The Politics of Heaven

American Family Radio, Bryan Fischer & Conservative Media Bias

2012-01-26T15:29:00.000-08:00

I was listening to American Family Radio Host Bryan Fischer today while he questioned a guest about the remaining GOP candidates' individual deficiencies as viewed by Evangelical voters. In the question, Fischer cited the non-mainstream Mormonism of Mitt Romney, the past infidelity of Newt Gingrich, the quirky views about Prostitution and drugs of Ron Paul and the Roman Catholic Faith of Rick Santorum. I immediately was flabbergasted at the bias of the question from this supposed proponent of the Truth.

I've said before that AFA's choice for the presidency was Rick Perry and had been from before the beginning of the run by Perry. It went back to at least prior to The Response coordinated by Rick Perry in Houston Texas. Though publicly not allowed to endorse a political candidate because of their 501C3 status with the IRS, it has been obvious who they prefer. And it hasn't been limited to Bryan Fischer, but runs the gambit of radio personalities as well as management and staff.

Since the departure of Perry, the AFA favorite to defeat President Obama has been Newt Gingrich. Romney, his Mormon faith and liberal politics are not thought to be able to mount a viable campaign against the Obama administration. So the most attractive candidate ideologically is Gingrich. This has become more evident with Gingrich's win in South Carolina and the supposed momentum gained from that victory.

The bias I am referring to has to do with the supposed weaknesses of Gingrich and Santorum. As stated, Fischer referred to Gingrich and his past marital failures while the glaring weakness of Santorum was his non-Protestant Roman Catholic Faith.

The bias lies in this fact. Newt Gingrich is also a Roman Catholic. Please tell me how this failed to be mentioned. Tell me also how this is a negative for Santorum but not for Gingrich.

And you thought media bias was only for the liberals!

Curfews & The Role of American Parents

2012-01-22T07:07:00.000-08:00

The issue of curfews for children occasionally resurfaces in various locations in the United States. This time the State is California. As reported on One News Now, The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will review a proposed daytime curfew for children under the age of 18.

These laws, when proposed, usually create a firestorm of negative response from parents and parental organizations, especially among those homeschooling their children. The reason is rather obvious from a parental viewpoint. A daytime curfew would "restrict the constitutional rights of minors and instead encourage officers to selectively detain the youngsters."

Surprisingly, Finn Larsen of Christian Educators Association International says that parents are partly to blame for the problem. ""It is unfortunate that many parents, for whatever reason, are not providing good oversight and care for their children," he laments. "So what this does is it allows the state, if you will -- the police, the government -- to have a little bit more exercise of authority in a problem that, again, is growing.""

For those who may possess a little more curiosity than the normal resident, it may be interesting to know how the State views its citizens. Does it strike you as hypocritical that any State of the Union would attempt to impose itself within the family sphere in order to alleviate a problem, especially when that problem stems from a lack of parental oversight?

The answer is very simple. It is also written into law. The fact is that the State claims ownership of its citizens through the legal doctrine known as Parens Patriae, the State is the Parent of the Nation. So, when the property of the State, in this case the parents, aren't performing their civic duty, the State has the right, nay, the duty, to step in and correct the problem. The state is simply taking care of what is legally theirs. And, ultimately, the State's property will not and cannot determine what the State will do.

If you think that this is un-American and Unconstitutional, save your breath. This concept is as old as civilization and was present in the American Revolution. Benjamin Rush, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Founding Father extraordinaire, had this to say about children. "We must teach our pupils that they do not belong to themselves, but are public property."

Do you remember hearing that in history class? I didn't think so! Think about it.

Hating Tim Tebow

2012-01-14T14:15:00.000-08:00

If you have followed the saga that has become Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos, you have experienced a wide range of responses to his life on the gridiron. Some spew hate. Some seem to almost worship him and his ways. Regardless of what he has or has not accomplished, many seem to possess a definite opinion about him.

For the professing Christian, especially of the Evangelical variety, the negativity and vitriol toward Tebow has been rather confusing. It's hard for some to comprehend. Surprisingly, it's coming mainly from other professing Christians, though not necessarily from Evangelicals. Social media, blogs, personal and sports website forums abound with condemnation of all things Tebow.

Not the least of these sites is Commandments of Men moderated by Lewis Wells. Tim Tebow has been the topic of several blog posts over the last few months. The latest is entitled This Tebow Stuff, I tell Ya.

Following the theme of previous posts, it condemns Tebow's openly public display of acknowledgement of and devotion to God as a follower of Jesus Christ. This condemnation is predicated on the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:5-6,

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be like the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

According to this particular statement by Jesus as understood by Lewis Wells, all public prayers by His followers are forbidden.

Closer examination will, however, reveal quite the contrary. And hopefully we will be prevented from doing what Lewis so personally and thoroughly hates and detests, outward legalism.

Continuing the pattern set earlier in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, rather than attacking the outward action, instead confronts the heart of men. Jesus didn't condemn praying in Public. He did, however, condemn public praying simply to be seen by others. The inner motive for praying in public was the key issue, not the outward action.

Jesus said that we are not to be like the Hypocrites "because" they love to pray to be seen of men. Then Jesus addresses the next topic, reward. Jesus says that the hypocrites have received what they were after, the acknowledgement of others.

Yet Jesus tells us that public rewards should come from God after we have prayed when no one was watching except God. His approval is to be what we are seeking, not the approval of others.

Interestingly, this supposedly direct prohibition to publicly pray comes into stark conflict with what Jesus earlier stated in this same sermon in Matthew 5:16,

Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Is it possible that Jesus was confused? Maybe he didn't realize that he was contradicting Himself!

Don't count on it! Jesus knew exactly what he was saying and any conflict in His words is imaginary. His words are perfectly complementary to one another.

And in the case of Tim Tebow, this is exactly what he seems to be doing, letting his light shine before men. And if you want to condemn Tebow for his public displays, you have delved into the realm of judging a man's heart, which we all are ill equipped for.

In fact, later in the same Sermon, Jesus tells us that by their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16a) What are the fruits of Tim Tebow? Well, look at his actions on and off the field. Let them speak on Tim's behalf.

Then again, maybe everyone would be happier if Tebow ran afoul of the law, the NFL and society at large. Maybe thugs are easier to identify with than being raised by parents who care for third world residents by taking care of their physical needs as well as telling them about the Savior who loved them and gave His Own life so that they could have Eternal Life.

Personally, I prefer Tim Tebow just as he is.

The Commandments of Men & Human Divinity

2012-01-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

I've recently been involved in a blog discussion on Commandments of Men moderated by Lewis . Unfortunately, I was kicked off. And even more unfortunate are the reasons for ending my welcome on his site.

While presenting himself and his actions as being biblical and loving, his manner of responding to, what he terms "religious addiction," is rather extreme in itself. Essentially, only those who can agree with the statements, conclusions and positions regarding, what they consider extreme religious indoctrination, are allowed to participate. Like me, anyone can begin to offer comments that don't necessarily agree with the premise of a particular post, but to begin to examine and critique their statements, conclusions and positions is a completely different matter. You will be allowed to proceed only so far. Then you will be shown the exit.

This whole blog seems to stem from the unfortunate experience of Lewis with a women he came to love and was on the verge of marrying. Then, the antics of her father began to interfere with their relationship and ultimately, destroyed it. So, the bliss that was theirs, was not allowed to come to marital fruition. You can read his 16 part account here.

While the story is sad and unfortunate, the response of Lewis and others on his blog may be even more unfortunate. While seemingly rejecting the extremes he encountered in his ex future father-in-law and his attitudes and actions regarding his daughter, Lewis ends up rejecting far more. While vehemently deriding and rejecting his supposedly ungodly and unbiblical actions, he ends up rejecting many things that are truly godly and biblical. Of course, he has specifically denied this "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Admittedly, his own life has changed drastically in the last few years. This episode with the destruction of a valuable relationship was simply apart of the entire equation of change.

Part of the result of this change is the conclusion that God has not preserved His message to mankind in what has become known as "The Bible." The 66 books, because they are the product of man and his thoughts, are rejected as being infallible and inerrant. To trust in the works of man in the compilation of the works of various authors over several centuries is considered to be Imbibling, the over partaking of and, ultimately, worship of the written word.

So, instead of an objective standard to live his life by, he elevates Love as the ultimate standard to seek in living his life. And for this concept, the words of Jesus have merit and are to be trusted. But please don't ask him to rely too heavily on the written words of Jesus when discussing Jesus' teachings on love or any other topic for that matter. That's going a bit too far. One might find himself Imbibling again if too much is made of the words of Jesus.

So, ultimately, it comes down to following the Holy Spirit within. He's never wrong and can always be trusted to lead you to do the right thing. But, of course, there's no standard to resort to to determine whether our actions are right or wrong. That is simply a matter between you and God. So, you can't tell Lewis that he's wrong.

If, on the other hand, you are engaged in an activity that Lewis considers extreme and religiously addictive, then he has every right to point this out to you and condemn you for it as well as all the other religious addicts that may be engaged in the same thing.

What this proves is one thing that many in this Post Christian American culture have succumbed to. They have elevated themselves and their thoughts as the ultimate standard. They have become their own God. Such is the plight of Lewis and all like him.

Is Homosexuality The Same As A Little White Lie?

2011-10-21T11:22:00.000-07:00

With The American Family Radio Network steadily becoming the preferred choice of Christians when it comes to talk radio, it can be interesting to listen to the details of their dialogue with others. I heard a short discussion today between a host and caller wherein the caller chided the host for categorizing sin, since, according to Romans 6, all sin leads to death. Therefore, in the eyes of God, homosexuality is no worse than theft. The host meekly agreed with the caller, leading the audience to believe that the caller was right.

While technically true, it must be remembered that God does distinguish between certain actions and ascribes a certain level of severity of some over others. Homosexual sin , as well as heterosexual sin (adultery and fornication), is called an "abomination." Many other actions, though forbidden by God, are not labeled as severely. These same sins, referred to as abominations, carry a more severe penalty than the less offensive ones.

God also differentiates between people while, at the same time, not being a respecter of persons. The book of James tells us that "teachers" will receive a greater level of judgment than others. Jesus Himself tells us that "to whom much is given, much is required."

It must be remembered that all Scripture is taken from a context. It comes from its immediate context as well as the broader context of the whole Bible. So while a point can seemingly be made by a single verse, that point must also fit within the evidence provided by the remainder of Scripture. Failure to do so can lead to doctrinal error which is dangerous,even for Christian talk show hosts.

The Mark Of Cain!

2011-10-17T13:53:00.000-07:00

With his admitted non-traditional campaign, Herman Cain has promised to challenge Texas Governor Rick Perry for the evangelical vote to secure his quest of the GOP Presidential nomination.

With Governor Perry and Mitt Romney thought to hold the key to the Republican primaries, the emergence of Herman Cain has caught many by surprise. What has proven to be a rather dull group has taken on a surprising political sheen of interest as the straight talking Cain has proven so far that he can handle the rough and tumble of politics. A political novice, this highly successful businessman has seen his rivals wilt under the heat of pointed questions about particular policy while Cain forcefully answers all questions.

Therein lies his attractiveness. He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to articulate it as well as respond confidently to all enquiries. He's proving to be far more adept at Public Relations than any of his public counterparts, including Governor Perry.

Can you say Grass Roots? Tea, anyone?

Crystal Clear Delusion

2011-10-08T07:59:00.000-07:00

With the continuing debacle at the Crystal Cathedral comes this observation from Craig Huey of Election Forum.

The sad part of this observation is that the Gospel of Christ and the longtime message of Crystal Cathedral Founder Robert Schueller are thought to be the same. Sadly, many others think so, too.

The strong delusion promised by God for those continuing to seek such waywardness abides still, even in the hearts of professing Christians.

Pat Robertson & The Words Of Jesus - Missing The Point

2011-09-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Pat Robertson's blunder of approving of a spouse divorcing one who has alzheimers comes this article from the LA Times. It's about those who are really upset with Robertson's advice and the fact that these dissenters would normally agree with Robertson.

The bulk of the raw feeling seems to come from those who can't believe Robertson would advise someone to break their marriage vows, specifically, the section that traditionally says, "till death do us part."

While Scripture definitely agrees with the position of faithfully performing your vows, there lies a more fundamental issue that has been missed by many, but not all. The biblical position on divorce is very clear. The only legitimnate grounds for divorce is adultery. Jesus is very clear. Yet, Pat Robertson seems to have forgotten the very words of the Christ he professes to know and serve. The advice was given without any care for what the Word of God had to say on the matter. It seems that the immediate needs of a person are the only legitimate grounds for making decisions.

Welcome to apostate Christianity.

The Unity of The Flag and Jesus

2011-09-14T15:29:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the 10th anniversary memorial remembrances of 911, the one common theme that still echos from the ashes of that tragedy is the call for national unity. And the one common symbol significantly prominent in every gathering was the red, white and blue American Flag, Old Glory. It is the symbol of American unity.

And how important are symbols in the life of a nation? They are so important that the ones you see proudly displayed are not late comers on the national scene. They have, instead, been present since the founding era, and even earlier. These symbols represent certain traits and characteristics which have been deemed vital to being an American. And it's around these virtuous symbols that America's rich heritage is remembered and promoted.

But a nation's flag bears a unique duty. It's the one symbol in which all desired and praiseworthy characteristics are embodied. It's the one symbol which all true Americans can agree upon and rally around, especially in times if tragedy and crisis. And this has happened throughout America's colorful history.

Interestingly, the Bible Speaks of a flag which will one day be lifted up for all the World to come together in unity. In a time of extreme World crisis and desolation, this flag will appear and be the embodiment of all things unified. But this flag will not be completely sought after to represent the World. In spite of this non-consensus of World citizens, this flag will be the one flag visible to all.

This Flag is Jesus Christ. And He will one day rule this world in unity. As Creator and Savior, he has every right to do so. Do you know the Flag of Flags?

Thomas Jefferson, Sigmund Freud & the Independence Slip

2010-07-04T07:50:00.000-07:00

As this article and video confirm, it seems that revered Founding Father and penman of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, unconsciously scribed a word that was directly contrary to all principles of the freedom they were about to initiate. Modern technology allows us to view the original use of the word "subjects," which was wiped out then replaced by the word "citizens."

Some might say, like Sigmund Freud, that Jefferson's use of the word "subjects" was a sign of Jefferson's innate acknowledgement of their true legal position before the King of England. The fact that he had to correct the document shows that such latent truth, when having been lived out and acknowledged in so many ways in your life, is hard to abandon.

Furthermore, such a change is also a reminder that words and their meanings matter significantly. How many realize the legal importance held by the two words? Any competent Attorney or Judge will tell you that the Declaration was first and foremost a legal document. The words and concepts used in it and the Constitution have been resorted to innumerable times to articulate and clarify the law. And it still serves that purpose today.

So, the definition of the words from a relevant dictionary of the times and compiled by one who was intimately familiar with the founding era, its Leaders and their writings is in order. Noah Webster and his original 1828 edition will speak for us.

Citizen, n. 5. In the U. States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Subject, n. 1. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws........The natives of the United States, and naturalized foreigners, are subjects of the Federal government. Men in free governments, are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens, they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.

Sovereign, n. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest the highest authority without control.

One who honestly looks at the above words should come away with the realization that the Revolution did nothing more than substitute one sovereign for another. Instead of owing allegiance to a single personality, we are instead subjected to a system administered by a plethora of fellow citizens.

There's a Supreme Court case which spells out the conversion of status which took place with the gaining of independence. The sovereignty of the King passed to the citizens of the United States. So each man became a sovereign, an individual king in his own right. So when a fellow citizen is elected to office, the remaining citizenry is actually ruled by a multi-headed King or Sovereign called government. The citizen, though having privileges and franchises granted to him, is still a subject. He is still subject to certain powers above him.

The Consititution bears this out in Amendments which refer to United States citizens being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If you think that these references are terms of freedom, please think again. they are informing you that a particular status brings with it a commensurate subjection to the all powerful Sovereign government.

This idea finds lawful fulfilment in the doctrine of parens patriae. This doctrine simply means that the State is the Parent of the Nation. By Law, the government owns everything and everyone. You are the child who canot care for themself and the State is the one who can determine everything for you. Those who get crossways with official public policy will find themselves mercilessly subjected to this doctrine as the State asserts its will regarding its property and the official disposal and use of it.

So, remember the typo of Jefferson, then remember Freud. Maybe Sig got something right after all!

Enjoy your independence!

Politics, Love & Hate

2010-06-27T17:17:00.000-07:00

There's one thing about politics. It's usually one extreme or the other. People can talk about the middle ground all they want, but the truth is that politicians know that to win elections, you must cater to one extreme element or another. Try to please everybody and you quickly become political roadkill.

And this pandering has nothing to do with Truth. It's all about expediency. What will get the candidate the most votes. Say what you will and do what you will as long as you get votes.

For some strange reason, Christians don't seem to understand this fact. The world of most Christians consists of a world of black and white. And they expect there political candidates to reflect their black and white value system to some degree. And on the surface, they do.......until they get into office!

That's the reason most people hate politics, the pure hypocrisy of the whole process. Ironically, that's the reason people also love politics, the hypocritical challenge presented to them.

Personally, I prefer to be sure about as much as possible. When it comes to politics of this world, they only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure about any of it!

So, I resort to the only politics I am sure about, where Truth is Truth and it remains the Truth at all times.

The politics of Jesus Christ, made by Christ for his followers, Christians. I'm learning to love it more every day!

Post Jesus Culture - The Political Sky Is Falling!

2010-06-27T13:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the World of Post Christian America, where everything you hold dear as a Christian, including God and Country, is under attack. And the more that is perceived as lost to them, the more Christians dig in their bunkers and prepare for the warfare to come. After all, much damage has been done by the enemy, mainly Democrats, therefore, there's much ground to recover. And it begins with this year's mid term elections, because the Leader of the Enemey, Barak Obama, has stumbled and apparently rendered his troops vulnerable.

So, what's at stake in this broohaha? Oh not much. Just the Legal foundation of the entire Country. After all, how can Christians expect to conduct themselves properly if they don't have guidelines, ie laws? And with so many fundamental laws being overturned or modified and others facing attacks from various sides, the Christian lifestyle of Believers in Jesus is severely threatened.

You remember Jesus. He's one of the Founders.....wrote the declaration, signed it over fifty times, wrote the Constitution and got it passed by enough states. And in the middle of all that he fought the Revolution singlehanded. Don't believe me? Ask Washington? Who do you think really got them safely through the winter at Valley Forge? And do you think he would go to all that trouble just to have the Congress and Judiciary pass just any laws? No Sireee! They passed His Laws! Right outa the Good Book!

Don't remember? First of all, The Defense of Marrige Act, Prohibition, repeal of Prohibition, Outcome Based Education, Founding era Slavery, abolition of Slavery, Bankruptcy laws, Abortion, Churches tax exemptions and last, but not least, the tens of thousands of rules, regulations and laws regarding the IRS. Yes, Jesus did it all!

And now they're tearing down this culture of Christ. And Christians are screaming because, for some reason, they can't seem to fathom life without all these American constructs. This just can't happen to American Christianity. So this American Jesus and his American lifestyle and values has got to be preserved and promoted.

Of course, there is an alternative. They could turn to the Jesus of the Bible and his laws about how to live among all cultures in this world. Having been tortured and murdered unjustly, I don't think any of us are going to lecture him on the proper response to unkind treatment. Then again, seeing that His purpose for coming into this world was to face this treatment on behalf of the human race, I don't think suffering on behalf of Jesus has many advocates or volunteers. No, this type of political activism requires a dedication of a different sort. It must be remembered, too, that the law undergirding this type of action is of a different sort. Therein lies the crux.

Whose law do we serve? The law of Man or the Law of a Holy God? Each set of laws manifests itself in a distinct culture. And by the way, those cultures are always at odds with one another, no exceptions.

