groups of educators and historians, tasked with streamlining social studies standards. They were so upset that they've advised the Texas Board of Education to remove  “heroic” from the title to describe the acts at the Alamo, because the word is “value-loaded,” according to a draft of their recommendations.

Walter L. Buenger, a professor of history at the University of Texas called the popular depiction of the Alamo “exceptionally simplistic," saying, "In some minds, [the defenders] were not heroic but vainglorious, foolish, and counterproductive."

All one has to do is to read Walter Lord's book, A Time to Stand and the reader will learn that "heroic" isn't a strong enough word to describe what those men did in their sacrifice. 

WHAT'S HAPPENING?

What's happening is that when a culture rejects the Bible and its Author, it pays the high price of losing moral categories. It becomes a society in which there's no objective, absolute right or wrong. It becomes a society in which a committee of bureaucrats must censor "heroic," because writing that such men were "heroic" is a value judgment and just who are you to make such a judgment, anyway? How dare you!

In 1970, Ray Stephens sang a song, which, although he probably didn't realize it, propagated the idea that moral categories are gone. The song was "Everything is Beautiful." But if everything is beautiful, then nothing--sin, human trafficking, genocide, Satan--is ugly, and the moral categories, including "heroic," are gone. 

Under divine inspiration, Solomon saw this clearly when he wrote in Proverbs, "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. Once that positive response is gone, moral understanding is gone.

And to say that their actions were "vainglorious," is that not a "value-charged" word as well? Once the moral categories are down the memory hole, how do you get off this merry-go-round?

Moral understanding has therefore vanished to the extent that we lose the category of "hero." That means that there are no heroes. In swamp of moral relativism, who's to say who is and who isn't? To say the 200 men at the Alamo were heroes is to make a value judgment and such an assessment is o-u-t, out, in a culture without the Bible.

Sad, isn't it. We're getting the culture we want. So said Paul in Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts . . ."

HOW DARK WAS IT?

The Dark Ages is a term applied to the years 476 AD to 1300 (ca.) because during that era, there was, as one history wrote, a lack of any intellectual progress and a surplus of brutality. The Dark Ages were a time when Europe fell into a swamp dominated by the iron fist of the Roman Catholic Church.

LOCK IT UP!

The Dark Ages were a time when the the Roman Catholic Church locked the Bible away from the common man and even if he somehow could come across a Bible, he couldn't read it because it was in Latin. He was dependent on what his priest told him the Bible both said and meant.

Roman Catholic theology of the Dark Ages manipulated the people through fear and hope, a control that made the Dark Ages exceptionally dark as the following narrative will attest.  Countries and cultures go dark where there is no Bible.

 If we begin with what the people were taught about the Trinity, we find that they were told that God the Father was all about thunder and judgment. But His Son was One who could intercede on one's behalf and make His Father not quite so stern and unbending.

But the Son might be found to be implacable at times, so He would need to be softened up by Mary, His mother. And if the supplicant played his cards right, Mary might cheat God the Father and the Devil on behalf of the one who prayed to her. But if Mary was remote at the time, there was Anna, her mother, and a person could go to her for help. Wait. What?

THE BIBLE NOWHERE SAYS

Is any of that in the Bible? Oh, we forget; as far as the people were concerned, there was no Bible where the common man might go and search and find the truth. It had been locked away. If he could have gone to the Book, he would have found that he was being fed lie after lie after lie by the very ones he trusted. That's why hierarchy of the swamp fought hammer and tong to keep the Bible locked up.

But if the could only have a Bible he could read, he would find the truth that God the Father and God the Son have the same essence of love, holiness, and justice (et al.); the truth that Mary is not an intercessor; the truth that Mary was not a perpetual virgin (from Jerome, 383 AD); the truth that Mary was not bodily taken to heaven (Defined as dogma by the Pope; Nov. 1950); the truth that Anna had not and has no part in such a  lineup. They would come to understand that Mary was not and is not the Queen of heaven, has no exalted place in Heaven, and does not enjoy the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such concepts are nowhere taught in Scripture.

THE DAWN

The Roman Catholic system's hold on the people of Europe and England began to shatter when Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Luther took up their quills and began to translate the Bible for the common Englishman and German.

As those three men began to move quills across paper, the Light was coming into the Dark Ages!

FROM FUNERALS TO FOOTBALL

Several people in a church received invitations from a fellow member of the church to attend a meeting during which they would learn how to cut their income taxes and do so legally. Who isn't interested in that? Bring it on! But when the people got there and the presentation began, they realized that they'd been manipulated, tricked, and used; it really wasn't a meeting about saving money on their taxes.

 It was a meeting to entice fellow church members to sign up to make money for themselves and, of course, for their host and hostess, by selling products for a company.

A FUNERAL

Remember the televised funeral for Sen. Ted Kennedy? It wasn't a funeral--it was a political rally disguised as a funeral, a rally to call for nationalized health care.

Then, in August, 2018, we read about and saw on television, another service, this time for a Republican: "John McCain’s daughter and two former presidents led a public rebuke of President Donald Trump’s divisive politics at the late senator’s memorial service Saturday in a call for a return to civility among the nation’s leaders.

"The nearly three-hour service at the Washington National Cathedral was a remarkable show of defiance against a president McCain openly defied in life as the antithesis of the American spirit of service to something greater than any individual.

"Standing near McCain’s flag-draped casket and with Trump’s daughter in the audience, Meghan McCain delivered a broadside against the uninvited president without mentioning his name.
“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness — the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served,” she said, her voice first choking back tears. Then, it rose in anger.

“The America of John McCain,” she added, with a reference to Trump’s trademark phrase, “has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

'The audience of Washington power players erupted in applause."

On August 31, 2018, at a memorial service for a well-known entertainer the following occured:

"The late great Aretha Franklin demanded R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but that didn't stop at least a couple of speakers at her funeral service in Detroit from trivializing her memory.

"Democrats Michael Eric Dyson and Al Sharpton took the opportunity to blast President Trump during their eulogies, continuing a sickening . . . tradition of politicizing public memorial services.

"Former presidents and preachers and legendary singers took to the stage at Greater Grace Temple to pay their respects to the Queen of Soul during the farewell extravaganza.

"Marring the event was the hateful and partisan tone taken by Dyson and Sharpton, who whipped the mourning crowd into a frenzy at every mention of Trump.

"Dyson lauded Aretha Franklin for being socially conscious and politically active throughout her life -- before viciously laying into the president.

"Then this orange apparition had the nerve to say she worked for him! You lugubrious leech!" he bellowed, apparently meaning that President Trump is a sad and mournful bloodsucker. "You dopey doppelganger of deceit and deviancy!" he continued, sticking with the alliteration theme. "You lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator! You foolish fascist!!!"

A DINNER

You get an invitation to dinner by a fellow church member and you and your spouse look forward to it, but once the dinner begins, you realize that the host and hostess have an agenda on their minds and it isn't fellowship. The real purpose of of the dinner is to hold you captive while they launch into a diatribe against the pastor of the church and how we can rid the church of him. Then you realize that you've been tricked and invited under false pretenses. The host and hostess invited you to use you for their nefarious plan. Happens all the time.

Speaking of dinner and politicalization, Trevin Wax asks, "Remember when you could go to Chick-fil-a without feeling like you were making a political point? Or when you could buy a few things from Walmart, stop in at Whole Foods, and check out the sales at Target without wondering how either your support or boycott would affect public policy? Or when you could watch an award show on TV . . . without hearing political speeches or seeing protests?"


FOOTBALL

I've never been to an NFL game up close and personal, but there's always television if I want to do so. Besides, by watching a game on TV, I get my money's worth because I get to see the game at least twice because they replay everything except the coin toss in slow motion, twice, sometimes three times. What a deal. And it's free!

If I tune into a game, I want to see the game. I want to see my team annihilate, maim, humiliate, and destroy the other team. I don't want to see people using the game to force feed me their opinions about anything other than the game. I'm not watching to learn the political philosophy of any player, coach, announcer, or water boy. I didn't click the remote to learn what candidate or elected official they like or dislike. When they use the game as a platform to do that, I feel used and manipulated, I feel that I'm being forced to watch or listen to something I'm didn't come to hear or see.  