Christians & Political Hypocrisy

2010-06-27T11:54:00.000-07:00

Over the last several years, I've found a serious problem among Christians when it comes to the subject of Politics. While it semms that many are serious about political issues, most aren't very serious about discussing the biblical merits of being politically involved. In other words, does the Bible mandate or even allow political involvement for Believers?

That problem in discussing this issue? Hypocrisy!

The hypocrisy lies in one simple fact that I'm seeing more and more in this day and age. No one wants to contemplate anything that might cause them to change their present lifestyle. They simply want to maintain the status quo. And if that status quo happens to be the current popular thought about Christians and politics, so be it.

The end result? For me, alot of short and / or shallow conversations.

The Bible and Politics - Are You Serious?

2010-06-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

With the plethora of Christians interested in poitics over the last 4-5 decades, I can't help but wonder just how serious most Christians are when it comes to considering what God and His Word have to say about the subject. I have had numerous opportunities to discuss politics with other Believers, especially over the last several years. Conversational progress, however, has been slow to occur

When certain political points are mentioned or made from a truly Biblical perspective (in other words, a verse or passage of Scripture), it's amazing how many conversations are almost immediately changed or ended.

It's also very interesting that some of these points are not something completely new to those I am conversing with. They are familiar with the verse or verses that I mention and their implications. They just don't want to talk about it.

So, as I said, I have to wonder just how serious are professed Believers in Christ when it comes to truly living out the Word of God, even in the realm of politics.

Christian Politicians - What Have They Accomplished?

2010-06-27T11:15:00.000-07:00

I ask the following question as a "Christian."

With all the moral problems in America that have been addressed over the last 50 years, what have Christian politicans accomplished to stem the tide of mmoral decay and decadence?

Christians & Political Office - What Would Jesus Say?

2010-06-27T10:05:00.001-07:00

Here's a simple question.

Should a Christian seek to attain political office if, in order to hold that office and exercise that official power, he or she were required to disobey a direct command of Jesus Christ?

GOP - An Attractive Option Next to Obama?

2010-06-27T09:34:00.000-07:00

With the Obama administration reeling under the weight of its own Democratic inexperience and ineptitude, not to mention the grossly unpopular policies touted and implemented in the past year and a half, is it any wonder that the Republicans are actually looking like a viable and attractive option for the mid term elections? Who thought that the GOP train wreck that aided in Obama's 2008 election would so soon find itself being sought by all manner of politically disgruntled citizens. All of a sudden, Republicans are't all that bad!

Can anyone say "Jeb Bush for President!"?

With such an unexpected political turnaround, do you feel like you have no clue about politics?

Have you considered the words of FDR being appropo?......... "If it happens in politics, it was planned that way"..........Does this thought seem foreign? Could an insider such as FDR actually be speaking the truth?

Could such a thought help us to begin to understand Politics?

Christian America - The Good News

2010-06-27T07:52:00.000-07:00

If you call yourself a "Christian," you probably don't mind the mission of a certain number of conservatives to thoroughly prove that the vast majority of American Founding Fathers were, not only Christians themselves, but intended to found The United States as a Christian Nation. After all, who would tend to argue with identifying with one of your own group?

And after all, who would want to oppose one who has believed the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel? Who would want to denigrate in the slightest a person who has received eternal life through the grace of God? Who could say anything negative about one who has repented of their lifestyle before a holy God and accepted his way of reconciliation........and exercised the required faith mandated by that same God?

What about the Gospel itself? What is the Gospel? Does it matter in this issue of Christian America? If so, how?

Christian America - The Vital Question

2010-06-27T07:32:00.000-07:00

For more than two centuries, the campaign to justify national actions under the broad banner of "Christian" has proceeded with a full head of political steam. With the Obama administration now wallowing in its own quagmire of indecision while slowly overturning the will of the people via legislation and executive fiat, taking back America has never looked so appealing to many. The return to American Christian roots to thoroughly examine the lives of the Founders has never been more popular.

The conclusion of Conservatives from these historical forays is nearly always that the Founders' original intent was that The United States be a Christian Nation.

For the sake of conversation, let's grant that conclusion.

My next question would be "What determines if a person is a Christian?" In other words, what criteria is used to determine if a person is to be considered a Christian? What is the standard?

Just wondering.

The Final Authority

2008-09-06T13:32:00.000-07:00

When it comes to life, we all have a final authority. When it comes to Christians or those professing a right relationship with God through His Son, Jesus the Messiah, nothing changes.

The only difference may be in the consistency of someone's professed Final Authority. While many proclaim God and/or His Word to be their Final Authority, the reality is sometimes painfully evident. It usually ends up being the thoughts of men regarding various areas of life which are exalted and practiced. The true Word of God is, somehow, explained away to the point where it negates Truth. All is left is a plethora of conversation and discussion concerning the exalted nature of their pursuit of that which mimics Truth.

Who is Your Final Authorrity? How Truthful are you when it comes to this issue?

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

2008-08-31T14:56:00.000-07:00

The following is a post from more than a year ago. I returned to the Jesus Creed site again just to have another look around and found that nothing has changed. My conversations with other emerging types has revealed the same. How about you?

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it.

As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence. One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?

God Says Barack Obama Is Qualified

2008-08-27T13:31:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I wrote an article/blog in which I wondered what all the fuss was about when it came to Barack Obama supposedly mocking Christians and the Bible.

Now is revealed a lawsuit filed in a United States District Court in Pennsylvania accusing Barack Obama of not meeting the legal qualifications to be President of the United States. If what is stated is true, then his Presidential bid just went up in flames. Buuuut............I think there's something being overlooked in this situation.

First is the condition of the Legal System in this country. Since Barack Obama is a Lawyer, that puts him in the middle of the system. No, let me modify that. Since Obama is a Lawyer, a Senator and a U.S. Presidential Candidate, he is at the top of the system. Why? Because someone higher up wants him there. So a lawsuit can be filed and even become very public, but that doesn't mean that the completely legitimate merits of the case will result in the proper steps being taken by all involved, including but not limited to, Judges. Unless Obama has upset a higher up somewhere, don't expect this case to go anywhere. In fact, the likely impact could very easily create the image of Obama being persecuted by political hit men, all the while being protected by the Legal system.

Second, since Romans 13 reveals that God is the one who ordains men to be in positions of Official power, what if The Almighty wants him to be President? Do you contend that he's not qualified, not fit to be President of the United States? But what if God says he is qualified?

In fact, if those who have jumped on the political case of Barack Obama, especially when it comes to his Mockery of Christians, God and the Bible, would just rely on their own Scripture more often, they would realize that what they are accusing Obama of actually qualifies him for office. You say Huh!!!!???????????

If you will return to the book of Genesis, you will find that Cain was the first Public Official Ordained by God. And what was his one ratifying act of entering public office? He rejected YHWH by sacrificing YHWH's Prophet, his own righteous brother Abel. This rejection was Cain's acceptance of YHWH's offer to rule over evildoers. He then proceeded to build the city of Enoch, which archeology reveals to be the beginning of his extensive personal political kingdom among men.

Do we so soon forget the eight years of the God ordained Clinton administration? I believe religious types had a hard time with that one, too.

The fact is that God will put in office who He knows this country and World needs. All the whining or lawsuits in the World will not change that.

If God's People are going to attempt to speak for God, let it be the right message coupled with the right actions.

And please, don't tell God who he has to ordain.

Politics, Religion & The Culture War

2008-08-26T14:05:00.000-07:00

For a number of years, you have heard the phrase, "Culture War" thrown around in the contexts of different conversations about politics and religion. The idea is that we, as Christians, are in a war to win or win back our culture. The further idea is that the American culture is a Christian or Biblical Culture. On that basis are we to proceed to engage the enemy and win back the preeminence of Christian values in American culture.

First of all, any culture for God's People is designed by God Himself, not any man or group of men. That includes the Founding Fathers of the United States, any group of elders, deacons, bishops and yes, even the Pope. And just because a man or group of men refer to themselves as "Christian" does not create that reality nor does it somehow elevate them to a status equal to or above God or His Word.

Second, God's Culture for His People is automatically separate from any other culture in this World. By virtue of Coming to God, we have been called out of every culture of the World into His Culture. And God has no desire to see us return to any other culture of the World.

In fact, we are to propagate the Good News of God's offer of Salvation to those in the World and its attendant cultures so that they, too, can join our Lord and His Culture. And after we come to Him, we begin to adopt the lifestyle that God requires for His People.

Yes, it is different. But nowhere in Scripture can you find the command to inculcate the Culture of Christ into any culture of the World. The two don't mix. In fact, they are diametrically opposed to one another. They cannot mix because their natures are different. Their natures are different because their origins are different. One originates with man. The other originates with God.

However, there will be an epoch in the future where the Culture of Christ will be in force on this earth. His ways and thoughts will be enforced by Him personally within the population of man. Until that time arrives, it's God's People and the World, two entirely different cultures with two entirely opposite missions. That is the real culture war!

Everything is Political

2008-08-25T15:16:00.000-07:00

When you see Barack Obama and John McCain waxing eloquent about the minute details of some political issue deemed important during this Presidential campaign, remember this:

In this age of ultra compartmentalization, it's easy to erect barriers and identify the contents of each compartment. This identification tends to differentiate minutely. It is so detailed that the slightest difference creates in our mind a totally separate reality for each thing identified, even when each compartment contains the same type of item.

When it comes to politics, this scenario is again played out. We tend to think of certain things as being within the realm of politics. It is OK in our mind for politicians to address certain issues and problems because that is within their power to do so. Other things are strictly taboo and private. A hands off policy is thought to be only too appropriate for political legislators. After all, certain things are different. They are not political. So, shoo fly shoo!

Regardless of what you think about certain things being political or not, the fact remains that all things are political, whether you think they are or not. Don't believe me? Then take this challenge.

Identify one area of your life that is not addressed by a law or set of laws.

You can't, can you?

Now, identify the ones who make those laws. Aaahhh! That's right! Politicians!!!!!!!

Lest you think that only men are this way, let's take a look at God. Could it be that He operates in the same manner? Never thought about it?

Well, there's a verse that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament that sheds light on our query. This verse says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Any knowledgeable Bible student knows that the Creator of the universe possesses every right to determine how his creatures are to conduct themselves while on this earth. And that He does, in every area of life.

In addition, the book of Psalms says that God is our Lawgiver. So, guess what? That makes everything political, since the Eternal Legislator has spoken.

So, the next time someone starts to talk about a particular thing not being political, remember that everything is political.

Christians Mocked??? Are you Shocked?

2008-08-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

Among the Political World of Christians, the latest attention grabber to make the rounds is a video clip of Barack Obama mocking and ridiculing Christians. Christians are supposed to be outraged by this and make certain political conclusions and choices as a result.

Pardon me if I sound a bit incredulous. Are we supposed to actually be outraged by this? Does this somehow shock our sensibilities. If so, why? Have we overlooked or forgotten entirely the words of Jesus to His Disciples in the Book of John. Chapter 15, verse 20 finds Jesus saying, "....If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you;" Earlier he stated, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you."

And why does this state of affairs happen. In this context, Jesus also tells us why. He says simply in verse 19, "If you were of the world, the world would love his own: but because you are not of this world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Why does Jesus speak these words to His Disciples. The first verse of Chapter 16 finds him telling why, "These things have I spoken to you that you should not be offended," A few verses late, we find Him continuing, "But these things have I told you that when the time comes, you may remember that I told them to you."

Are you ready for another shock? Most Christians in this country have been under a milder form of mockery and ridicule for generations. In fact, President Bush has informed religious types exactly what they were, nothing more than "Political Capital." Political powers that be have used the political energy of God's People to further their agenda. And what have they received in return? Nothing!! Absolutely Nothing!!!!! Except more promises if they commit themselves and work hard towward another unreachable political goal.That's right! More work for the World's political machine, the same World, Jesus said He called us out of.

But we know better than Christ. After all, as His servants, we obviously know more than He does. And our zealous activity will make everything right. Jesus will see our good intentions to make this World a better place to live in and He will change his mind about the World. That's why he placed us here! These people aren't so bad after all. Jesus just didn't understand them.

So, are you offended by Obama's alleged mockery? Or anyone else's mockery, for that matter??

Welcome to the real World!

Christian Politics: Barak Obama & John McCain Excluded

2008-08-24T18:09:00.000-07:00

In Philippians 3:20, the literal translation reads, "Our politics is from heaven:"

If you know anything about Greco-Roman politics, this statement was packed full of information to Believers. First of all, Greek politics was always on the local level, IE the city. That's why cities had walls and military campaigns were usually city against city. It is significant, indeed, when Paul identifies the origin of Politics for the Christian as "heaven." New Jerusalem is the city from whence Christ will return to this Earth to establish his earthly political reign. Until that time, our political policies and instructions while in this World originate from God's throne. After all, He is the Sovereign of the Universe and does reign over the affairs of men, even the political affairs.

But, this does not mean that we as Christians are to join in the political affairs of the World system. No, Paul is very clear that our politics is of a very different nature. In no way, though does this mean that we, as Children of God, are to disengage ourselves from contact with World inhabitants. To the contrary, we are to engage them with the message of Reconciliation to a Holy and Just God, the provision of which has been made through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are to propagate this political message to World citizens, the same World citizens Christ loved and died for.

So, as you watch Barak Obama and John McCain campaign for the office of President, remember this one fact. They are both on the wrong side. And they both need a new Political Leader to follow.

Trusting God

2008-08-24T17:36:00.000-07:00

It seems there are times where you are left with no choice but to trust God.

That may seem like an odd statement, so I'll explain.

It simply means that you know of no means to meet your need. And you feel no need to explain your plight to anyone because those you've considered your friends in the past have separated themselves from you. In other words, they're gone. They consider you to be akin to an enemy. And resources which you have accessed in the past are not available to you, either. They are also gone.

And as far as you know, there's no help available. Yet, the need has not disappeared. In fact, it appears larger than ever.

Thus, the apparent need to simply trust God to supply your need.

In one sense, it greatly simplifies matters. You can't look to another person. You can't draw from your pool of resources. Yet, the God who originally provided these people and their resources has not changed. He has not moved. He has not abandoned anyone. And His resources have not diminished.

So, when continually asking God to meet your needs, even when those needs are rather large, it is sometimes necessary to just settle down and wait on God, especially when you don't even have the means to go searching for the supply of your need. And having been in this position before, I at least have a history with God to fall back on. I've been in this position before. I've watched as God performed as only He can, maybe using people I've never met and may never see again. Others have come to be a regular part of our lives.

Regardless, the need to look to God and no one else remains. And I smile when I contemplate the end result. As surprising as the result may be, I can rest assured that it is exactly what He wanted for me and my family. I'm glad that I am in His hands, a much safer place than my own.

Christians, The World & Rebels

2008-08-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been accused of being a rebel? Or a person who just wants to disagree with authority for the sake of disagreeing?

I have. And after awhile, it's not fun. Especially because it not true. I'll explain.

You see, I don't have a problem with legitimate authority. I don't have a problem with submitting to legitimate authority. But I refuse to willingly follow that legitimate authority as they lead me over the side of a cliff. In other words, I refuse to follow leadership when they expect me to engage in activities that I know are detrimental to me and/or my family.

Such is the current state of churches in this country. Most Pastors teach doctrine and engage in policies that are detrimental to the ones listening to and following them. The problem lies in the fact that most have not thought through their position on a variety of issues. They simply parrot what someone else has taught them, especially when it is accompanied by verses of Scripture. They don't truly take the teachings to Scripture for comparison with the totality of Holy Writ.

This doesn't mean that all they teach is wrong. It just means that whatever amount is wrong is vital to living a life as Christ would have us live, not someone else. That someone else is the World.

Most Pastors have unknowingly adopted the World's ways and thoughts concerning vital areas of life. There are various reasons for this, but the fact remains that certain policies have been adopted and implemented simply because of pressure from those who don't know their Bible and what it has to say about these vital areas.

The real problem begins to surface when these policies are not readily accepted by some in the congregation. It's not that the resistance is public in nature. It's just that they refuse to go along for the sake of going along. It matters not that they can even reasonably articulate their opposition from Scripture. Non-conformity is not allowed. Thus begins the process of applying various sorts of pressure upon these resisters to follow the lead of everyone else. It can get rather unpleasant as relationships are strained. Usually, unless conformity is attained, these relationships are severed, all in the name of God. This is sad, but true. I've experienced it myself. It is in no way easy. Nor is it desirable. But the Word of God is the Word of God. If we will one day give account according to this Book, then following it precepts is mandatory.

In the mean time, there are many wounded People of God within local congregations. They remain untreated because no one recognizes what is happening. Many are pushed aside and never accepted again as viable members of the congregation. Most of these leave, never to participate in a vibrant relationship with other Believers. God only knows how many blame God for the manner in which His People conduct themselves.

And in the mean time, there remain a certain number who faithfully follow Christ. They may not receive recognition for their actions, but God has all recorded. And He faithfully backs up His Word as His People trust Him while leading their families. Many of these are considered Rebels.

I might be considered a Rebel. But my study of Scripture hasn't revealed that I am required to follow anyone over the cliff.

Keep Your Oath: It's The Law or When God Laughs

2008-08-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

This country is truly in a sad state. I say that because of the state of the Judicial system. You know, the one overseen and administered by those officials called Lawyers. If you think that the Lawyers are kept in check by the Legislative branch, have you taken a look at the legislative rolls? That's right, they're filled with Lawyers! Do you appeal to the Executive Branch? That's right! Same thing! Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers!!!!!!

Here's the rub. When a Lawyer, or any other person for that matter, attains a public office, they are required by law to take an oath of office which says that they will faithfully uphold the Constitution and all the laws thereunder. No problem so far. But when they fail to uphold and administer those laws, what happens then? Whose responsibility is it to investigate and prosecute that person? Most likely, it's another lawyer. You mean, one Lawyer is responsible to prosecute another lawyer? That's right. Lawyer versus Lawyer.

But when an outsider comes along and decides to defend himself in a case, that's another matter. It's amazing how united Lawyers suddenly become. It matters not who the defendant is. If that person is conducting his own defense, the Judge, Prosecutor and any other Lawyer whose services are needed form as tightly knit a group as you will ever see. And it matters not if the law is being broken in the course of these united activities. The most important thing is that the person defending himself be made to look as foolish as possible. This person needs to look as if what they really need is the service of a good Lawyer. Upholding the law, regardless of what it actually says, and fulfilling an oath of office take a back seat to protecting the hallowed ground of all Brothers of Law.

It may seem that I'm blaming this state of affairs on Lawyers. To the contrary. I blame it on God's People. That's right! The People who should know and understand Law backwards and forwards are actually woefully ignorant when it comes to what the law actually says and its potential application to them. That's because they are more woefully ignorant of their own legal manual provided to them by their own Heavenly Lawyer, Jesus Christ. The legal reality of Grace is not evident in their lives. In fact, most have accepted a cheap imitation of Grace among themselves which gives them license to conduct their lives in just about any manner they desire. After all, God will forgive them, regardless of what they do. While technically correct, this legal stance before God tends to produce a life of turmoil and destruction, which needs to be continually addressed and allows no time for real living. Most of a person's time is devoted to dealing with the debris created by wrong decisions in life. Wisdom, knowledge and instruction is cast to the wayside as the freedom of grace is indulged in. They fail to understand the actions, or lack thereof, on the part of God to clean up their mess as a result of their indulgence. They fail to realize that He has already spoken about such things in the first chapter of Proverbs. And how does he promise to respond to someone who proceeds while ignoring the wise counsel provided by Him. He says simply in verse 26, "I also will laugh at your calamity." For an eye opener, read the entire passage.

This is where the Lawyers enter the picture. Sin management is the forte of all Attorneys. This includes skirting the spirit and letter of the law where desirable an/or feasible. This comes in handy when dealing with the debris of one's own life. And Christians have this knack for creating more debris than their worldly counterparts. It tends to be more of a mess. After all, they're Christians! They're not supposed to act this way, buuuut, since they have, why not manage it well! Especially when it's Christian against Christian!