If I want to know their opinion about anything other than the game, they can rent a room, state the purpose of the meeting, and invite me and others to come. None of us like to be forced to listen to or watch something sprung on us. We feel like we're being held captive. If we are invited to attend an event or a meeting, it's only fair that we know beforehand the purpose of the meeting.

A CHURCH

Now, let's transfer this to church. I don't go to church to learn of the liberal pastor's political beliefs. By the same token, I don't go to church to hear a conservative pastor tell me that he's voting for some conservative candidate. I go to hear a word from God. If I want to have a political discussion, I can go to lunch with them and be informed without feeling like I'm being held captive, manipulated, or used in any way. Such a meeting would be informative and a rollicking good time. They would learn something from me and I from them.

When the church becomes politicized by rallying the faithful for one candidate or another or one piece of legislation or another, she's lost the focus of the Great Commission. She's spending her energy to seek worldly power through political means. The offshoot of this is that she becomes involved in social action and becomes a social justice warrior.

Not only that, but if she wants Candidate X to win an election, she will find there's only one way to do it and that's by allying herself with a host of unbelievers and cult groups who also support Candidate X because the church doesn't have the numbers necessary to carry Candidate X to victory. The Bible commands us not to be yoked up with unbelievers.

BILL CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP

Would it be fair to say that former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump are somewhat lacking in the moral department? Most would agree. But the man who was "president" in Paul's day made those two look like choir boys on the way home from a Bible study.

Nero murdered his mother, and every member of the royal family who, in any way, threatened his power. He forced political opponents to commit suicide, and if they didn't, he'd murder them too. His gluttony would last from noon to midnight at lavish banquets. He persecuted Christians to the extent that he would hang them on poles, coat them with oil, and set them on fire in order to illuminate his garden parties. Some of his activities are too gross and vulgar to mention and I'll refrain from sullying your eyes by having to read them.

As if that weren't enough, it was common knowledge among the Romans that Nero would disguise himself and go roving the streets of Rome at night with a band of thugs, attacking and beating innocent people, just for the thrill of it. Why? Because he could.

Now, think about this: how much time did Paul spend writing and preaching about Nero? How often did he mention him in all the epistles he wrote? We can find the answer by looking up "Nero" and "Caesar" in a concordance.

Paul emphasized to the church, "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." And then he wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (I Cor. 1:17; 2:2)

The Bible-believing Christian does not get his meaning from politics. Our loyalty is to something more ultimate than a piece of legislation or a political party. The Bible, of course, has political implications, but it demotes the political arena to a way, way lower place.

To politicize something is to use an event for a political purpose. From funerals to football, we're being politicized.

GOOD TEACHER, EVIL STUDENT

He had a good teacher and at a young age, his teacher taught him some excellent principles for living which could carry him through the rest of his life. The teacher, without knowing it, showed the truth of Romans 2:14-15: "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 . . ."

This teacher was a Gentile who had no Bible, Old or New Testament. But he, like all those without the Bible, had a moral code written in his heart, put there by God, an innate knowledge and a inherent sense of what's right and what's wrong. This morality was, as it is for all men, stamped in his DNA. 

And so he taught his young ward the principles of what was good: he taught him the virtues: clemency, justice, and that human life was sacrosanct. He also taught him about generosity, a trait admired the world over. The teacher he's famous for writing: “We are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not Ill-supplied but wasteful of it.”

His teacher warned him against egotism: "The chief obstacle is that we are quick to be satisfied with ourselves. If we find someone to call us good men, cautious and principled, we acknowledge him. We are not content with a moderate eulogy, but accept as our due whatever flattery has shamelessly heaped upon us. We agree with those who call us best and wisest, although we know they often utter many falsehoods: we indulge ourselves so greatly that we want to be praised for a virtue which is the opposite of our behavior. A man hears himself called ‘most merciful . . . so it follows that we don’t want to change because we believe we are already excellent.”

THE STUDENT

The problem was that his most famous student didn't do his homework; he became one of those in history who has rightly deserved the title of "monster." It all started when the student decided that he would be the master of his own destiny. He came to believe that he was omnipotent, that no one was going to tell him what to do, and if I want to do something, who's going to stop me?

His gluttony knew no bounds--he would throw lavish parties that lasted from noon to midnight. Donning a disguise, he became a serial killer, stalking, beating, and murdering people night after night. In all of this, not one single person gave him any reproof. He murdered his mother (matricide). He murdered his brother (fratricide). He murdered every relative he had.

There were two things that summarize his life: cruelty and chaos. 

His teacher is the epitome of Romans 2:14-15, a good man without the Bible, with a morality written in his heart. 

The student is the epitome of Jeremiah 17:9: "“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

The teacher? Seneca. The student? Nero.   

 

THE DAILY DRIVEL DUMP

Back in the day, they called TV sets, "The Idiot Box." They should see it now. It has become pure, unadulterated drivel, especially the daytime variety of TV. Take for example a program called, "The Wendy Williams Show." Her audience is primarily women, but all women everywhere should be insulted by the fare offered. 

Here's a summary of what a segment of her program, offered under the daily title of "Hot Topics," on July 19, 2018:

1. How Wendy Williams celebrated her birthday with a gala dinner.
2. The marriage of Stevie J and Faith Evans. The two had a surprise, quickie wedding in Las Vegas, and were married by a Cher impersonator.
3. Stevie J’s million-dollar back child support
4. Leslie Jones and Jessica Alba’s feud
5. Bethenny Frankel’s custody and legal issues with her ex-husband, Jason Hoppy
6. Joel McHale discussed his new Netflix show.

Wait. What? Those people mentioned above--are important to us? Why? Who are they? Even if you've heard of them, does what they say or do have any ounce of impact on your life?

The elite of our culture bemoan the demeaning of women, then they do exactly that with what they put on TV. It's been this way for a while. Back in 1999, daytime TV viewers were treated to "out-of-control teens shrieking at their parents on “Maury” and “Jenny Jones.” Lovers confronted their cheating mates on “Montel Williams.” On “Jerry Springer,” a man admitted to cheating on his girlfriend. Later, a livid Judge Joe Brown threw the book at a man who confessed he didn’t lift a finger to help his ex-wife pay for the funeral of their 21-year-old son." (Examples from "The New York Post")

Jerry Springer, former mayor of Cincinnati, was a pioneer in dumping trash into American living rooms. The studio audience made up of men and women chanted, applauded, and cheered as the show paraded a plethora of perversity across the stage--while on stage, people screamed at each other, argued, brawled, and bellowed in front of the American public, a public that didn't know it was all choreographed; the on-stage brawls were planned beforehand and built into the program's daily drivel dumping.The hair-pulling and fist-jabbing were earlier decreed to occur and the combatants were told when and how much time would be devoted to the pugilism. It was as rigged as a professional wrestling event.

Is all this by accident or is something more going on? History says that more is going on.

Maybe Roman history can help us when we look at the plebeians in 1st century Rome. "Plebeians were average working citizens of Rome – farmers, bakers, builders or craftsmen – who worked hard to support their families and pay their taxes. Over the course of this period, early forms of public welfare were established by Titus and Trajan, and, in difficult times, plebeians could ask Roman administrators for help.

"The individual plebeians had little power, there were a lot of them. In bad times, or during political unrest, there was always the risk of the Roman ‘mob’ rioting or rebelling against the upper classes.

"The Emperor Augustus was well aware of this risk and was keen to keep the poorest plebeians happy enough and reasonably well fed so that they would not riot. He began the system of state bribery that the writer, observer Juvenal described as ‘bread and circuses’.

"Free grain and controlled food prices meant that plebeians could not starve, while free entertainment – such as chariot races and gladiators in amphitheaters and the Circus Maximus – meant that they wouldn't get bored and restless. Bribery it may have been, but it often worked."

With the plebs fed and entertained by the mindless blood sports and chariot races, the Romans didn't notice (or care) that their society was falling apart, nor did they notice that Augustus had kept the trappings of the old republic, but their beloved republic was gone. The Empire had come, along with the powers of an emperor.