Sadly, most Christians don't realize that there are different jurisdictions within Law, depending on your status and standing. They don't realize that when they hire a Lawyer, they put themselves within an unnecessary jurisdiction, unnecessary because they have a jurisdiction available exclusively to them. But, once a Lawyer is hired, that exclusive jurisdiction and its benefits is waived.

Even more sad is the length of time God's People in this country have gone without really being privy to this type of knowledge. We're not talking years or decades. We're talking generations. And in that length of time, not only has the ignorance of God's People increased, so has the boldness of Lawyers. Lawyers today take advantage of this ignorance and treat people as if they are criminals. When this other law, this other jurisdiction is mentioned before them, they laugh and scoff at the person bringing up such nonsense. They attempt to make them look like fools.

I can't help but wonder if that is God laughing through the Lawyers.

The Politics of Provision

2008-08-24T13:11:00.000-07:00

As the Presidential race goes into high gear, this is a good time to consider a few things as the candidates give their pitch as to why they're the man most deserving of the position of President of the United States. Regardless of what the particular topic is at any given time, it's important to notice the common factor in most, if not all, of them. It comes down to what the candidate promises to provide or deliver to the electorate. In other words, what can they give to the people? ............Kinda sad ain't it?

Can you believe that people would actually look to a man, all because of what he can offer them? If I didn't know better, I'd think that they were gods! OOooooops!!!!! Did I let that slip!!!????? Such greasy words!

Come to think of it, Jesus said the same thing. I believe he is quoted as quoting from the current Scripture of his day as "ye are gods." In fact, when you take a good look at it, this is exactly what Jesus did in His Ministry, promise provision to all who would look to Him for that provision, regardless of the need. And He did this in stark contrast to the other major deified provider of His day, Rome's Caesar.

Yet, in spite of a new age and vast cultural growth and sophistication, the political climate in this country finds the exact same process occuring. Man continually appealing to the masses for respect and support while the masses urgently look for someone to provide for them. Meanwhile, the Creator of the Universe patiently waits in the wings for all to come to Him for their ultimate need, reconciliation to Him. For He's promised to meet all their needs if they will simply bow their knees to Him and his Provision, Himself.

But Aahhh, that's a tough decision, because it puts one at odds with alot of other people, especially those political types who seem to think they know best who the Provider should be in others lives. Of course, that Provider should be Government and its humbly ordained army of public servants. After all, it's their place to act as Robin Hood and "take from the rich and give to the deserving poor" all because they detect a need which can be met by passing a new set of laws. And who wants to go against the democratic mass whose majority is always right? That tends to put a man is an awkward position.

So who do we trust? A nebulous God whom we can't detect with our senses? Or a flesh and blood man who will stand before us and maybe shake our hand while he promises us the world?

Well, they say a man's track record speaks for itself. So, in that case, I've already joined the greatest political party ever assembled, whose fringe benefits stand unique in this universe. After all, being a joint heir with Christ is as good as it gets since He owns it all.

Compare that with any offer made by any politician that has ever lived. I believe the choice becomes rather simple. Eternally Simple.

A Christian Worldview? Which One?

2008-08-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

Within the ranks of Christendom, there has arisen over the last couple of decades, a rising interest and promotion of, what has come to be known as "A Christian Worldview." This pious sounding title supposedly contains the elements of Truth by which all children of God are mandated to live on this earth.

Unfortunately, what has come to be espoused as "A Biblical Worldview" has very little to do with the Bible. While much Scripture is used to construct this supposedly biblical model for life, it focuses mostly on "The World." God is relegated to the role of a lofty afterthought, prominently insignificant.

To further the confusion of such an integral part of the modern Christian life, there seems to be a plethora of biblical worldviews available for the spiritual consumer to choose from. These usually deal with how the Christian can take dominion of, or at least, heavily influence the World system. This group is usually contrasted with just one other radically opposite worldview, the one where Christians are mandated to withdraw from all worldly activity and seclude themselves from the evil influences of the World. This unfriendly bunch is left to deal almost exclusively among themselves for any material goods and/or services.

The sad part of this scenario, however, is that the truly Biblical Worldview is seldom brought into the mix to consider. Significant statements of Jesus Himself, as well as the words of other inspired biblical writers are either not discussed or they are rationalized or explained away as being culturally inexpedient or unattainable. In other words, they are impossible. So, rather than Truth being properly proclaimed and taught, it is left for the spiritual seeker to trust God to fulfil his Word and have the Holy Spirit "lead them into all truth." Such is the climate of the current Biblical Worldview wars as ministries vie for the heartstrings of men, women and young people.

So what is a Truly Biblical Worldview? Let's list five things which the true student of Scripture cannot afford to overlook or misinterpret when attempting to determine such important doctrine;

The Pleading of Jesus to Pilate.

My Kingdom is not of this World
If it were, then would my servants fight to not have me delivered to the Jews.

2. The Polemic of Satan to Jesus

The Offer of Satan to Jesus.
The Response of Jesus to Satan's Offer

3. The Position of the World to Christ

The World is lost and in need of A Savior
The World is the Enemy of Christ

4. The Position of the World to God's People

5. The Politics of God's People

These points are not exhaustive by any means, but are significant enough to merit the application of strict hermeneutics by the serious student of Scripture. They are not to be so lightly thought of that they are easily replaced by any cultural or philosophical mandate of man.

After all, the five points are alliterated. That alone merits serious consideration for infallibility!

More to come................

Obama or Hillary or McCain: Does It Matter?

2008-05-12T12:20:00.000-07:00

WIth all the hype surrounding the supposedly inevitable nomination of Barak Obama as the Democratic Presidential Nominee, does it really matter which one of the three remaining heavyweight politicos gets the ultimate nod?

In spite of all the propaganda surrounding each campaign, do you really think there's very much difference in the three candidates?

Do you doubt their ability to take orders? After all, that is a prerequisite of the Office of President of the United States. Just ask the current Resident of the White House.

It probably comes down to nothing more than which candidate makes you "feel" better. And we won't know that until election night in November. To better understand the process of election reporting, please refer to this post by Tupper Saussy. It might cause you to think, something that gets left by the wayside during campaign season.

Understanding the Jurisdiction of Church & State

2008-05-12T07:19:00.000-07:00

I ask you to read this report from The Christian Post. It will give the background and help in understanding what I am about to say in response to it. I will use the following quote to specifically address.

"“Under the guise of protecting the immoral, unnatural, ungodly lifestyle of homosexuals, our government is being forced to censor the freedom of speech and freedom of religion of Bible-believing Christians,” said the Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, director of Elijah Ministries. “We have come to Washington, D.C., to appeal to our government to back off…return to your jurisdiction, get out of our churches, quit policing our thoughts and stop trying to sear our consciences by framing mischief into law,” Thomas vented."

Basic Constitutional law instructs that Secular Government and the institution commonly known as the Church operate in separate legal realms or jurisdictions. In fact, I have it from a Texas Attorney that a true Church is not even recognized at law. In other words, Government has absolutely nothing so say about the internal affairs of a true Church. A true Church cannot be sued or taken to Court. Again, this is basic Consititutional Law.

Why, then, is this religious leader telling the government to get out of their churches? Is this leader presuming that the Government doesn't know the law?

What if we presumed, for a moment, that the Government does know the law and knows exactly what it's doing. Let's perform the unusual and presume that the Government is actually right!

What if the Government really does truly understand the proper Constitutional Doctrine of Separation of Church & State? What if the Government not only knows a true legal Church when it sees one, but that the Goverment also responds properly when it sees one. In other words, it leaves that Church alone, because the prerequisite jurisdictional authority is not legally present.

In the case referenced above, what if the Rev. Thomas is actually wrong in telling the Government to get out of the churches? What if the Government does have jurisdiction?
Does that scenario seem impossible? If it does, I understand. But consider one more possibility. What if all churches are not created equal? Does this seem equally impossible? Ahhh, welcome to the wonderful world of Law!!!!!!!

Not only is this inequality possible, it is an everpresent reality. It all comes down to who the legally recognized creator of any particular church is. Jesus would use the following phraseology to determine the creator, "God or Caesar"? The title "God" is understood by most and needs no explanation. The term "Caesar" simply refers to Government in general. So the question is this. Is God or Government the Creator of your "church"?

The fact is, most Churches and religious organizations in the united States are created by the Government. Therefore, by virtue of the law of creation, the Government has the authority to regulate and oversee the operations of its created entities.

A true Church, one created by God and not Government, cannot be legislated for or regulated or overseen by the Government. The only thing Government can do is uphold its status and standing as a true Church as long as the true church conducts itself as a true Church. It does that by the following:

It has a legitimate and currently functioning government.
It can only be represented in Court by a duly authorized officer of the Church.
Any appearance in Court by its duly authorized officer is strictly a special appearance for the sole purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. Any other action in Court by this officer will temporarily grant jurisdiction to the court.
It cannot be represented by a licensed Attorny, since all Attorney's are, first and foremeost, Officers of the Court.

More than likely, the organization of Rev. Wright, along with most others, have been in some manner created by the Government through the process of incorporation or a similar process of recognition by Government. Thus, it is not a true church and the government has the authority to govern it pursuant to the Government's own laws. They can police the thoughts of its members. They can censor its members freedom of speech and religion. They can attempt to sear the consciences of its members. They can attempt to frame mischief into law for its members.

To resist is futile.

The Assualt on Motherhood & God

2008-05-11T17:33:00.000-07:00

I've read alot lately about the supposedly high position given to a mother in the family, so high, in fact, that many are saying the mother is the most important position in, not just the family, but society at large. On top of that is the use of the Bible to support such an assertion.

If you will search through Scripture, beginning in Genesis, you will find that the woman is almost always approached first when attempting to rearrange the structure of the family. When this happens, what is actually happening is that the authority of the Husband is actually being attacked. And by design, the closest one to the Husband is the Wife. What better way to put pressure on the God ordained authority structure of the family than by trying to lure the wife away from God's design.

Though the response of the wife and mother is not to be overlooked and is important, the most vital response will always come from the Husband/Father. For he has been placed by God to, not only lead the family into the His design for the family, but also to protect the family from the onslaught of those who wish to subvert it.

So, while acknowledging the God ordained importance of the Wife and Mother, it is a grave error to presume that an attack on her or the children is anything other than an attack on God's male leader of that family. It's the same modus operandi used by the Enemy since the inception of the first family. And it is pervasive in American society at large, even churches. It would behoove us all to recognize it for the danger it is.

Should a Christian Hold Political Office? Let's Ask Jesus!

2008-01-27T11:20:00.000-08:00

Since a Christian is one who supposedly believes in and follows Christ, it sorta stands to reason that He might have something to say about His Followers holding Public Office. And if He does, then the Christian should heed those words, should they not?

Let's see if you can tell if Christians currently holding Public Office have heeded the words of their Lord. Jesus told His Followers to ".....not swear at all....."

It's widely known, and also written into the law, that a candidate cannot enter Office and exercise the duties and responsibilities of that Office unless and until he or she swears an Oath of Office.

Jesus puts many between a rock and a hard place, doesn't he? So, what are His Followers to do?

Jesus Creed & Truth Intolerance

2008-01-26T15:21:00.000-08:00

Months ago, I was blocked from posting of the blog site of Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed. I returned yesterday to see if my blogging presence remained unwelcomed. I am sad to report that nothing has changed.

I posted a comment under the blog post, "White House God 2," which was removed before too long. The comment was in the vein of finding it very interesting that someone who would profess a belief in Christ would, in the name of serving that same Christ in public office, disobey a direct command of Christ by swearing an oath of office.

Being dismissed is really not too surprising in this day of intolerance. I find that the most intolerant people in America are those usually espousing their tolerance of all things, even those things they may disagree with. I have consistently found these people to be disingenuous at best. All piety and platitudes aside, Truth doesn't seem to be the topic of choice, nor do they want to entertain the rigors of examination.

In the case of Scot McKnight and Jesus Creed, I'm not surprised. If you were to begin to join in the dialogue on Jesus Creed, you will find that most of the regular commentors don't desire to contemplate the words of someone who readily works his way through the rhetoric of analysis and gets to the core of an issue. That's too divisive and doesn't tend to unify the readers. So, attempts are regularly made to keep the conversation away from Truth and the consistently logical analysis of that same Truth.

Instead, new thinking is encouraged. New paradigms are sought in order to encourage the faithful rebellion toward most things established. Of course, the aim is a new consensus which does away with old norms by establishing new boundaries through the collective energy and input of everyone.........everyone except those who do not agree with the majority consensus. Those dissenters are not allowed to establish any disagreement. Either they will conform to the consensus or they will be discharged from participation within the consensus. This assures order within the group, or I should say, it assures disorder.......consistent, persistent chaos.

That which has been the same in the past and will continue to remain so in the future are, ultimately, not welcome. Truth is cast out. Lies are welcomed and embraced. Such is the tolerant world of Jesus Creed and the Emerging Brethren.

Should The American Flag, Old Glory, Be Officially Recognized as The American Idol?

2007-07-18T16:07:00.000-07:00

The Real American Idol

If you're expecting to read about American Idol, the television show, you may be severely disappointed in this article. If, perhaps, you are always open to new information, you may find a small amount of satisfaction in what is about to be presented to you. If you have an aversion for truth, you may become angry at pondering the following facts.

It has been proposed by many in American culture that idolatry is rampant, idolatry being the insatiable pursuit and accumulation of material wealth. Admittedly, becoming rich seems to be in the forefront of many lives today. Much of the activity we see on a daily basis is nothing more than the active plans to keep up with others or surpass them in the accumulation of things.
This proposal, true though it may be, is easily hidden among the normal activities of everyday life. It's hard to convince someone that they are involved in inordinate idolatry when they tell you that they are simply trying to provide for the fundamental needs of their family as well as planning for the future. When what to the rest of the world is considered a luxury is viewed by Americans as a necessity, it is difficult to make a case for idolatry. The activity usually proceeds without modification, a mixture of prudence and greed.

I am willing to propose, however, that there is a single idolatrous action which is more pervasive among Americans and, at the same time, is the most public of acts. In fact most have been taught to engage in this one activity since they were children in school, never giving a second thought to the nature of this action. But before I identify this specific act, I'll refer to a source which will provide a clear line of demarcation for our understanding the significance of this act.
The ancient nation of Israel had a Prophet who foretold of the Messiah to come. Among other details, this Prophet Isaiah told of Jesus who "shall stand for an ensign of the people." (Isaiah 11:10) This Messiah would be set up as "an ensign for the nations." (Isaiah 11:12)
This word translated "ensign" in the King James Version of the Bible can also be translated as banner or flag. The Prophet is telling us that one day this Messiah, who we know to be Jesus, will be set up as a flag over the nations of the earth. He will be the one person who will unite the earth in peace and rule as the visible focus of all earthly allegiance.

This declaration by the Prophet carries a level of significance which fails, for the most part, to enter our understanding. Most Americans would read this and shrug. Sadly, most American Christians would do the same thing. Yet, ask them about the impact of 911 on this country and you may find it difficult to shut them up. American interests around the world, especially in fighting terror will be lifted up in word for all hearers to consider. All things American have taken on a significance not seen since WWII. A patriotic fervor unseen in this generation has taken hold and it was especially evident in the months following 911 through the initial phases of the War in Iraq.

Interestingly, this patriotism which traversed all potential boundaries was evidenced in one item, the American flag. And Old Glory garnered one thing from a multitude of Americans which many never gave a second thought about. Old Glory received their allegiance. It mattered not the location, whether on the steps of the national Capitol in Washington D.C., the neighborhoods of the nation or the far flung reaches of the globe. The American Flag was given due allegiance.
There might be some who would immediately offer an appeal to common sense and say that everyone knows that we don't really give our allegiance to the flag itself. Everyone knows that allegiance can only be given to a person, specifically, a living person. This point would seem to be the common sense view to hold, wouldn't it? Yet, the words of The Pledge of Allegiance, which are recited on a regular basis by many, say specifically, "I pledge allegiance to the flag.." Do we so glibly utter words of such magnitude? Is it so easy to make such an excuse? Or are the words completely meaningless?

Another point which some might make is the fact that everyone knows that the flag is not alive. It is simply a piece of cloth with colors arranged in such a manner as to provide an identify to a country and its citizens. It is an inanimate object. To attempt to ascribe life to an inanimate object is to revert to less enlightened times. Modern civilization doesn't engage in such dark practices as giving allegiance to living objects. Such historical idolatry isn't becoming of the educated citizens of a modern democracy.

At this point, the argument runs head on into the specific thoughts of an august and elite group of Americans. They are specifically known as Senators and Congressmen of the United States of America. They are the representatives of the citizens of the United States. And what they do is considered the work, will and voice of the people. In fact, their work on behalf of the people is written down for all to peruse. It is completely public. And believe me when I say that they have spoken very accurately the thoughts of the people. And what is their verdict on behalf of the people? .............The flag is alive!

Fortunately, this fact can be easily verified by anyone since it is contained within the pages of law known as The United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, Paragraph(J) states the following: "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered to be a living thing."
If you need a few moments to contemplate such a pronouncement, please do so. Such a bold statement should reach to the depths of our being and inform us as to the true nature of certain activities long considered truly American and God honoring. No one said full disclosure was free of shock or discomfort.

WOW! The real American Idol!

The Foremost Duty of Christian Citizens

2007-07-04T09:33:00.000-07:00

In the July Fourth edition of Chuck Colson's Breakpoint Commentary, he addresses a very sensitive topic. The Cross and the Flag attempts to give the true Biblical response to the two extreme positions held by most when it comes to contemplating a Christian's duty as citizens of a country of this world system.

"In the United States, Christians have all too often vacillated between two extremes—the God-and-country, wrap-the-flag-around-the-cross mentality or on the other hand, the simply passing-through mindset.
The former was illustrated a century ago by the president of Amherst College. He said that the nation had achieved the "true American union, that sort of union which makes every patriot a Christian and every Christian a patriot." This form of civil religion is supported by politicians who welcome it as a prop for the state, and by Christians who see it as enshrining the fulfillment of the vision of the early pilgrims.
The passing-through mindset is represented by those who believe they are simply sojourners with loyalties only in the Kingdom beyond. They believe that faith is an entirely private matter, and that they are under no obligation to the community or country in which God has placed them."

Colson then proceeds to present what is considered to be a modified, though biblical, balance of the two extremes as summarized in this statment.

"The Christian position is beautifully balanced. On one hand, we don't deify our country. Our ultimate citizenship is in heaven, and that's where our ultimate allegiance is.
But the only place for expressing that allegiance is in the concrete loyalties God calls us to here on earth—including loyalty to country. We can't love mankind in the abstract; we can only really love people in the particular, concrete relationships God has placed us in—our family, our church, our community, our nation."

I'm afraid I must radically part ways with the words and ideas of Mr Colson on this subject. Is it because I have a particular political agenda that I'm pursuing? A resounding Yes! I do have a distinct political agenda, one reflected from the pages of Scripture. And it starts with one of the political extremes Mr Colson refers to, that of only passing through. While it is true that we are only passing through, Holy Writ reveals an ample amount of detail as to how that 'passing through' is to be conducted. Surprisingly, it is not as an isolated exile, but something interestingly more.

The Scripture references which detail this conduct include Hebrews 11:13, where the Old Testament saints "confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on this earth." The word translated strangers literally means "alien" and the word translated pilgrim means "resident alien." In other words, we are foreigners on this earth. The next Scripture reference comes from the Apostle Peter when he tells the "strangers" (resident aliens - I Peter 1:1) to submit themselves to the King and all governing authorities as well as the laws they pass. Furthermore, Peter tells us to do this in the capacity of "stangers and pilgrims" (I Peter 2:11), not as birthright citizens.

The significance of the People of God living our lives as foreigners is seen in the fact that a foreigner has no original stake within his land of foreign sojourn. His rights are limited by law, because his land of birth is elsewhere. All rights while in a foreign land are prescribed by law and generally do not rise to the level of a natural born citizen. This creates a distinct difference between the foreigner or resident alien and the natural born citizen.

Another significance of the People of God living our lives as foreigners is seen when the Apostle Paul says that we are Ambassadors for Christ. An Ambassador is one who is sent by one country to represent the interests of their home country to a foreign country. An Ambassador is always a foreigner in relation to the country he or she is sent to. It is impossible for the citizen of one country to be an Ambassador to his or her own country.

As a foreign Ambassador of Christ, it is our foremost duty to present His official word of reconcilation to the lost citizens of this world system. Herein lies the basis for "concrete relationships" around us. The citizens of this world, whether they be family, community or nation, need to hear how Christ has made provision for them to transfer their political citizenship and allegiance from their present country to an entirely new one, what Peter refers to as "an holy nation" (I Peter 2:9). Nowhere are we commanded or even encouraged to enter the political arena of this world in order to promote the claims of Christ. In fact, you find none of the Apostles of Christ advocating such activity for others because Jesus had already told them that the World hated Him and the World would hate them also. Neither do you find them engaging in such a pursuit. Even Paul, who by birth possessed the highest form of Roman citizenship (by birth), failed to apply the benefits of that citizenship except to save his life or to preach the gospel. In fact, on at least two occasions, they were one and the same. He always conducted himself as a foreigner on this earth, just as the saints of old did.

In no way does this leave us with a vacuum of political activity. God's People have a variety of needs and concerns which Christ has delegated specific authority to address. This authority descends directly from the Throne of Heaven itself, from which also derives our citizenship, and carries with it political duties for the foreign Ambassadors living on this earth as heavenly citizens. Not known widely to many, this arrangement is specifically reflected in American Law. God has graciously seen to it that in this country at least, He has provided His People the legal means to carry out His political concerns among His Kingdom citizens. All others are considered foreigners! That is an eternally concrete reality!

So, on this Holy Day of the United States of America, wherein is remembered the actions of a select group of men when they chose rebellious independence from British authority, remember that the Children of God possess a political inheritance of much greater value, Dependence upon the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For it is this Declaration of Dependence alone which provides us the rich blessings of Eternal Liberty!

The World has never seen such Politics!

Are You Praying For Your Public Officials? Why?

2007-07-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

Many times we, as Christians, are encouraged to engage in the biblical mandate to " pray for our leaders." Very rarely do we hear the reason that Apostle Paul told Timothy and Titus to conduct this activity. In fact, I have never heard anyone delve into the reason other than to say it helps us lead a quiet and peacable life.

Yet, the very reason is given by Paul in both instances. We pray for public officials holding authority over us so that they will be saved. That's right! Paul tells us to pray for the salvation of those in Public office. Why?

The reason is very simple. Because biblically, the realm of Secular government is presumed to be inherently separated from a Holy and righteous God. The Leaders of this world system we live under are deemed to be in need of a renewed heart through faith in Jesus Christ. They need to be saved!

Are we surprised to hear this? Why? It's simply the Word of God. And after all, aren't we talking about "Secular" governemnt? Secular means "not sacred or holy." Christians and non christians alike refer to government being secular. So why do we in America tend to view "unholy" government as "Christian?" Was Paul wrong? Or was he emotionally reacting to the pagan Roman Empire? Did the Founding Fathers have knowledge they failed to share with us which would have corrected this false notion of the Apostle Paul, seeing they formed a "Christian" republic? Why, if we live in a Christian republic, is the government still referred to as secular?

Maybe the Bible is out of date?

Maybe Paul knew what he was talking about. Pray for the salvation of all public officials!

The Importance of Old Glory In Houses of Worship II

2007-07-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

In my previous post about the internal Methodist wrangle over a Leader's concern, saying the Presence of the American Flag in the Church almost equalled worship of that flag and the attaching U.S. Policies, I pointed out that the specific position of any and all flags within public buildings, including most Houses of Worship, are determined by Federal Law. Those who are Biblically literate know that we, as Children of God, are to submit to the governing authorities and obey the laws they pass, short of disobedience to a clear and direct command of God in Scripture. Most, who consider themselves "Christian" would wholeheartedly agree with this position.

So, based on all they know about the Bible and Public Law, most people don't think twice about the presence of Flags within their particular House of Worship. Their attitude would more or less be, "If that's the law, that's the law. Who are we to tell the government how to arrrange the flags in buildings? We are peaceful people and it would be petty, indeed, to fail to obey the law over such an insignificant issue. It would essentially be unchristian."

Please note that I spoke of this attitude as being based upon the knowledge of people, what they actually know about the issue. This is a rather normal state of affairs with most of us. Many decisions we make and positions we hold on issues are based on our personal knowledge. And most of us have found ourselves having to amend our decision or position after coming across knowledge which put a decision or issue in a vastly different light. And most of us have not apologized for these changes, though some may have been difficult to arrive at and implement. But the point is that these changes were implemented based on strict knowledge.

So, with all that I have said so far in these two posts coupled with your personal knowledge of flags, whether from the Bible or Federal Law, what is your position? Do you consider the issue important enough to take the time and effort necessary to really form a position? If not, why?

Let's also address your personal knowledge. Where does it come from? From where does it originate? Has your knowledge been gained through personal effort whereby you have personally searched for and gained this particular knowledge, whether it be from the Bible or from United States Federal Law or some other source? Or has this knowledge come from a third party? Is this third party someone whom you are personally aquainted with? Or are they a public figure, possibly disseminating information based upon their profession? Or does their position automatically command a certain amount of respect so that when they speak, they are presumed to be speaking that which is correct and applicable to those hearing their message? Or has this third party received their knowledge from yet another party?

So, if you take your religion seriously, where does this issue rank in importance? Have you ever thought about the possibility of flying an American flag or any other flag in the presence of worshippers in a religious service being considered idolatry? Is that preposterous to you? Or do you at least take the time to contemplate the possibility? If so, what exactly is there to contemplate? Does the Bible speak clearly on the subject? If so, what does it say? What about Federal Law? Could it possibly contribute to this subject and and assist in bringing clarity?

Do we really desire clarity? Does our walk with God prevent us from searching for and finding Truth to live by? Are we content to maintain the status quo? Are we afraid of what we may discover if we were to begin to search for the Truth of this matter? Are we afraid that we may be required to make changes in our lives, even our religious lives? Are we afraid of the possibility that we might not be very willing to make such changes? Are we afraid of the potential cost of such changes?

If we are really afraid of this endeavor, maybe we should ask ourselves another question. Whom do we really serve? Whom do we really live for? For whom do we plan our lives? Do we make certain changes in our lives strictly for ourselves? Or does God enter the picture in any manner. How much do we include Him in the conduct of our lives? Is our inclusion of God nothing more than lip service? Do the true intentions of our heart lie elsewhere? Or is God considered, not just a part of our life, but "Life" itself? Is the way God would have us live the way we really want to live? Do we desire the same thing as God? Do we think like God? Do we adopt His thoughts for our own? As I stated, whom do we really serve?

You might be wondering what this has to do with idolatry and Old Glory. Well, most people respond to issues such as this from an emotional point of view. Serious thought is many times given minority status in comparison to emotional rhetoric. It's far easier to react emotionally than to maintain an equilibrium of truthful consideration. And it's far easier to join others who react emotionally than to stand alone in Temperance. Regardless of what your ultimate conclusion is on this particular issue, a proper response should entail a careful mission of fact finding which will give you the best chance of arriving at the proper conclusion. And that conclusion, with supporting facts, should be able to stand on its own. That means that it does not require the assistance of anyone, not even yours. So any amount of emotional rhetoric will not bolster the foundational conclusion one iota. That's because Truth is self sustaining.

So, please consider what I have written. Your answers, which only you and God will know, will determine your response as we continue to seriously grapple with this issue.

To be continued..................

Are You a Non-Conformist? Aren't We All?

2007-07-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

Jesus had some words of warning for his Disciples prior to his Crucifixion. He told them bluntly, "The World hates me and they're gonna hate you, too. But know that they hated me first." These weren't exactly words of Comfort for those learning from their Master, but there was a load of understanding to come concerning those exact words. The known history of the disciples and a host of other followers of Christ reveals to us the reality of these words.

The sad fact is that Christians today are fighting a Holy war of their own trying to prove these words of Jesus wrong. It seems that people claiming the name of Christ are constantly trying to fit in. We seem to be enamored with the approval of those who blatantly rejected Christ in the pursuit of other things. And yet, we want to be like them. We want to experience the success they have obtained. We want to exercise the power they have accumulated.

And the whole time we seem to be pursuing this approval, they are sending us a message that we seem to be unaware of. Or at least, we ignore it. They are telling us what Jesus said. They are telling us that they hate us and the God we supposedly stand for. Oh, there's another message they send us, also. They will be happy to offer their approval of our pursuits if we will but follow the same path they have, a path which includes nothing of God. This is a path where the only thing that matters is what pleases our self. Instead of denying yourself many things in life in order to please God and live according to his ways, we are told that we must indulge our appetites and continually whet that natural desire for all things selfish.

Loving your neighbor? Not if it gets in the way of my success! Giving to others? Only if it gets me further along on my career path! And so we begin down the slippery slope of service to others for the sake of myself. We gladly join others in their self righteous groups dedicated to the public service of congratulating themselves for their selfless dedication to others. Of course, if all this recognition is a bit too much for your conscience, you can always quit! But then again, you would forfeit all the goodwill from others so carefully constructed according to your plans for success. I believe it was Solomon who said something about all being vanity and vexation of spirit.

The fact is that being a Non-Conformist is not exactly the most comfortable position to be in. As a Child of God, I am constantly being presented with requests, and sometimes demands, to change this or that. The message is being constantly broadcast to me that I need to change because I am wrong to live the way I do. My beliefs are wrong because they aren't the same as others who name the name of Christ.

Some who believe that I am not about to change attempt to reach others in my family, namely my wife and children, in order to save them from my non conformity. After all, why should they bear the shame and reproach simply because their husband and father says this is the way God requires us to conduct our lives?

Fortunately, I am not going to give account for my life on this Earth to any other mortal human. But I will stand before a holy and Eternal God who loved me and died for my sins. Non-Conformist that He is, He allowed His creatures to hang Him on a tree because that was the plan. And He didn't allow anyone to deter Him from fulfilling every aspect of that Plan, even death. Of couse, part of that plan was also rising bodily from the dead, a future hope for all who believe in this same death, burial and resurrection.

So, all Non-Conformists who are Children of the Most High God need to keep one fact before them as they face opposition and pressure to change. We serve the ultimate Non-Conformist who allowed nothing to keep Him from the instructions of His Father for His life on this earth. With such an example before us, let us proceed, trusting Him to provide all the Non-Conforming Grace necessary for our every situation.

And those who oppose us? Unless they ultimately bow their knee and heart to Christ in faith, their non-conformity will have eternally dire consequences.

Immigration: Creating A More Perfect Union

2007-07-01T13:12:00.000-07:00

The latest act in the Charade known as "Immigration" is now over, with the stated policy desires of President Bush meeting a Republican stiff arm. The furor will be transferred to another hot button issue (probably The Fairness Doctrine) for the time being until it can be approached at a more opportune time (maybe the next campaign season?).

With as much public sentiment that has been stirred up ove this issue, you would think that the electorate would pay close attention. Instead, it seems that they are simply reacting to the various political strings attached to their mouths and other body parts. Of course, such instantaneous and autonomous action on the part of the body politic is a revered tradition dating back to the American Revolution. The only thing missing to date is a few misplaced mob actions whereby rallies are constructed on the spur of the moment and an angry electorate opens the recesses of their hearts to let the Powers that Be know their true feelings as well as their potential violence. As I said, this type of resistance and opposition is an American tradition, a birthright. For those of you unfamiliar with such patriotism, please refer back to your American History.

Regardless of where you find yourself in the midst of this debate, it is always good to give ear to those residing in the past who have come through tumultuous events, for their perspective can give a sense of peace to those who may find themselves on, what they consider to be, the losing side of a political struggle; in this case, immigration. FDR, considered to be by many as the one stabilizing personality bridging the Great Depression and WWII, is quoted as saying, "If it happens in politics, it was planned that way."

Such conspiritorial comments will not be given credence by many, but the comment by one involved in such numerous intricacies of American upheaval cannot be ignored. So I choose not to. And I hope you don't either, especially when it comes to the future upheaval surrounding the American immigration issue. And upheaval is coming. When? I don't know, but it can't be very far off into the future. To what extent will this upheaval be? That depends of the reactions of the people of the United States. But here are a few notes to keep in mind as you view this dramatic change unfold on the North American Continent.

First, the American Government is at its core, a globalist government. Though founded as an independent Nation, its ultimate aim has always been the same; a One World Government. E Pluribus Unum, "out of many one", is the epitome of this goal. In fact, there was a certain segment of American Founding Fathers who believed that America was a prophetic fulfillment of the last great Empire, the Revived Roman Empire, prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to this Earth. The history of America since her Founding has been one of ever increasing involvement in World Affairs to the point where America is now viewed as the World's Policeman.

As a result of America being a globalist government, America, as a nation, cannot be immune from the plan of globalisation. Eventually, the consolidation slowly taking place around the World will eventually affect the United States. In fact, it's part of the plan. The last, but maybe not the least, of these effects will be the merging of America with other nations into a single regional entity. In fact, this very public plan is already being implemented within the Bush Administration with Canada and Mexico. It doesn't make your local headlines, but the actions are definitely public.

It seems that, as a result of the implementation of this plan, the immigration issue seems to have been caught in a political bog. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. It simply is a political reality that what the conservativeRepublican portion of America wants will not come to pass because it is in diametric opposition to the plan of globalization for the Western Hemisphere. While National borders may retain their present positions, the sovereignty of individual nations will be effectively sacrificed on the altar of Globalization. In effect, almost everthing President Bush has mentioned in his official plan, will be implemented. The political fight is nothing more than windowdressing to give the ultimate outcome some semblence of legality, a reality which has been planned for a long time.

The preamble of the United States Constitution refers to this as forming "a more perfect Union."

And all this time you thought it was "We the People," in charge!!!!!!!!!!!

American Politics & Catholic Policy

2007-06-30T13:48:00.000-07:00

Time Magazine contains an article by Nancy Gibbs entitled "The Catholic Conundrum: The Lessons of JFK." Here is the opening paragraph.

John F. Kennedy's victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 came soaked in symbols and lessons. It was the triumph of vision over experience, rich over poor, East over West, the playboy over the prig. And because a Catholic, for the first time ever, defeated a Protestant, the outcome was said to mark the burial of religious bigotry. Kennedy provided the case study for candidates ever since who have faced some version of the Religion Test. But his was an advanced course in strategy, judgment and rhetoric, and it may be harder for future candidates to pass than they realize.

Though not a lengthy read, this article is, nevertheless, interesting. It provides a glimpse into the modern political realities of Religion in America, especially the overt emergence of Roman Catholics, the latest prototype of which was JFK. His use of modern communications and the Press provided him the platform to present Himself and his views to the Nation in a way which allowed him to overcome his huge Catholic handicap. This "way" of presenting Himself provides us the "interesting" aspect.

I'll state it simply. JFK accomplished the Presidency of the United States by exploiting the ignorance of the American People. The above article partially bears this out by providing some details of his struggle to overcome deep seated Anti-Catholic bias within the religious circles of certain segments of the American populace. And how did he overcome such insurmountable religious bigotry? He used the same tactic any good policitican uses. He spoke in terms that his audience understood without meaning what his audience thought he meant. He used religious terms that His Protestant audience could identify with. This same audience didn't understand that the Catholic meanings of these terms was inherently different. Nor did they understand the Catholic system which governed actions surrounding these different terms.

Nancy Gibbs details a few of the particulars of this message and strategy to woo these Protestant bigots. Surprisingly, it was the same type of message and strategy which had been employed by him since his first run for Congress in 1946. The only difference was in the immensity of the bias to be overcome on a national scale, whereas his Congressional task was to attract fellow Catholics, which he easily did. But both entailed wooing the Religious minded voter. Here's how he did it.

Instead of avoiding the issue in silence, he met it head on and personally determied the issue and language of the dialogue. Instead of the issue being Catholic vs. Protestant, he framed the dilaogue using "tolerance" as the operative word, thereby easing the inherent enmity of the two groups. He took the high middle ground. This strategy came about slowly but two occasions served to provide the impetus, opportunity and necessity to continue.

The first was just prior to the West Virginia primary. "On the Sunday night just before the vote, he paid for a half-hour TV special. The candidate reminded viewers of what a bold break with history it had been when the founders knit religious pluralism into the fabric of the state. And then he looked straight at the camera and observed that when Presidents place their hand on the Bible to swear their oath of office, they are swearing to support the constitutional separation of church and state. Kennedy raised his hand as if from an imaginary Bible. If a President breaks his oath, Kennedy declared, "he is not only committing a crime against the Constitution, for which the Congress can impeach him—and should impeach him—but he is committing a sin against God."

The second occasion was in response to a conservative Protestant Leadership conference held in Washington DC which was basically an anti Kennedy rally. He chose to address the Houston Ministerial Alliance.

"Kennedy told them he had come to talk about "not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in... I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." And then he made the prescient point, relevant to any member of a religious minority then or in years to come: "While this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed," he warned, "in other years it has been—and may someday be again—a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist... Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart."
The speech was clean and raw and rational: he made the dispassionate arguments, but he also noted that his vision of a fair-minded America was the one he had fought for in the South Pacific and for which his brother had died in the war in Europe. He reaffirmed his complete independence from any Vatican agenda. But in the most dramatic flourish, he went further, in an extraordinary testimony to just how important that private faith was to him: "If the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." "

The average Protestant hearing these words couldn't help but hold JFK in high regard because they were the words of a man fulfilling his oath, which was sacred. According to Protestant tradition and Scripture interpretation, a person swearing an oath, even if that oath was in violation of a direct command of God, was still held accountable by God to fulfill the terms of the oath. JKF was telling them that he was just such a man of his word.

Not many Protestants, though, are aware of the various ways the Roman Catholic Church allows sin to be committed without being imputed to the account of a person before God. Under these various rules, the end justifies the means. This allows a person to pursue a course which, ultimately, is double minded and ambiguous. Any conclusions drawn by others is subject to which side of the ambiguity they happen to be on. Regardless of the thoughts of others, actions of this type can and are officially absolved by Leaders, with the approval of God. Those who may view these actions as sinful or dishonorable are deemed to be intolerant.

If you don't agree with this view of JFK, especially his supposedly serious attitude regarding his personal oath, I ask you to simply consider the state of his oath of Marriage towards the First Lady while he was in office. Enough said.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last four decades. Leaders continue to exploit the ignorance of the populace, especially among the religious ranks. And its not a Democrat - Republican issue. It's across the political spectrum. A wink, a nod, a smile..........and a smooth lie.......all in the name of keeping an oath. All of this from the honorable world of Politics!

The Importance of Old Glory in our Public Houses Of Worship

2007-06-30T11:07:00.000-07:00

Last month, an official of the United Methodist Church created a firestorm when he advocated removing the American Flag from Methodist Churches. He equated the presence of Old Glory to implicit agreement with American Policies which tend to violate the Words of Jesus and used the example of the Nazi Flag placed in German Churches prior to and during WWII. It didn't take long for his suggestion to be officially countered by other Methodist Leaders.

This entire scenario is interesting, interesting because of the manner in which the true components of this issue are glossed over and never really addressed. It is also interesting because this manner is standard modus operandi when major points are addressed by those in leadership in this country. It matters not whether the leaders are Secular or Religious.

The first accusation made, implicit or otherwise, is that the American Flag is an idol. Standing alone, this statement is, indeed, bold! It puts the Flag in a position of something or someone to be worshipped. To the Modern American mind, especially the Modern Christian American mind, this is completely unthinkable. After all, we know that God forbids such activity. Worship is to be limited exclusively to Him. And isn't that exactly what happens in houses of worship across America, the exclusive worship of God Almighty? To worship the Flag would be UnGodly!

One of the reasons given that this implication is ludicrous is that Flags in Houses of Worship are unobtrusive and not considered to be a central focus of the decor or activities in a House of Worship. Therefore, to refer to a flag as an idol, because they occupy what many consider to be a particularly unimportant position, is considered to be without merit.