The human race is easily distracted from the vital questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What's my purpose? While they were at the foot of the cross of the Son of God, the most momentous event in human history, what captivated the attention of the Roman soldiers? A dice game for His clothes.  

THE DIFFERENCE ONE LETTER MAKES

Which word did Thomas Jefferson write in the Declaration of Independence? Did he write, "All men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights," or did he write, "All men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights?" Um . . . good question.

Or is it a good question? You might be thinking, "All this sounds pedantic, like, do we say, "potato," or do we say "po-tah-to?" Who cares? It's still a potato, the delicious vegetable that gives us heart attack-producing french fries.

But on the choice of that one little letter, an "i" or a "u," hangs a world of difference.

How so? If the Declaration is declaring that we are endowed by our Creator with "unalienable rights," then that means those rights are "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. pg. 1,523: "You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights."

That's quiet a mouthful, but an important mouthful because, if Jefferson had written, "All men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights," then the Declaration of Independence would be saying that those rights are "not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be taken by government.

The Declaration of Independence is saying that human beings have unalienable rights. It's that one little letter that makes all the difference. No one, no government, no circumstance or set of circumstances, not even you yourself can take or surrender unalienable rights.

Paul bases his argument in the book of Galatians on the omission of one letter, the letter "s" in Galatians 3:16: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ."

According to Paul, the singular of the noun is also a designation of the one Christ in distinction from all other descendants of Abraham together.

Behold the doctrine of inspiration--the Holy Spirit so carried along the authors of Scripture that the words they chose, the very letters of the words they chose, singular or plural, were those God wanted them to choose. 

LAZARUS DIDN'T GET THE MEMO

In Luke 16, Jesus relates the account of Lazarus and a very rich man, both Israelites. The two men are a study in contrast. The wealthy man loved to show off in expensive sartorial splendor--purple and fine linen. His very presence was an exercise in what Thorstein Veblen called, "conspicuous consumption."

"Conspicuous consumption is the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury goods and services to publicly display economic power—of the income or of the accumulated wealth of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, such a public display of discretionary economic power is a means either of attaining or of maintaining a given social status." So goes the formal definition.

Contrary to the idea that money can't bring happiness, this wealthy man lived "joyously" and "in splendor everyday."

In contrast, Lazarus lived a crummy life (pun intended); he literally had to live on crumbs. Not only that, but also he was not a person with whom others would want to associate because he had a disease that produced visible sores covering his body. He was so sick, others had to carry him near the mansion of the wealthy man so he could beg for sustenance there.

According to the beliefs of the day, the wealthy man was a favorite of God, a good man, a righteous man and the way the Pharisees said that they knew of his favored status was because of his wealth, a sign of his right standing before God.

The Pharisees regarded Lazarus  as the opposite, one of those not in favor with God and they way they knew that was that he was just another sick, pathetic beggar, one with crumbs for food, rags for clothes, and no money. Whatever he was doing, it was wrong in their arrogant opinion.

When Lazarus died, Jesus gave the Pharisees the shocking news that the sick beggar was in the presence of God while Mr. Got Bucks was in a place such torment that he was now begging for water.

What?

WAIT A MINUTE

Hadn't Lazarus read the books or gotten the memo? The prosperity preachers tell us that God "doesn't want us to be average." (If nobody is average, what happens to "average?") Their sermons tell us God wants us to enjoy all the things the wealthy man in the story enjoyed and if we'll just apply the right "biblical" principles, God will become our personal ATM. (These "principles" are waiting for us when we buy their books and tapes and attend their seminars, all for a fee of course, thus making them wealthy.)

In their books and sermons, do these prosperity peddlers ever give their readers a verse-by-verse study of Luke 16:19-31? Do they ever take their listeners/readers to Hebrews 11:36-38? Do they quote Peter's words when he said he had no silver or gold and the Son of Man who said he had no home? Such texts go down the Orwell's Memory Hole in "1984."

Just one story Jesus told destroys the prosperity gospel.