So I ask you. Have you ever taken time to ponder the position of the Flags in houses of Worship? I say "flags" because usually there are two flags flown in most houses of Worship in the United States; the American Flag and the Christian Flag. In light of the Methodist controversy, maybe you should locate them the next time you visit a public House of Worship, regardless of the denomination.

I assure you, though, that they are not placed haphazardly. Unless there was a temporary reason for the Flags being out of place in a public building, Houses of Worship included, I have always seen the American Flag and the Christian Flag consistently in the same position. Why? There's one reason and one reason only. IT"S THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's true. Federal Law prescribes a whole set of actions concerning every aspect of the Flag, its maintenance and care, handling, disposal and, yes, its position within public buildings. This includes its position within the building and also its position in relation to any other flags which may be displayed in proximity to it. And there's only one position allowed by law; complete and total preeminence. That's right, the American Flag is on all occasions to be above all other flags. And it is to always have the horizontal position of power and prominence, to the right. Legally, there are no exceptions! I find it interesting that Houses of Worship consistently and properly place their flags according to existing Law. To do otherwise would make all participants law breakers as well as UnAmerican!

So, where does this place the Christian Flag, the banner supposedly representing the Savior of the World, Jesus Christ? Are we to believe that the Creator of the World is relegated to an inferior status in relation to the American Flag? Are we to believe that the American Flag is deserving of Higher honor than the One Who ordained American Governmental Institiutions?

It seems as if we have a Conundrum.

More to come on this issue. Lots More!

The Legacy of Tupper Saussy

2007-06-28T12:49:00.000-07:00

There are times when our lives are interrupted by personalities of such a large magnitude that we come to expect too much from them. We look to them to be someone they are not. We want them to be to us someone they really are not. And when they don't meet our expectations, we tend to become disillusioned and disappointed in the person.Frederick Tupper Saussy was just such a large person in my life. To the credit of Tupper, he refused to be someone he was not. He refused to meet the misdirected aspirations of other people for himself. Tupper was Tupper. He couldn't, and wouldn't, be anyone else.For that I am grateful. I'm grateful that He wouldn't bend. I'm grateful for not expecting him to. I liked him the way he was. I had no desire to change him.

So, I was able to enjoy him and appreciate the impact he had on me as well as others. God brought him into my life for a reason. Who was I to change that? I'm glad that I didn't because I believe Tupper was used in my life in exactly the manner God intended. And because that influence was highly spiritual, that spiritual legacy will continue for years to come.

The influence began with my initial visit to his website, tuppersaussy.com. This was soon followed up by reading his well crafted work Rulers of Evil, a portion of which can be accessed at rulersofevil.com. It continued for years in our correspondence about the nuances and details of God's political constucts in the World, most of which he came to intimately know in a manner not many of us would have chosen. But, that's Tupper. And his legacy continues.

To begin to know Tupper, read these delightful words from his son Haun Saussy. Very appropriate, indeed.

For those desiring to take part in that continuing legacy, please visit All Things Tupper. Share what you desire for others to know about yourself, Tupper and the Christ we serve.

Jesus Creed, Dialogue & Emerging Submerging

2007-04-11T15:09:00.000-07:00

On an earlier post, I mentioned that I have been part of the online conversation at Jesus Creed, the blog for The Emerging Church, The Emerging Movement or Emerging. It is the creation of Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies of North Park University in Chicago, Illinois.

I have found a very interesting phenomenon while participating in the conversation at Jesus Creed. Yes, it is true that eveyone is encouraged to particpate in the online dialogue. But there are limits to this open conversation. It has nothing to do with crossing the boundaries of decorum as in vulgar speech or personal attack. It has to to with the tenor and breadth of conversation actively encouraged and advertised.

No topic is considered taboo and questions are almost considered mandatory. This is because of the supposed openness of questioning anything and everything historically traditional within the realm of Christendom. Biblical texts and all related issues as well as historical settings, subsequent epochs and all recorded actions of personalities of note are fair game.

But their appears to be a few unspoken caveats. Certain conclusions deemed unsuitable to the Emerging modus operandi are not acceptable. However, the only way of ascertaining these boundaries is through the experience of asking questions, participating in the dialogue and, then, drawing conclusions. And certain conclusions are not agreeable to Emerging conclusions. This is true in spite of any claims to the contrary.

One caveat can be found when scrutinizing certain Emerging conclusions. Questions and dialogue are OK as long as absolutes are not taken only from Scripture or from an historically traditional view of Scripture. In some areas, it seems that absolutes are not welcome at all. The area in question remains open to individual thoughts and conclusions.

Another unspoken caveat is ascertained by taking a consistent stand regarding a particular issue and not backing down. This is not respected. To think you are right about that particular issue is unacceptable. You may have others challenge you on various points about that issue, yet, if you remain steadfast, you are considered to be arrogant. This is viewed as an attempt to impose your will on the others in the conversation.

Another Emerging caveat is unveiled more quickly by any thought deemed to put The Emerging Movement in a negative light or to identify Emerging with certain movements outside of Traditional Christianity. For example, if Emerging practices or teachings are said to be the same as those in Eastern Religious practices such as Mysticism, Transcendental Meditation, Spiritism, Spiritualism, etc., the one intimating such thoughts is instantly challenged, if not outright called out on the blog. Receiving rebukes and reprovals by certain ones in the conversation can accumulate quickly.

Of course, the particulars of the dialogue are not put to the strict scrutiny of Scripture. There may be lame attempts of using Scripture outside of context or literal meaning, but strict scrutiny consistently using Scripture is not allowed.

Eventually, the caveats become unashamedly overt. You will be warned and if you do not abide by their strict standards of conduct on the blog, your posts will be removed and your IRL temporarily blocked from further participation in the conversation. Failure to heed the Emerging caveats results in a permanent block. I

have nothing of a personal nature to say against Scot McKnight except to say that there are certain topics he will not allow to be discussed on his blog. This is perfectly fine because, after all, it is his blog. And he is allowed to determine the parameters of conversation; but not when the idea promoted is that the conversation is open.

So, it seems that Emerging is really all about Submerging, submerging Truth, submerging certain Truth. Believe it or not, Emerging types are being led down a path containing the aromatic tinge from below.

Emerging Vacuum

2007-04-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

When is Black not black? When is up not up? When is good not good?..........................................................................................................Give Up?

Well, silly you,..............when its Emerging! Anybody should know that!

Please, doubting me about this will do you no amount of good............not that good is really good..........and who are you to determine such things? If I say good is bad, then that's good!

Of course, the most important part of good not being good is the fact that the truth of good being good was questioned. Truth not questioned cannot be truth can it? So we question. And truth begins to take on the bright luster of darkness. Isn't it amazing?

Imagine the new twists and turns available to the one who questions. What you thought to be true is pregnant with the possiblity of falsity. And what you thought to be false blossoms into absolute truth. Reality takes on any number of different dimensions only limited by the amount of questions posed.

Just think. All that past asurance and confidence carries a high probability of being chaos and confusion. How could you have missed the obvious, chaos and confusion being the place of security and vitality?

All I can say is that I am so happy for you and your newfound understanding of Life. Emerging fits you very nicely. You look good! You look confident! You look as if you have everything figured out..........finally! The real you has finally Emerged!

Welcome to a new existence, where everything is exactly as it appears not to be. Otherwise, there's no confidence in your knowledge of nothing. No problem as long as you know the difference betwen nothing in its appearance and nothing in its reality, the essence of Emerging.

Mars, Al Gore & The Conspiracy of Global Warming

2007-04-06T11:36:00.000-07:00

If you have been keeping up with the PR circus known as Global Warming, then you have heard the latest rumblings from a lone wolf scientist by the name of Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. He says that the sun is the cause of the warming of the earth as well as the simultaneous warming on Mars.

These lastest revelations have temporarily diverted our atttention away from the most serious theory to explain the warming of the earth's atmosphere. The sheer amount of raw hard data forming the foundation of this purely scientific theory is hard to ignore for any lover of true knowledge. It seems that man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions can be traced to a major non- stationary source upon the earth, a source large enough to effect the entire globe even though largely limited to the Western Hemishere. It also seems that data mined from the travel records of major airlines, university speaking itineraries as well as satellite infrared imagery have left scientists of the highest regard with no choice but to disclose the intial findings of the latest climate change study.

The warm issuance of such man made emissions has been closely linked to the geographic travel patterns of one Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States. Interestingly, the data heavily suggests the correlation between the political trajectory of the carreer of Mr Gore and the warming of the earth's atmosphere over the last 25 years, with alarming increases in recent warming activity also coinciding with the increase of Mr Gore's activity outside of the political realm. Needless to say, more study is needed, but the seriousness with which this theory has gained acceptance cannot be ignored by the general populace of any nation.

Which leads me back to the latest scientific crossing of swords regarding this hot issue. While the theory of Mr. Abdussamatov is hotly contested by many scientists, the data mentioned above is being ignored. I propose the following conspiracy theory:

Since Mr. Abdussamatov is from Russia, he can't be trusted. He's obviously a part of a Communist plot by ex-KGB agent and present President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Which means that;
Al Gore and Putin (and others) are in league together. They are executing a well orchestrated plan to keep the world's population from knowing the real cause of global warming, not just here on Earth, but also on Mars. And this is where the real conspiracy comes in. The link between Earth and Mars is that;
Mankind is already on the planet Mars. That's right! There are extensive colonies of Earth's citizens already planted on the Red planet as I write this blog entry. Lest you think I am attempting to connect the warming of Mars to the invasion of Earthlings, please settle down. This is where the data mentioned above comes into serious play. This data shows that;
Al Gore has been Mars' most prestigious as well as most frequent visitor, making many secret trips known only to a select few. Which means that;
All the current hoopla surrounding global warming, with its conflicting thoeries, is really a coverup of the fact that Al Gore is currently acting as an interplanetary Ambassador on behalf of the United Nations and Earth Goddess Gaia to Mars.

If you don't believe in conspiracies, don't worry. Not many do, including Rush Limbaugh. He says that anyone gullible enough to believe a political conspiracy is nothing more than a "KOOK." So you are in great company.

Just be glad I didn't reveal the part President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq plays in this grand scheme!

The Legacy of Compassionate Conservatism

2007-04-01T06:51:00.000-07:00

How many Compassionate Conservatives now confess that President George W. Bush is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan? How many would agree that the legacy of this Republican Administration is no different than the Democratic Administration preceding it. Six years ago, who would have imagined verbalizing such repulsive thoughts. But here we stand, viewing the wreckage previously known as the GOP. The once proud and conservatively Christian answer to the diabolical group of donkeys known for braying their sexual escapades to the wind, now find themselves attempting to protect the secrets of the once chaste herd of Elephants. The filthy stench emanating from such activity has the perpetrators running for political cover while many others point the accusing finger and exalt their own brand of stench for the populace to choose.

The Moral Majority, The Chrisitian Coalition, The Christian Right, etc must be supremely disappointed in their failure to implement the political promises made more than a quarter of a century ago. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and D. James Kennedy have to shake their collective heads when viewing the debris of the current administration. What happened to the promising hope which fueled the rapid rise of the so called conservative Christian base which wielded so much power and influence in the legislative halls of the United States of America? Where are the Biblical laws which have been touted as the answer to the moral decay of American culture? Where is the impact of the Faith Based Initiatives exalted and signed into law by President Bush? Where is the evidence that the family, considered the fundamental unit of any society, has been promoted and edified by American public policy? All signs point to the continued downward spiral of all things familial.

The Conservative Collapse is official. Oh, there may be a few gasps left in the diminshing corpse, but the end is in sight. Which may be a good thing. Maybe now, those touting the viability of Christian politicans in the Secular realm will begin to rethink their position. Maybe the possibility of previously viewing the Scriptural statements about politics in a perveted manner will be consiodered. Maybe the possiblity of admission of wrong thinking will not be silently shoved into the nearest dark corner. Maybe a return to Holy Writ and its clear political statements is possible.

Hopefully, the Body of Christ will let this collapse cause them to consider the Word of God when it comes to poltiics. Maybe then, the political maneuverings that have continuously exasperated them over the last few decades will be put into their proper context. Maybe the frustration will begin to make sense. Maybe they will begin to understand the true political aspirations God has for His People. Maybe the true intent of God for His People in this world will begin to come into focus to the point that many will realize their past political mistakes and how to begin the repentant process of substantive change as the World observes.

Yes, God expects His People to be politically active, but in the proper context and for His purposes, not the purposes of the World; for God has not made His People to be the political capital of this World.

So, as Attoney General Gonzales teeters, as the Iraq war staggers, as the War on Terror polarizes, as the New World Order takes shape, let our gaze be on the Only One who truly understands what is takng place before us. And let us seek His understanding while abandoning our own. He has promised to direct our path if we do.

The Battle For Political Faith

2007-03-30T16:12:00.000-07:00

In the midst of our viewing this political slide into the depths of depravity, there are certain calls to keep the faith politically. We are reminded that American history is full of such examples which fall short of the exalted worthiness of American grandeur, yet the Republic stands still. This is no different in that the virtues of America will eventually shine forth, leading us all into the destiny of our calling as American citizens.

Would that we as Children of the most High God keep in the forefront of our thinking the wonderful grace of God in our lives. In Him, we fail to experience the pain of failure or disappointment. Men come and accompanying them is the stain of sin. Apart from grace imparted, these figures lack. They lack that which is required of all. Perfection tends to escape those made in the image of God, yet inheriting Adam's fall.

For that is what we are viewing in the politics of America: men walking apart from God's grace. And men attempting to manufacture there own version of God's touch fall into the mire of such vanity. As noble as it may sound, as virtuous as the work appears, the only accomplishment by such attempts is the accumulation of frustration. This state of ever falling short describes the faith of politics in this world.

Let us remember that which was secured for us by Calvary's resurrection. Our Messiah accomplished what only He could and offers it freely to all who will humbly accepts its provisions and limitations. The repentant heart cannot win the freedom already gained. The new Lord cannot offer anew that which He has already granted. His politics cannot be applied to anyone outside His Grace. Only a Holy God possesses that which world politics aspires to; Autonomous Divinity. Reconciliation to this same Holy God is the only fulfillment of the deepest need of every political citizen of this world.

Some that view this struggle have faith in the true Jesus. For those of you who possess this treasure, the struggle has everything to do with Faith, a faith you are curently exercising, a faith they are struggling to find. May they meet the only Person they need.

The Child of God & Politics - Rome or Jesus?

2007-03-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

Below is a post on Jesus Creed by Michael Kruse in which he is responding to statements from me. Also below is my response to his response. I encourage you to read his separate article through the link provided.

I believe you will begin to see a few dividing points between modern politics as practiced by many American Christians and that politics espoused by Christ and His Word.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
***************************************************

Benjamin #40

Jesus taught us to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” I don’t take that as a command to set passively by, hoping it will come. I take it as a call to engage the world, always recognizing that the Kingdom will not fully come until Christ returns. We are to be an image of the future New Creation living in the present, giving witness of what is to come.

I wrote a post sometime back called Paul’s Subversion of the Empire. There were no police forces in Greco-Roman. Government entities and voluntary organizations for addressing the needs of the common people did not exist. The fundamental institution for keeping the social order was the household. The paterfamilias (male householder) was to rule over his household and compel order. He theoretically had the power of life and death over the members of the household (though this was changing by NT times.)

Paul introduces a new ethic. There is no longer the slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, or male and female. We are made one body in Christ. He subverts the Greco-Roman model of order by domination with an ethic other-centered love and mutual submission (see my analysis of Ephesians 5 and 6 in the linked post.) Were this ethic to spread from household to household, the entire political and social power structure of the Empire would have been transformed. Regrettably, initial gains were reversed as the Church allowed itself to become re-infused with the power hierarchies of the age. But the initial implication of Paul’s teaching was deeply subversive and deeply political.

In our present context, we have the opportunity to have direct input into governance that Paul would not have dreamed of. Generally speaking, I think the role of the Church, with regard to the state, is not to compel Christian behavior (regardless of whether that compulsion is from the right or the left.) There is a legitimate role for state use of power. I think it is to restrain evil enough that it “creates room for good things to run wild.” (A little Chesterton there.) The changing of people’s hearts and minds needs to come from the other-centered love of Christians giving birth to more other-centered believers. Eventually society is transformed but never to the utopia that the world will be upon Christ’s return. That is how I see it.

Michael Kruse
******************************************************

Michael,

First of all, Jesus said to pray "Thy Kingdom come." It is a prayer for God to do something, not a command from God to go and bring the kingdom to fruition.

When Jesus said, "The kingdom is among/within you," He's telling us the kingdom was already present. He also dealt with the present reality of the Kingdom when He spoke to the Pharisees in Matthew 21:24 saying, "....The Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

This new nation is nothing more than the distinct dichotmy established with the murder of Abel by his brother Cain. Those who have chosen to obey God in faith have been at odds with those who have chosen to live outside the Presence of YHWH. The standards of both groups have been different and remain so today.

I believe it is a mistake to give the impression that what Paul was saying was completely new and, because of its newness, it was subversive. It wasn't. It was a continuation of the way of God for His People, a way which sinful rebellious man has always found to be contrary to what man wants to do. What is revealed in the NT is no different than what is revealed in the OT. Paul makes that clear with his numerous references to OT Scripture.

It is true that Paul dealt with scenarios in the Greco-Roman world of his day, which we essentially have today, scenarios which needed clarifying in the way they should be dealt with and lived out. But, for the most part, what Paul said was basic OT.

This is true also when Paul deals with the household structure. Your article deals only with one aspect of household relationships in isolation of the remainder of NT passages dealing with the same issues. (I simply point this out, not as a negative. You may deal with it elsewhere.)
You point out that Roman society had worship and voluntary organizations. Though you mentioned none specifically (maybe the synagogue), one was the Ekklesia. Interestingly enough, this was an assembly which called out the men to conduct the official business of the assembly. Though the household relationships of Romans were different (as you mentioned), this particuar Greco-Roman political entity fit perfectly God's structure of the household as well as government on a large scale for His Body. Once again see, see OT.

You also mentioned the exemptions the Jews had under Roman rule from the requirements of these organizations. That's true, but more interestingly, when they reorganized under the captivity from Babylon, they possess the ability to rule themselves, including the execution of sentances against criminal conduct, something they didn't possess under Roman rule. They could try a person, one of their own, then they must deliver that person up to Roman authorities for either the execution of the sentence or the determination & execution of the sentence. This is what happens to Jesus and Paul alludes to this process in 1 Cor. 5, dealing with the man committing fornication.

Most people don't realize that this has not changed in modern times. American Law gives these exact same exemptions to the true Ekklesia as well as the ability to govern themselves according to God's law, even in matters of criminal behavior among their own. Most of God's people are ignorant of this reality. I wonder why Christian Attorneys don't mention this?

The availability of God's people to live with their distinctives intact is there for us. As Christ said, the World and its citizens will always hate us because they hated Christ first. We are not called to change their society. We are called to live and preach to world citizens the message of reconciliation to a God whose political society is completely different. The most their society will have is reformation, the temporary reformation of sinners. Our political society is one of complete newness in The Eternal Lord of Lords. This is the narrow way of Christ.

Do we choose that narrow way....or......do we choose the broad way of the World?

Christian Politics - What's Wrong With This Picture?

2007-03-27T18:05:00.000-07:00

Just a word of warning to those who are tempted to take a look at the current political filth and castigate those who have fallen.

The problem with modern Christians is that we can’t even hold our own people to a higher standard. We’re just like the world we look down our long pious noses at. While looking to the world and their infrastructure to accomplish what they have been designed by God to do, we waste the holy gifts and abilities the Holy Spirit has endowed us with. Instead, we want what the world has. And we’re not content until we get it. The only problem is that once we get it, We don’t handle it any better than the world. We suffer the same fate as the world.

We are the most powerful people on earth. Yet we think we need the political structures of the world in order for the world to understand our power. We don’t like to be laughed at, so we want to be like the world and be accepted by them, when in fact they hate us and will never give up their power. That’s the reason so many are confused and frustrated and warped.

We don’t realize that we’ve traded our birthright for a mess of political pottage. And we are impotent because of it. And we will remain so until we get back to operating the way God designed us to.

Until we do, we are open to the lure and deception of power not intended for us, at least not yet

Conpiracy - Do You Believe?

2007-03-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

I heard something I consider very interesting today.

When I got in my van to leave the house, there was a sports talk show on and the host was interviewing the mother of former football player Arizona Cardinal Pat Tillman. For those of you are unfamiliar with his story, he received quite a bit of publicity over his patriotic decision to turn down a lucrative contract with the Cardinals and, instead, join the military to fight in Afghanistan. He was subsequently killed in action, which was where the controversy lay. Many, including Pat's mother, think that he was killed by friendly fire. Furthermore, there is speculation which cannot be discounted that heavily suggests that his death was, in fact, homocide, probably linked to his personal beliefs about the war on terror.

With all details about this scenario aside, I was a bit baffled at the fact that here was a conspiracy being embraced by the mainstream media, even if it was sports media. But all disclaimers of political partisanship by the host aside, it is known that the sports media is part of the mainstream media. Yes, that includes Fox and Fox Sports. But this was on ESPN Radio. They are included, also.

But back to the issue of conspiracy.

Why is it that, in the vast realm of the media, the idea of conspiracy is considered ludicrous. Even Rush Limbaugh, the Doctor of Democracy, denies conspiracies to the point of calling anyone who buys into the idea of political conspiracies, a "kook."

How many have forgotten the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is revered by Democrates and Republicans alike? He forthrightly stated that,"If it happens in politics, it was planned that way." Are we to take the words of one of the most revered Presidents in American History, the only three term President, and gloss over them as the words of a political novice?

How is it, that we can acknowledge the shortcomings of men in poltical office, yet never consider the possibility that a group of these men, small or large, could ever come to a consensus on some diabolical scheme? How is it that they can agree when it comes to public Law and policy, good things, yet they can never agree to do anything evil? Where is the logic in that?

Even now, it appears there is a coverup of lewd actions surrounding Attorney General Gonzales. Dare we call this a conspiracy? Isn't that what a coverup is? Remember Richard Nixon? And we surely don't forget the Clinton Administration. And that administration has the chance of holding power again? It seems that the American people are most comfortable when having a conspiracy laden administration in power. Yet, none dare call it conspiracy!

Pondering Politicans & Four Footed Beasts!

2007-03-27T14:16:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been to what is called a "calf scramble?" This is an event for children, sometimes teenagers, usually boys, where a group of calves are turned loose. The children then begin a mad dash to tackle a calk and be the first to bring that calf to a predetermined place in the arena. The winner usually receives a cash prize.

If you've never seen one, you should try taking in an evening at the local rodeo arena, since that's where they usually occur. It really is entertaining, watching all manner of desperate maneuvers to capture one rebellious creature. A dive here, a jump there, pushing other competitors out of the way, a headlock here (on the calf), a yank of the leg (on the calf), and finally, the lucky calf is mercilessy drug to the appointed spot. Sometimes the calf does a bit of dragging himself. And out of the entire group, there's usually only one person left with a broad smile, the winner. All others are left with nothing to show for the effort except dirty, maybe torn, clothing, and frustration. Oh and don't forget! There's also the distinct possibility that you walk away with an enemy or two, depending on your method of pursuing the calf.

Is this beginning to sound familiar. Have you seen this scenario before, maybe, many times before?

That's right!!! It's a presidential election! And you, the electorate, are nothing more than calves in this mad scramble for voters. All manner of methods are employed to capture your political heart. Some of these methods can be rather humorous knowing the history of the particular candidate. Some are downright embarrasing. Some are simply shameful, even for politicians. But that's what we have before us for the next 18 months, a long, confusing and tiring battle for the attention of someone who really isn't sure that they want to give this attention. And they really don't like someone who seems to be forcing them to provide that attention.

I must confess, though, I have an idea which might appeal to some. I think that the candidates should become the calves and allow the voters to go after the calves. And the first one to get their candidate to the designated spot gets a lifetime income tax exemption! Wow!

Wait a minute! Let's not let just one person have the joy of earning an exemption. Let's give one for every candidate taken to the designated spot. Talk about motivation!

Politics is a wonderful endeavor. You just have to have the proper mindset to enjoy it!

Political Undertow - Looking Below The Turmoil

2007-03-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Now that things are really starting to heat up politically for the Republicans, the Democrats are shifting into a higher gear. Both sides are frantically trying to take advantage of this moral free for all. One side tries to circle the wagons. The other is pressing the attack. There's only one problem with this scenario, though.

Both sides of the Political Aisle have the same problem. It is a deeply moral one.

The last two administrations have experienced the same thing; moral free fall. And there's a reason. As much as it is hidden and glossed over, the politicans that matter, the real movers and shakers, do not represent their more moral constituents. The fact that must be frankly admitted by all honest onlookers is that these officeholders, as a whole, do possess the approximate level of moral dignity as the majority of their constituents. The American people just have a difficult time accepting this. Why? Because it's a reflection they are viewing and they don't know how to change that reflection of themselves. But they keep trying to convince themselves that this reform can be accomplished and, thus, they keep struggling to fumigate the political atmosphere with the possible clouds of future political uptopia.

As we see, the current morass many are wallowing in doesn't lend much credence to the notion floated that all things are not as bad as they seem. And it seems that the more we try to convince ourselves of this, the more moral degeneracy seems to surface in our political priests of choice.

And that's the sad part. We are only viewing the surface. What lies below is anything but attractive. The sexual sins seen on the surface only mask the true depravity further down. What lies below is the depth of depravity, a moral lifestyle so repugnant that most Christians shrink in horror at the thought. I believe that what most shrink at is the real possibility that this degeneracy is present among their own ranks, that it is not only present, but pervasive; a perversion so repugnant that a peripheral glance is all that can be withstood.

Meanwhile, the turmoil seen by all allow us to focus on something other than Truth.

And repentance is kept at bay.

Are Christians a Dying Breed?

2007-03-27T07:50:00.000-07:00

In this article from World Net Daily, Rabbi Daniel Lapin gives a stern warning to American Christians that there are concerted attempts to diminish or actually exterminate the influence and impact Christians have in the world today, especially in the political realm. He provides proof of this campaign by citing the many examples of books curently being published containing overt anti Christain rhetoric and bias.

So, presuming such a plan has been implemented, how is such a large campaign carried out to successful fruition? With hundreds of millions of Christians in the world and tens of millions in the United States and with an Evangelical Christian as President in George W. Bush, how does one eliminate such a large population group? Is it possible that a worldwide holocaust is about to begin? I admit that such a thought seems out of the realm of possibility in such a civilized era such as ours, but do we dare eliminate this possibility, seeing that we are only 60 years removed from the human blight of Adolf Hitler?

Even now, the world is being warned of the potential repercussions of Europe's rejection of Christianity by Pope Leo XVI. And America is faced with the same consolidation of Europe into one bloc of nations, The North American Union. Are we to face the same anihilation through amalgamation of law and culture Europe has experienced? Are we about to see the distinctives of America become merged with those of Canada and Mexico? If so, what are the implications for the Christian?

Do the policies of Hitler return under the same type of human rights concerns? Are Christians going to be eliminated because of their negative impact on the world around them? Does the morally high ground of Christians and their God become the sacrifical altar upon which their literal blood is sacrificed. Do we see the policies of Cain make a widespread return? Is this to be the reaction of Cain to the righteousness preached by the Prophet Abel? Or do we turn a deaf ear to such ridiculous notions?

Or maybe the concerted efort to eliminate Christian ideas is to subvert their Christian distinctives. Is it possible that the best way to eliminate your enemy is to convince them to join you? Are Christians even aware of such modus operandi? Is it even a consideration that Christian enemies are subtly luring Christians into beliefs and practices that Jesus Christ never condones. Are we being sold a bill of spiritual goods which the Word of God specifically condemns?

If so, what are the results of such a diabilocal subversion? Could it be that the plan is to turn Christians into the same as everyone else around them. They look the same. They believe the same. They act the same. They unknowingly serve the same agendas. Their values are slowly morphed into the will of others they know not. Their ignorance is used against them. And in the name of serving God, abominations against their God are engaged in.

Does this sound rather far fetched? I can understand why if that is the case. But the realities of Jewish elimination under the righteousness of the Third Reich in the not so distant past should serve to tell us that human depravity ever lurks beneath the thin veneer of civilized man. In fact, it could be said at this time that civilization has developed cracks and gaping holes which are in danger of becoming the norm, something the Jews know about intimately.

He that has ears to hear...........

One Continent Under God?

2007-03-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

Conspiracy Theorists everywhere must be full of glee. Not that they would express such anti-government sentiments publicly. Who knows who may be watching such outward expressions of inward thoughts? That's how close we are to having a broad smile be considered against the law. But, for now, laughter is still OK.

So, what are these Conspiracy nuts happy about. The New World Order! What else! It is about to officially arive in North America.

That's right! State Department officials in The United States, Mexico and Canada are discussing the details of creating what would be called The North American Union. Unifying the three countries in every aspect is not just being considered, but planned.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this article and others on World Net Daily. What certain groups have been harping about for decades, maybe centuries, is about to come to pass.

In such a scenario, what are the real changes that take place? What happens to the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto of In God We Trust, Old Glory, Patriotism, Military service, Political Offices, The Constitution, Border travel, Immigration between the three countries, Commerce and ..................the most volatile of all..................Religion?

Are all religions merged into one? What happens to the Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Emerging, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Churches of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists? Does this North American Union become "One Continent Under God?"

Gives you something to think about, doesn't it?

Religion, Politics & Quicksand

2007-03-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

For those who have placed such great faith in the role of politics to change society, is there an answer to the depths of depravity in America today? With political foundations disintegrating before our eyes, where do you turn to now? What takes the place of World politics?

Most people will grow philosophical and muse about the need to reform politics. All this amounts to is reshuffling the existing deck and dealing the cards anew. Does this solve the problem or simply reorganize the problem? And isn't this the problem? Is there such a thing as a new government? Really? Or is such a thought nothing more than a delusion?

Or is it simply time for the other side of the Political aisle to have their turn to govern? Isn't that the same as admitting that it is the Democrats turn to create their version of a mess? After all, the Republicans have done a swell job of their own. We don't want to be selfish about this government thing, right?

The fact is, that most don't know what to do about situations such as the last two administrations. The Republican fiasco is so bad that The Religious Right isn't sure whom to turn to. And they have God on their side! Such is the magnitude of the dilemna.

So, while God's People halt between various political opinions, they continue to slowly sink into an abyss never created for them. God awaits with extended hand on solid ground. Most are looking elsewhere.

America: Land of The...............Sinners?

2007-03-26T16:26:00.000-07:00

It seems that compassionate conservatism is in desperate need of a heavy dose of mercy. Scandals of every sort are starting to pile up in an unprecedented fashion for the Republican Administration. And the uncoverings of Attorney General Gonzales shadowy maneuverungs may be just the beginning of the end for the Administration of President George Bush. Of course, Democrats of almost every stripe have been waiting for this to happen. In their minds, it has taken much too long. Now it is their turn.

That may serve its own set of problems, though. For it was just six years ago that the most scandalous Administration in American History ended in jubilation for the GOP. Now, the same Democratic Presidential family is desiring to usurp the other Presidential family. Hillary Clinton has her own set of problems since there are potential hidden liabilities, aka scandals, latently lurking from her time as First Lady with Bill Clinton.

So, what is it with modern Politics? It's not as if there have never been scandalous administrations before, but "scandal" is starting to seem rather impotent when used to describe the actions of the last two administrations and their supporters. It seems as if the vulgarity and lewdness is almost considered necessary in order to be involved in modern politics. Even the Christian Right has gotten in on the action with Ted Haggard. Who knows what has been swept under the political rug in the mean time? Are we to the point of just waiting for the next political career to bottom out after adversely discovering a hidden reef just below the surface?

And what about American reputation abroad? That seems to be an extremely sharp double-edged sword. While many countries desire to have the political help of America, the immoral baggage accompanying this assistance hardly seems worth it. It seems that when America shows up, it's only a matter of time before crime of every sort begins its upward spiral.

Why does this seem to be the case? Why does America seem more adept at exporting its worst products than its best? Is there an acceptable answer? Is there a modern answer?

Well, I could give an answer from the Bible. And the answer from the Bible would be absolutely true. But many don't want to hear such an answer. So, I've decided to provide a quote from a modern personality which may surprise many, in that it is related to the reason for the Founding of the United States. It comes from Michael Novak. It comes from the January 28, 1989 issue of America, the weekly magazine of American Jesuits, and Novak eloquently sums up the reason:

The framers wanted to build a "novus ordo" that would secure "liberty and justice for all".......The underlying principle of this new order is the fact of human sin. To build a republic designed for sinners, then, is the indispensable task.........There is no use building a social system for saints. There are too few of them. And those there are are impossible to live with!......Any effective social system must therefore be designed for the only moral majority there is: sinners"

This quote was taken from the preeminent work of Tupper Saussy, Rulers of Evil. And it is the only modern work, apart from Holy Writ, which adequately explains the World system we live under today, especially in America. And it explains why America is in such the pitiful shape she finds herself in today. Would that modern Children of God read and understand. Mercy patiently waits to be extended.

Tony Blair & Pope Leo VS Ian Paisley - Double Trouble?

2007-03-25T09:39:00.000-07:00

It is being reported by Religioscope that Irish Protestant fireband Ian Paisley has been conducting religious fraternization with Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is Anglican and attends mass with his Roman Catholic wife. This is bound to be a surprise to many since the Presbyterian stalwart is in the midst of political negotiations to create a stable operational government for Northern Ireland.

It will also probable surprise many that, according to "Lord Bew, the professor of Irish politics at Queen's University Belfast who has good connections at the highest levels of government, believes the Blair/Paisley dialogue on religion has transformed their relations - even though they come from significantly different religious traditions."

Bew also states that, ""Blair is brilliant at seducing Paisley," Lord Bew said. "This is the most amazing love affair, the last great Blairite romance. They are even exchanging books on religion. It is fantastic stuff. It is religious; it is romantic. It is brilliant. You have to hand it to him. Once again, when we thought the old maestro was fading, his capacity to seduce, politically speaking, is phenomenal.""

Meanwhile, the other side of this political courtship reveals the ever present influence of the Papacy. Catholic World News reports that Irish President Mary McAleese is meeting with Pope Leo XVI "for a conversation that centered on the “structured dialogue” between religious and government leaders in Ireland." McAleese also met with Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

This amounts to a religious political double team, an overwhelming doubleteam. Maybe Paisley should give up now while He still has his reputation intact. Otherwise, he's playing with fire, fire not meant for him to play with.

But maybe the common roots of Protestant Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are coming to light, in spite of the immovable stand against all things Papal Paisely is known for.

After all, John Calvin was originally a Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church, Church Growth & The Papacy

2007-03-25T07:16:00.000-07:00

In this account of the reunification of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, an Austrian Priest gives some insight to the real reason that this unforseen possibility is actually in the process of becoming reality. The World Catholic News reports that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, is optimistic that this reunification will overcome the lone obstacle, the role of the Papacy. Other than that, the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are in accord “on almost every theological issue.”

While many have thought for centuries that the two Churches have distinct theological differences, this quote by the Archbishop is quite revealing. It lets us know that Protestants, as a whole, have the same underlying beliefs as The Roman Catholic Church. After all, Protestants were originally Roman Catholics. They are simply coming back home to Mama, the Mother Church.

By the way, this process is not limited to Orthodox Churches. In fact, according to official Roman Catholic Policy, all Protestants will one day soon be covered by the power of the Pope. It's only a matter of time.

And for those who are not considered Protestants, the same is planned for you and your groups also. The plan is already coming to fruition as we speak. Doctrinal diminuation has occured to the extent that many are truly illiterate when it comes to core Bible Doctrines concerning Jesus Christ and His salvation. Teachings of Mysticism and Spiritualism have pervasively intruded standard teachings of most churches to the extent that these ungodly doctrines and practices are thought to be espoused by Jesus and His Apostles in Scripture.

Apostacy is rampant and many are completely unaware. They are under the delusion that good is evil, right is wrong, black is white, up is down, etc. Power foreign to the Holy Spirit are accepted without so much as a thought that this power could possibly be from anyone other that God. Testing the Spirits according to Scripture is not considered as viable. That would offend certain individuals. Meanwhile shipwrecked lives continue to accumulate on the reef of shallow spirituality.

And the Papacy grows.

The Politics of Fear

2007-03-25T05:57:00.000-07:00

The Political Right, The Political Left. The Religious Right, The Religious Left. Republican, Democrat. Red, Blue, Purple, Green.

What are they all about?

Well, if truth be known, they are all about the same thing, though both sides would be loath to admit such a fallacious thought. Instead, they would be intent on informing everyone that would lend an ear that, in spite of what their enemies say, they are advocates for what is right for the American people. And, in order to ensure that all Americans receive what they need, these advocates need political office or the commensurate power thereof.

Campaigns of fear. It's as simple as that. Not so much as creating fear in the hearts of the American populace, but fear that the political power to perpetuate that fear according to their particular party blueprint will not be obtained. In other worlds, they will not be elected.

Sadly, Christians participate in this exercise of vanity. And Christians experience more futility than their secular counterparts. Why?

Because their expectations are misplaced. And being completely unaware of this, they continue to engage in the constant struggle to gain and maintain unnecessary political power. And they continue to acutely feel the hollowness of such struggle. But, for the glory of God, they energetically press on. And as the debris of a disintegrating culture accumulates, fear remains a reality.

Within this hollowness, there reverberates an echo of Truth which faintly whispers the accurate direction for all soldiers possessing trancsendent power for the proper tasks. These whispers cause searching glances for such latent Truth in the midst of their temporal fight. Quiet considerations lurk in the shadows of vanity, patiently waiting for the exposure and clarity of a pure search for Truth. Only by turning from the path and demanding tasks of world vanity does the construction of God's political realm emerge to guide us into the straight and narrow path of power reserved for those choosing to follow Jesus the Messiah. His political entity awaits our knowledgeable cooperation. Until then, power reserved for those rejecting The Messiah lures the most powerful group residing on planet Earth, a political strip tease so powerful that the only cure for this political fornication is flight. To desparately flee into the extended arms of the politics of reconciliation is the only cure for what ails Christians involved in modern Politics. Only then can the child of God truly know what the World needs and is, at the same time, seeking.

They need and are seeking what they have officially rejected, Jesus their Messiah. We were once as they are, in need of politics, the Politics of Reconcilation.

It's the only cure for the the Politics of Fear.

I Want the Truth......and I Want it NOW!!!!

2007-03-24T12:42:00.000-07:00

In this age of ease and convenience, many American Christians are no different than the American culture around them. Actually, they and the culture are separate only in word. Most American Christians are just as worldly as the lost people they claim to be trying to reach with the message of the Gospel of Christ. And the World is demanding. And what they demand, they demand now!

Christians, on the other hand, have been introduced to a God who seems to have taken His sweet time in clothing Himself in flesh and initiating His work among men. He even waited thirty years to begin His public ministry. He even walked with his disciples for more than three years. There is nothing instantaneous about His actions toward man.

You would think that we in America would allow some of these facts to seep into our conscious thought. Having been introduced to the living embodiment of Truth, you would think that we would exhibit a little more patience when attempting to allow Christ to give us the wisdom He has promised to those who ask Him. Never mind that the Wisdom were are requesting is not ours to begin with. Never mind that He is completely responsible for the timing of that gift to us. Never mind that He desires our best in the whole scenario. We simple think that we, for whatever reason, have a right to receive that Wisdom immediately. We seem to act as if God may be completely unaware of our situation. .............MMMph! Of all the nerve!

Are we willing to wait? Are we willing to ask? Are we willing to seek? To study? To meditate on His Word? To compare this spiritual Word with other portions of the spiritual Word?

For something so precious, why can't we wait?

If it's as valuable and needed as we say it is, why can't we trust god to provide our need in His perfect time?

American Politics: Land of the Lost

2007-03-24T09:47:00.000-07:00

So, you think you understand American and World politics?

Who can ascend to a realm of such rarified air as those espousing, much less possessing, political understanding?

Well, among those professing to intimately know Jesus Christ, most would profess such abilities. Even more, they are presumed to be the only ones truly qualified to hold political office in the United States. If you listen closely, this idea isn't just evident, it has become overtly prominent.

Yet, I wonder how many know what the Bible has to say about the political realm of the World system?

I wonder how many know that the Bible presumes that political offices are authoritative positions reserved for people outside the saving Grace of God? How many understand that God considers all officeholders in need of His salvation? How many know that these politicos are considered unbelievers?

Don't believe me? Well, your disagreement should be taken up with Jesus. When offered political power over all the earth, Jesus refused it.

Imagine that! What Jesus flat-out rejected, His people, at least those calling themselves His people, are continually trying to aquire.

Now, tell me who doesn't understand Politics!

Christianity & The Real Jesus

2007-03-24T07:01:00.000-07:00

When it comes to what we believe about the historical figure Jesus, is our image of this controversail figure accurate? Or do we embrace a caricature? Is the Jesus we allow to be presented to us really the One described for us in the Bible?

For many, to consider this question is deemed ridiculous. To some, it approaches blasphemy. Yet, are we not responsible for the substance of our belief? Is it not our duty to make sure that our beliefs are accurate and not mistaken and misdirected?

Paul tells us to make sure that the Jesus we preach is not "another Jesus", thus "another gospel."

So, regardless of the tenets of any religion or Denomination, we are to study the bible to make sure that our words about the Son of God don't paint a picture of Jesus foreign to what the Bible actually says. The only way to do that is to get into the Word of God. Reading books about the subject may sound like a good idea, but how else are you to know whether the books you read are truthful or not except by comparing it to the Word of God?

It's simple for anyone desiring to know the Truth about the historical Jesus. The only accurate portrayal of God in the flesh is the Bible. We need to make sure we are following the genuine Messiah, not a wolf in sheep's clothing!

The Christian Foundation of Europe & Chaos

2007-03-24T06:23:00.000-07:00

This article from the Catholic World News laments the fact that The Berlin Declaration, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, fails to mention the Christian foundation of Europe.

While they are attempting to be recognized for this treaty which began the consolidation of Europe into the present European Union, all because of the chaos created by Adolf Hitler, maybe the World should also be reminded of the humble Christian beginnings of the beloved Fuher. After all, a righteous cause does need proper funding.

These details, provided by Tupper Saussy, gives appropriate historical credit and context to all deserving parties, not the least of which is Christianity.

Godly Candidates & The Culture War

2007-03-20T12:38:00.000-07:00

In this commentary by Janet Folger on World Net Daily, she addresses the issue of having and electing godly candidates for the purpose of winning the war for the culture of the United States of America.

Questions:

Where in the Bible are Christians ever commanded or encouraged to conquer any culture of this World on behalf of Christ?
Where in the Bible are Christians ever commanded or encouraged to enter the Politics of any culture of this World on behalf of Christ?
Where in the Bible are Christians ever commanded or encouraged to pass laws or change policies of any culture of this World on behalf of Christ?
Where in the Bible does Jesus ever identify Himself with any culture of this World?
Where in the Bible does Jesus ever command or encourage His Disciples or Followers to identify with any culture of this World?
Where in the Bible does any true Disciple or Follower identify with any culture of this World?

If Janet is right about "The Lord performing His word," and I believe she is, wouldn't it be a safe thing to make sure that we actually have marching orders from our Commander in Chief (not President Bush) before engaging the enemy, especially on enemy turf? And if there aren't any marching orders, what then? Do we just proceed anyway, trusting in our motivation to serve the Lord to make up for the lack of orders? Are we trusting in our motives to overcome, what could be considered, disobedience? Is this where we are in our service to our King? Do your own thing, as long as it is accomplished on behalf of the King?

I think King Saul might offer us a word of wisdom about this very issue. Are we listening?

Jesus & The Secret: Fulfilling The Law

2007-03-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

Well.........now we know. If only Jesus had known! If only Jesus would have, somehow, become privy to this universal Law. Just imagine what Jesus could have accomplished. Just think of how much of His potential, as God, He could have performed for the benefit of mankind. Just think of how much more the Creator could have created.................if only He had known.

What a waste! Just think of all the things in His life that could have been different..........from the very beginning. Why, even as a baby, this law of attraction could have been implemented to, not only secure the positive political affirmation of Herod, but prevent the useless slaughter of innocent babies in Bethlehem. The eternal destiny of Judas could have been altered had He approached the traitor, Judas, differently with the sop. The remainder of His Apostles could have escaped martyrdom, yes, ruled Israel as Jesus had promised. Had this law been aimed toward the religious leaders of His day, they would have realized the attractive nature of His persona and presented Him to the people as the Messiah, instead of trying Him as a criminal. Furthermore, the Roman power despised by many could have been used for the glory of God if He had only woven His tapestral attraction within the mind and heart of Pilate. The guards would have refused to mutilate and mock him. Why, Satan Himself could have been converted back to the eternal fold, forever abandoing personal delusions of deity.

More desperate people could have been fed, healed, clothed, set free, mended, unified...............if only............if only.............Jesus could have been more attractive.

But, alas, we are left with a Savior who was defeated on the cross in death. Yes, There is the issue of raising from the dead. It does have a certain quality about it that speaks of a certain amount of uniqueness, but attractive? No, at least, not to enough people of the World. For those to whom it is attractive, like President Bush, the attraction lies in the fact that Jesus makes one feel loved, not guilty. Factor in the fact that the guilt of mankind's sin was the reason for His death and one might understand how this feature of the Gospel of Repentance and Faith, is not viewed as attractive enough as "The Secret."

No, in hindsight it must be admitted. Christ had no idea of what He was doing. As God in human flesh, He had the right motives in trying to elevate the status of man, but His omniscient methodology, while crude and accomplishing far more than most would have thought possible, was lacking in its political adaptability to the current demands of the World.

No, it's time to admit that, had Jesus known this secret, life as we know it would be completely different. It's time that Jesus found out what He's been missing all this time. If you see Him, please bring Him up to date.

God will be so glad you did!

Emerging Direction: Which Way Do We Go?

2007-03-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

After 15 seconds of meditative meandering, I have decided that the definition of up needs to be modified. No, I'm not going to redefine it, just adjust it to the point where other people can legitimately question the reality of up and feel good about themselves in the process. That way, no one has to feel guilty about not understanding the true nature of up.

Is up really up? Or is there more to Up than we first thought? Maybe up is really made simple by understanding that up is simply not down. Or, it could be not as down as directly down. It is less down. It could be sideways or sorta sideways. Or it could be East, presuming East is not as down as any other direction. But we are not to exclude any other direction. Let's not let our lack of exactness lead us toward inexactness, regardless of our direction. We must be sure, even in our doubt. As long as we doubt not our doubt and are sure of our lack of direction. If there's anyone I hate, it's the person who is sure he's lost.

Maybe up is best defined by the person is is consistently living life on an arc. So, while he's currently in a state of down, he's headed toward up, which means he's headed toward down. Of course, our new definition, I mean modification, of up must be taken into consideration when dealing with such pinpoint accuracy, seeing that such pinpoint accuracy is constantly in a state of flux, which means that the arc possesses flexibility not unknown to the life of meandering reality.

Welcone to Emerging, where everthing is open to question and conversation, but bound to get lost in the pursuit, seeing that the pursuit of Truth is the reason for conversation and dialogue. For if we actually arrive at and grasp Truth in any shape, manner or form, the conversation and dialogue are, then, ended. So................we keep talking........and pursuing the multitudinous facets of non graspable Truth..........or, at least someone's perception of it.

Do I detect the odor of Brimstone? Let's converse!

Who is "Our" King, Judge & Lawmaker?

2007-03-19T06:57:00.000-07:00

In this commentary by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley, He uses a rather telling pronoun when referring to lawmakers who have recently tried to make it mandatory for 6th grade girls to receive the vaccine for the human papillomavirus. The choice of pronoun, in this case, represents an identification and personalization which might tend to make some of us uncomfortable. It is also something which fails to have Biblical or apostolic support.

Earley uses the pronoun "our" to refer to lawmakers in different states, in this case, Virginia and Texas. The remainder of the commentary allows us to see that this pronoun is also applied to the various political activities associated and governed by these same lawmakers. Earley also laments one of the results of this type of legislation, regardless of the process used to implement these directives. He says it usurps parental authority.

I don't want to be misunderstood when I say this, so read carefully. Since when are lawmakers "our" lawmakers as Christians? Since when do we identify anyone other than YHWH as our Lawmaker? The historic position of God's People in relation to Secular authority has always been one of Separation in the midst of honor and submission. The Old Testament plainly tells us that " YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our King; he will save us." In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul tells us that, "our politics is in Heaven, from whence we look for the Lord." This is after Peter speaks for himself and the apostles who had been beaten for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ when he says, "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Are we to presume that the past servants of the Most High God have been mistaken in the proper placements of their allegiance? Were they ignorant of the current state of affairs when it came to Whom they were to render service to? Did they, to any degree, identify with Caesar and the Roman Empire? Did they give the least hint that they were serving the interests of the Roman Empire? Did they refer to the Roman lawmakers as "our lawmakers?" Obviously, they didn't.There has always been a distinct dichotomy between the people of God and Secular rulers of every stripe.

In no way does this negate the fact of earthly citizenship. We are all men and must, by our birth, be citizens of some earthly Nation or State. However, this earthly citizenship and its political obligations and responsibilities are always viewed through our primary spiritual allegiance. This primacy dictates our relationship to the Secular. In other words, we are primarily a Secular, or unholy citizen, or we are primarily a Heavenly, or holy citizen.

If you are a Secular citizen, then you primarily identify with Secular officials with such descriptive terms as "our and mine." If you are a Heavenly citizen, then you primarily refer to Secular officials with terms such as "their and your."

Which brings us back to the charge, by Earley, of usurping parental authority by making this vaccine mandatory. Case law is very consistent within the body of American Jurisprudence showing that, Government activities are strictly controlled by Governemnt law and policy. This is a Constitutional and legally consistent practice from the beginning of the United States. Coupled with the Founding idea espoused by Benjamin Rush that the student is public property, it should not be an extremely difficult propsition to understand that the children in public schools do not belong to the parents. In fact the "parents" are not the primary parent of the children in their care. The "parents" are simply the guardians, exercising delegated authority from the State.

This little known Legal Doctrine is Parens Patraei. It means that the State is the Parent of the Nation and, therefore becomes the primary parent of all who have been entrusted to their care. The State, then becomes responsible to provide the needed care and provision neccessary for their children. This is where most parents find themselves today, taking care of the State's children while thinking of those same children as belonging to them, not the State.

Sound preposterous? Tell that to the many parents who are experiencing this legal reality around the country and possess not a clue to what is taking place. They are fighting, but they are legally destined to lose because they are proceeding in ignorance. Presumed by the Courts to know the Law, they lack sufficient knowledge and understanding to protect their interests, in this case, what they presumed to be their children.

So, how do parents entrust their children to the care of the State? That's an easy one. By sending them to a State institution, an institution where the State's interests are primary. This is after all, the State's institution. Shouldn't the State have the primary right to conduct the affairs of their own creation? In spite of what anyone outside the Schools think, the Courts have consisitently agreed with that proposition.

If you don't personally agree with that proposition, the remedy is simple. Don't send your child to an Institution governed by State Law, "your law."

American Division: The Real Culprit is Jesus!

2007-03-18T14:50:00.001-07:00

American Christians are a fickle and unstable lot. They profess to be grounded in the Word of God which would tend to make one think that they are fairly settled when it comes to the major issues of life. Yet, the smallest act of the part of anyone which tends to hinder or prohibit their specifically Christian words or actions will cause these wanna be civil martyrs crying to the first court that will allow their case to be filed.

Of course, there justs happens to be a plethora of Christian public service Law firms from which they can choose. These law firms were few and far between 30 years ago, but now are big business.

So the cry is that the rights of these citizens are being denied, abridged or curtailed. Underlying their cases is the argument that the growth of radical agendas foisted upon the American populace without choice is causing deep faultlines of cultural division. The American people are being divided because of issues which cause many to choose sides. The number of these issues has grown over the last 30 years. Whether it be termed Pro Family, Family Values, Traditonal Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Civil Unions, Abortion, ProLife, Anti-Abortion, Divorce, Christian values, Freedom of Religion, Free Speech, First Amendment Rights, Fundamental Rights, Inalienable Rights, Christian Heritage, Separation of Church and State, etc., the sides are many and the fight is fierce. In every case, Christians are bewailing the assault on their lifestyle and the divisions these fights cause.

There's only one problem with their cry. It is completely off base. These issues are not the cause of any division. You can lay 100 percent of the blame at the feet of one person. That one person is God incarnate, Jesus The Christ. It was He, after all, that pronounced, "I didn't come to earth to send peace, but rather a sword." In other words, He came to divide. And no one in history has been able to divide so completely as He has. Division is a task He accomplishes with ease.

So, the next time you hear any type of cry from a Christian about his or her rights being violated, remember that the real culprit is Jesus. And He's simply doing what He said He would do, separating His people from those who do not belong to Him. Why do Christians keep fighting their Savior?

Judges & Christians: Who is Trusting God?

2007-03-18T07:24:00.000-07:00

In this commentary by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, he puts forth a rather repeated mantra of mainstream Evangelicals concerning the Pledge of Allegiance and rogue liberal Judges legislating God out of American life. Eventually, he concludes that such a drastic move by a Judicial Branch out of touch with the historic lifestyle of the American people can only lead to a complete removal of all religious aspects of American Christianity within the realm of American Government and, thereby, annihilating America's "Trust in God," the offical National Motto. This would be viewed as the official end of all friendliness to the religious life of those espousing a redemptive reltionship with the Savior of the World. God is officially excluded from America.

Christians across the land and beyond hold this view. The thought is, that because of the religious heritage of America and her distinct Christian moorings, this foundation should remain as it has for over 200 years, in spite of the Official Presidential policy put forth by President George W. Bush prior to the elections of 2004 to "help cultures change." In response to this ruling on the Pledge he also stated, ""America is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty.""

Maybe such statements, which seem to conflict with one another, are really telling us what is actually taking place. Are we taking the time to analyze such statements beyond their appearance and the heated rhetoric which usually surrounds them? If we are not, is it possible that we are missing the truth about the nature of the relationship between God and Government?

For example, Republican President Bush, a conservative, says that America's relationship with God is valuable. This statement is completely consistent with historic conservatism. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative to disagree with this tenet. Yet, as a conservative President, Mr Bush is officially helping cultures to change around the world through American policy. This includes American culture. This idea definitely clashes with conservativism because it tends to do away with the past. That would include the official recognition of God. But President Bush is on record as opposing this policy. Does this make sense? Yes it does, but only under one scenario.

What if America is trusting God to implement her official duty of helping cultures change? If you think that this would require a completely new and different idea of the relationship between God and American Government, you are partially correct. Is this idea different within the context of modern political circles, religious and otherwise? Yes, definitely! Is this idea new within American history? Absolutely not!

Certain Founding Fathers understood the place of America within the tapestry of Biblical Prophecy, even though many others touted the founding of America as fulfilling Manifest Destiny, the New Israel of the World with America being the Promised Land. Noah Webster understood the Bible to say that America was the final national empire in the culmination of history before the return of Christ to this earth. As such, God's People were to have no part in the machinations of such a diabolical political system because they were separate, called out of the World to shine forth as lights to the World. This biblical idea was lost, no, buried, amidst the official America policy that Christians were the only people truly qualified for the offices governing a republican democracy, a democracy heralding the beginning of the New World; officially, the New Order of the Ages. This has been the official American position through the incremental disintegration of American culture to its current decadent state. God's people have , as a whole bought into this idea, as evidenced by their hearty participation in and identification with all things political. Meanwhile, the Ekklesia, the separate political institution founded by Christ, has been slowly coopted into this amalgamation with the political enemy of Christ, the World. Which brings us to our current dilemna.

If the World system is the political enemy of Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures reveal that it is, what is the message of the President and American Government? How can this be that "trust in God" is official American Policy?

Could it be that World Government or the governments of the World, through the leadership of America, has a purpose little understood by modern Christians? Could it be that God has ordained His enemies to exercise His authority in a limited way and for a limited purpose? Could it be that, at the same time, God has excluded His People from exercising that same authority? Could it be that, God has ordained His People to exercise authority of a different nature and for a different purpose? Could it be that each sphere of authority, as well as those administering that authority, have their own distinct binding agreement with God? Could it be that both groups "trust in God" to back them up in their exercise of that authority, even when members of the other group try to cross boundaries and exercise authority not belonging to them?

If the above is true, how does this change your view of the official American Motto of "In God we trust"? How does this change your view of American Christians getting so upset over the ruling of various judges? How might this change the way in which you conduct the affairs of your life on a daily basis?

Interesting questions, indeed!

Are we afraid to ask them?

Compassionate Conservative Collapse

2007-03-15T18:52:00.000-07:00

With the conviction of Scooter Libby, the mounting pressure on Carl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney, the continuing problems in Iraq and the Middle East and the domestic failures of conservative organizations, it seems the collapse of Compassionate Conservatism is slowly progressing.

Who do the conservatives look to now? Who will be the next conservative Savior for Evangelical Christians?

Well, if your Jay Sekulow, Founder of American Center for Law and Justice, the next man to rally behind is Mitt Romney. A Christian and a Mormon. Will someone please explain this?

And James Dobson is actually considering supporting Romney also? And this is good for families and Americans in general????

Brimstone Emerging.................................

American Persecution of Christians??????????

2007-03-15T17:37:00.000-07:00

All across America, atrocities are being perpetrated on the most innocent of all people groups in the known World. Maybe the saddest aspect of this inhumane treatment is that it is the official policy of the American Government. Yes, American Lawmakers are the official perpetrators of........dare we say it?............Persecution!!!!!!!!!!! That's right!

And what's mnore diabolical is the fact that this persecution is taking place against Christians. That's right, Christian America is officially against her own righteous people.

Here are the details: Christians send their children to government schools and the following happens:

The children are exposed to explicit sexual content as a part of the curriculum without the parents being previously notified.
The children aren't allowed to pray on their own.
The children aren't allowed to form their own Christian clubs.
The children's Christian club isn't allowed to use school property the same as all other clubs .

This is just the beginning of a list that could go on and on for awhile. But the obvious does not need to be stated. Christians are in trouble and suffering needlessly. What are we to do about it!!??????

Well let's see. How can this be alleviated?

It might start with helping parents to understand that, pursuant to American tradition and law, their children really don't belong to them. Their children are the property of the State.

If that sounds rather bizarre, settle down. It's simply a matter of law.

Every Parent has the fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. That fact is not in dispute by anyone. However, once a parent send their child to a government school, the parent abandon's their right to ultimately direct the upbringing of their children. The government is then in the position formerly held by the parent. The government has become the parent. The parent has become only the guardian, following the dictates of the government. This legal doctrine is known as Parens Patraei and it's found mostly in State Court decisions.

The fact is that there is absolutely no persecution of children or parents in this nation. It is simply a matter of parents and others being ignorant of the law and their freedoms in this country under that same law.

America or God: All or Nothing!!!

2007-03-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

I tend to think that life is very simple.

Our problem as humans is that we tend to complicate matters. So much so that we confuse ourselves. And in our confusion we make decisions that are not in our best interest. As a result, we spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the consequences of these decisions, which sometimes limits our ability to live in a manner which would tend to bring good consequences, the type you aren't required to dig out from under.

In other words, you're torn between two extremes.

I sense that many Christians find themselves in a very similar position when it comes to politics. It's easy to profess a saving faith in Jesus Christ and want the blessings from living His Way, but difficult when the demands of government cause time and energy to be limited. Both Jesus and Government are calling. One is simple and desirable. The other? Well, let's just say that bureaucracy is very demanding and government makes no apology for submission to its demands.

On the other hand, the two have similarities. They both demand all we have. Regardless which one you choose to serve, holding back is not looked upon with favor.

So, it becomes a little more obvious the position Christians find themselves in when they profess to serve the risen Christ, yet desire to meet the ever expanding demands of present American Government. The simplicity of Christ is where they desire to abide, but dealing with American details requires more than a minimal amount of time and energy. Or does it?

Didn't Jesus say something about no man being able to serve two masters? If so, how do we begin to resolve such a problem? Do we ignore American demands? I think not! Just try that and see how far you get. You could very easily end up behind bars, depending on what is ignored.

But what if American law contains provisions allowing the Children of God to live the type of life they feel called to live for their Savior? Would that make a difference?

Yes, that would fly in the face of all the rhetoric by Christian Organizations which tell us that the laws are against us and we need new ones passed. But what if the laws they are referring to are passed for those who serve the American system of secular Government? And what if all others are excluded from these demands? Does that sound desirable? How can it not?

The problem is this. Most professing Christians haven't really determined who they serve. And because they haven't deternmined that they really serve Christ, they can never understand the demands that Christ has placed upon them in living their lives for His glory. They don't really know his Word, therefore they live their lives in ignorance and confusion, proving who they really serve. Just look at the time and energy expelled and for whom it is spent. All becomes clear. The demands of the American God makes it difficult to dive into the reservior of God's Holy Word and find the graceful instruction to help in the time of need.

We are intent on doing the impossible, attempting to serve two masters!!!

American Media, Moral Decline & The Culture War

2007-03-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

This article from the Washington Times reveals the results of a recent survey of 2000 Americans by The Culture and Media Institute about the media and its relationship to and role in America's moral decline.

Not surprisingly, most think the media is a leading cause in this moral decline and fails to represent the values of the mainstream of American culture. Surpisingly, though, most Americans think tha the media should fairly and accurately portray the various aspects of American Culture.

It is also acknowledged by many that the Culture War is very real. And included in this war are Muslims, whose faith is constantly attacked by the various portayals of decadence and depravity in the media. Almost shockingly, a certain portion of those surveyed think that Conservative Americans and Muslims should join forces to battle the moral decline of American Culture.

What about the genuine Believer in Jesus Christ? What should be the thoughts of a Child of God on such issues? Since we must live in the World, what is our relationship to this World system and what it produces?

More importantly, what is the standard for answering such questions and addressing such issues?

Is the election of President and other National, State and local political offices the answer? Do we engage in trying to get the right group of people elected in order to change the laws, thereby changing the culture? Do we support organizations engaged in the battle to promote values we agree with, such as Pro Family values, Traditional Marriage, Free Market Capitalism, Pro Life, Anti Abortion, Anti Gay Rights & Civil Unions, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Homeschooling, etc?

What about the Laws of God as revealed in the Bible? And what about our ability in this country to live according to those laws? Are the laws that have been passed or are about to be passed somehow preventing us from living according to the laws of God?

Is it possible that the laws currently on the books completely enable the consecrated Child of God to live according to the dictates of his conscience and the Word of God?

If that is possible, what difference does it make to us?

Do we really care?

Would it really matter that all the activity currently engaged in by many in order to change the culture is absolutely unnecessary?

Or is that too much to contemplate? If so, why?

The Standard of Life; Do You Have One?

2007-03-12T19:31:00.000-07:00

I have a question for you.

If every law on the books in the United States were officially abolished today, by what standard would you live your life? How would you conduct your life? How would you treat others? How would you conduct business?

How would this affect your current obligations and responsibilities? Would you abandon them or continue to fulfill them? Why?

Do you live your life by a standard that goes beyond the mere civil laws passed by men? If so, what is it? And why does it matter? What makes this standard better than another standard outside the laws of men?

Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan's Successor?

2007-03-12T15:59:00.000-07:00

Who saw this coming????? Well, it hasn't actually happened yet, but the fact that Fred Thompson is publicly stating that he's considering running for President as a Republican candidate is extemely significant for conservatives.

As this article from WordNetDaily reveals, the former Senator from Tennessee and star of the television series, Law & Order, doesn't think it is too late to enter the race.

If he does enter, how does this change the field? From whom would Thompson take support? Or would he simply receive the vast majority of the undecideds at this early point in the campaign? How does the strategy of the other candidates change?

Does Thompson have a presidential image? Is he conservative enough on the issues that count, such as Prolife, gun control, illegal immigration, Marriage, Homosexuality, Civil Unions, the war on terror, Iraq, Middle East, Israel, etc?

Is he, as one person has stated, another Ronald Reagan? You be the judge. Either way, the race may become alot more interesting before too long!

Emerging Conversation: Rifles Not Allowed

2007-03-08T14:20:00.000-08:00

I mentioned on an earlier post that I had been involved in the conversation on Jesus Creed, an Emerging Church website moderated by Scot McKnight. I also mentioned that

Emerging is publicly against much of, what they consider to be, the negative aspects of Traditional Christianity. If you listen for awhile, you begin to realize that what they are really upset about is not being allowed to participate in Traditional Christianity. They have been marginalized. Why? Because they are new, innovative, hip, tolerant and outside the Evangelical Box. In other words, they are modern hippies (not always in looks) who don't fit in and don't really want to fit in. They don't want to conform to the standards of worship and ministry tradition handed down within their respective faith families because, many times, those standards require one to look, be and act different from the world.

So, in the spirit of the age, they have rebelled and launched out into the deep on their own in order to create their own autonomous bodies, usually in the most unexpected places. That way they can be close to the ones they are attempting to minister to, which means that they get to create an atmosphere which makes them feel comfortable as well as those they are attempting to reach with the good news of Jesus. And did I mention they get to have fun at the same time? That may not be the most important aspect, but is surely mentioned alot.

As stated before, one of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. By encouraging participation in conversation by as many as possible, all are included to the best extent possible. Inclusiveness within Community is also another major hallmark of Emerging.

One problem with this conversation emerges, though. Addressing particulars within a conversation tends to exclude a certain number of participants because of the various levels of expertise and experience within the body of available conversants. Another problem emerges when there are so many opinions and thoughts about a given particular that the only conclusion among the conversants is that there are many opinions among the various conversants. That's because arriving at objective truth is not the aim of conversation, conversation is the aim of conversation.

So when somone attempts to focus on a particular and refuses to let it go, this is not considered a positive within the immediate conversant community. After all, a person who refuses to let go of a particular point is considered to view himself as right about that point. That is not a positive either, especially if it conflicts with the consensus of the conversant community.

It's rather amusing to watch members of Emerging react to people in the same manner with which they have been treated in the past. You would think that they would be a little more sensitive to someone in a similar plight as their own, that of not being accepted by the group.

But when you bring a rifle to an outing when everyone else has brought shotguns, the disparity is obvious. And so is the discomfort.

James Dobson & Mitt Romney: A Pro Family Duo

2007-03-08T12:52:00.000-08:00

According to this report from One News Now, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is seriously considering supporting Mitt Romney in his campaign for President.

OK! Let me get this straight (no pun intended)! James Dobson has established a career promoting Pro Family values such as Traditional Marriage and Anti Gay & Lesbian Rights. In the past he has publicly refused to endorse candidates not possessing the same Pro family stance as well as the historical voting record.

All of a sudden, the general public is supposed to believe that the Pro Family Advocate is throwing all political caution to the wind and will endorse Romney, who has an established record supporting such anti family activities????? And this is supposed to be good for American families???????

Do I smell something?? Is that a hint of brimstone politics. Does this mean that Dobson is coming out of the political closet? Are his true colors about to be revealed????? Has this been the real Dobson all along??????

Actually, I have reason to realistically believe such a proposition. For it was the week prior to the last Presidential election that Dobson, along with every other Pro Family Advocate in this nation, to my knowledge, failed to inform their supporters, Republican and Democrat, of the statements of President Bush in a public interview. President Bush informed everyone that, regardless of the initiatives of anyone, the final result of the entire Gay rights fight would be a Federal Marriage Amendment or Federal Marriage Statute as well as civil unions. To my knowledge, that conspicuous silence has continued to this day.

And now this!?

When you consider that Pro Family, Pro Constitutional Advocate and Civil & Religious Rights Attorney Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice has also agreed to support Mitt Romney for President, nothing is surprising any more.

Do the Heathen "Trust in God?"

2007-03-08T12:00:00.000-08:00

"In God We Trust." The official National Motto of the United States is an anchor which many in this country rely on, at least partially, as proof that America is a Christian nation uniquely founded for the benefit of Christians. And with the constant barrage of legal and moral attacks upon foundations once thought impregnable over the past five decades, more and more people resort to its religious foundation in the hopes of stemming the tide of cultural changes seen during that time.

In light of that special place, many consider it a secondary blessing to the enemies of liberty that they also get to enjoy the benefits of freedom under God. So, if you hate certain things about this country, your freedom under God allows you to voice your concerns publicly, if need be. Many other freedoms similar to this are also enjoyed by those not agreeing with official U.S. Policy.

But have you ever considered the other side of that "Trust in God" coin? The other side? "What other side," you may be asking.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the motto "Trust in God" is primarily for the benefit of those who have specifically chosen to remain outside the eternal blessing of God in a redemptive relationship with Him through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, they have chosen to officially reject God while acknowledging Him, His attributes and creative works. And at the same time, they exercise delegated authority from that same God they eternally reject. And if, during the exercise of that authority, they are molested, they have God's permission to act in retribution seven fold.

If that's the deal with God, would you not "Trust in God," also?

Here's an example from the Bible. God, because of the wickedness of the His People, Israel, was going to bring judgment on them using a powerful pagan nation. Through His Prophet, God says, "have I not ordained them [heathen nation] to execute judgment?" It is significant that God Himself says that He "ordained" this pagan nation to carry out God's orders, to execute God's judgment. He says exactly the same thing in Romans chapter 12.

So, if you knew that God had ordained you to execute certain authority on His behalf, wouldn't you also "trust God" to back you up when exercising such authority, even if you hated that same God? Would this not add a completely new dimension to the notion of Trusting God?

So, what does one have to do to be odained by God into this elite group? Ahh, that's another topic for another post!!!!!

President Bush - Emerging in Latin America

2007-03-08T11:16:00.000-08:00

Is it time for a little Latin American Public Relations? A little Backyard Foreign Policy? Is it time to get out of the kitchen?

With the conviction of former Bush aide Scooter Libby, the timing of this trip is convenient. I know, I know!!! It probably has been planned for weeks or months, buuuuuuut................it makes for good conspiratorial conversation, which makes for interesting conversation! You must admit, though, that the thought does come to the forefront of your thinking, since Libby's conviction is not a positive for the Bush Administration.

So, instead of dealing with the devilish details of the Libby the Convicted Criminal, we head off to the warm and charming atmosphere of Hugo Chavez and the myriad of protests planned for Bush while in Latin America. At least there, all they only refer to Bush as an "assasin," which is akin to being Chavez's "devil." But at least Bush knows that he'll not face this type of protest every day at home, so a temporary change of scenery must be welcome.

You never know, though! Maybe he'll meet His Vatican counterpart, the Pope! After all, Latin America is ancient stomping grounds for all things Pontiff!

The Future Of Christianity & Politics

2007-03-08T09:02:00.000-08:00

I read a very interesting Opinion Editorial from the Dallas Morning News this week. It slightly deals with the growing political power of the Christian Church in other parts of the world, namely the Third World or the less industrialized nations of the World. It also gives warning to American politicians to not ignore the significance of this growing political power of Christians. It could be to their detriment.

Will this warning go unheeded? I can't really answer that. But I can say that while America fights with herself about the merits and legal reality of Separation of Church and State within the United States, the World merrily continues in its move to more prominently integrate the religious into the political. Or maybe it's the political into the religious? Is there really a difference? If so, does it matter? Isn't the result the same?

The fact is that, regardless of what American politicans do, the merging of the political and religious coincides with the worldwide consolidation of Christianity into one religious community. The proposed return of the Anglican Church into the fold and under the authority of the Roman Pontiff is simply the first step toward a unified Christianity and expanded global power.

Is this the Christianity envisioned by Christ while on this earth? Is this the result of the work initiated by Him and His Apostles?

Or is this somehow nothing more than a well developed counterfeit? Is it possible that people don't realize what is happening? Is there more planned in this unification than most people are aware of?

How many know that the Catholic Church is officially recognized around the world as a "State"? That's right, as in "Nation" and "Country." Just like the United States or Canada or Mexico. And just like other nations, they have Embassies, called Nunciatures, in many nations, with Church officials exercising official Church government authority.

Is this the future?

A Flag To Follow

2007-03-07T16:48:00.000-08:00

There's an old hymn which starts with the following words, "I sought a flag to follow, a cause for which to stand..."

This describes many people in the world today. Looking, searching, groping, hoping, longing for that which provides what they so desparately need, unaware that they really are in need. But the need is palpable and ever present even if undefinable and seemingly elusive.

It is no wonder that men always find something or someone to commit themselves to, a devotion which provides a reason to build something beyond themselves, a lasting legacy.

In the United States, this devotion has increasingly been manifested within the realm of Secular politics. It takes its form in the agenda of making the world a better place, leaving a legacy for our children and ultimately, taking America back. Interestingly enough, this devotion even crosses party lines and causes Republicans and Democrats to put aside partisan differences in a show of devoted unity. The object of their devotion? Old Glory, the American Flag. The Red White & Blue can emote the deepest feelings of patriotism seen only in the most religious.

How significant is it when we learn that Jesus our Messiah has revealed Himself to us as..........................our Flag!.........our Banner! That's right! He's our Flag, the visible emblem of identity for His own Kingdom. In Him we have our cause, our devotion, our legacy, our unity, our patriotism, our allegiance, our worship, yes, our very political life.

Didn't Jesus also say something about the impossibility of serving two masters?

Christianity, Politics & The Global Gospel

2007-03-07T16:28:00.000-08:00

The following link is to an editorial opinion from the Dallas Morning News entitled A Global Gospel. It deals with the subject of the power of Religion in Politics, especially the growing power of Christianity around the world. It specifically warns of the potential pitfalls American politicians might face if they ignore the growing political force of the Christian Church, specifically Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. This excerpt from the final paragraph is telling.

"Politicians, policymakers and other elites sometimes see religion as a hobby for believers. For the devout, though, it's not a garnish to life; it is life. If the candidates prepping for the White House miss how the new Christianity is fundamentally changing the Third World, they could get blindsided on the global stage. So could we all."

Interesting indeed, is the specific mention of the Anglican Church and its current upheaval over the issue of the ordination of Women and Homosexual Priests in light of the recent proposed return of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Leo XVI. This is indeed "new Christianity."

Didn't Solomon say that there's nothing new under the sun?

John Edwards on Jesus and Children

2007-03-05T16:55:00.000-08:00

In this article from BREIBART.COM, John Edwards waxes religious when he states his belief that children should be allowed to pray at school. He thinks that "allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only OK, I think it's a good thing." But of course, he's not for teacher led prayer. That would be approaching the point of coercion and we can't have government employees taking the lead in such a personal and private action.

I am not going to pick on John Edwards for his statements and forced religious jargon. Many Democrats have taken up the religious mantle in their political quests of late and the Republicans have consistently done so for decades. So this is nothing new.

What hasn't changed in all the talk about education, political and otherwise, is the stark reality of the law in the United States. Oh sure, we have all kinds of rhetoric being thrown around the many legal battles over the rights of parents in the raising of their children, but the fundamental truth is glossed over with heated words dealing with other, more trite legal subjects.

Ever so often, the truth trickles out of a court case and its written opinion which sheds a ray of light on the darkness of the legal landscape. Such is the case in Massachusetts, as reported by WorldNetDaily, initiated by the parents of two families after their children were exposed to graphic presentations without prior notice according to law. U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed all Federal aspects of this case while also dismissing all state aspects but leaving the option to have the facts ruled upon at the state level. The opinion, though, tells all who will listen, what their present freedoms are regarding education as well as their options should they choose to forego exercising that fundamental freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the united States Constitution.

First, the fundamental freedom.

Judge Wolf states that "Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children." This statement is significant in light of this decision being decried as " every parent's nightmare," by Mass Resistance, a parents rights advocacy group. Here we have a case brought by parents being dismissed, yet the parents are informed what their rights are! Wow!!!! Is anyone listening or reading? Anyone with the slightest legal knowledge knows that a fundamental right is the highest form of right. Pursuant to the Constitution, it cannot be taken away, but will be protected by government officials and, yes, even Judges. Could it be that the parents in this case don't really know the type of right they are attempting to exercise?

Second, the next aspect of this fundamental freedom.

Immediately following the above statement, Judge Wolf says, "They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state." This statement is doubly significant in that it gets to the heart of the reason that this decision is "every parent's nightmare." When it comes to parents raising their children, parents are not required to send their child to a state regulated institution, nor are they or their children required to participate in activity regulated by the State! If and when a parent does, they must submit to the rules and laws of the state governing their own institutions. It's that simple!

If a parent chooses to raise their children themselves, the State cannot interfere, outside of criminal activity, because the State has no jurisdiction over such private exercises of a fundamental right. Neither can a judge officially recommend a possible course of action for the parents to take in exercising such right.

In light of this last fact, Judge Wolf continues his opinion by telling all what the options are for the two families, as well as all other families, who have abandoned their children to the State by placing them in Public Schools. They can choose to send them to Private Schools or Homeschool them, both of which are regulated by the State.

For most, this fundamental issue will be lost amidst the uproar over the Radical Gay Rights agenda being forced upon students and parents. Sadly , so will a generation of children, simply because their parents didn't know any better. So much for Christian Attoneys!

Your Own Jesus: A Fresh Look at Truth

2007-03-05T15:59:00.000-08:00

In this day and age of oneupmanship and 15 seconds of fame, sometimes you come across something or someone who brings a personality and outlook unlike any you've experienced before. When this newness is refreshing and solid, the 15 seconds seem to stretch. When it stretches into months without having lost the inital freshness, you can be sure that you've found something special.

Such is the case with David Beck and his site Catholicist Nation. I've immensely enjoyed his articles since I first was directed to him by Tupper Saussy. His commentary continues to uplift and magnify the only viable option for anyone seeking the Way, substantial Truth or meaningful Life.

If you come to know this Way, Truth & Life, existence is given its true significance. Life on this earth is then lived under the guidance of the only One Who knows the end from the beginning. Every area of life is seen from His Perspective and nothing is the same again.

Davis Beck writes from this perspective and I hope you find it as exhilarating as I do. Visit his site and let him know!

Politics and Religion: A Dual Necessity?

2007-03-05T09:19:00.000-08:00

This article by Lisa Miller of MSNBC-Newsweek deals with the religious ignorance of Americans as viewed and experienced during the tenure of Boston University Professor Steve Prothro. He laments this educational vacuum and encourages students to change this sad state of affairs. His reason for promoting religious literacy may surprise you.

"His motivation is more than pedagogical. In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero writes that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts, by not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or the name of Mormonism's holy book. "Given a political environment where religion is increasingly important, it's increasingly important to know something about religion," he says. "The payoff is a more involved [political] conversation.""

A novel idea, indeed! Most people would not connect a proper understanding of and involvement in Secular politics with Religion.

Does this mean that the religion referred to is, by nature, Secular?

If so, is this Secular Religion the same as Civil Religion?

If so, how might this Secular, Civil Religion differ with a redemptive relationship of faith in Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Bible?

Emerging Direction & The Broad Way

2007-03-05T07:37:00.000-08:00

In the Emerging Church, a religious movement of no mean proportion, much is made of identifying with the mission of Jesus.

Which Jesus?

Whose Jesus?

Are we talking about the Jesus of the Bible? Or is this Jesus a construct of the genuis of man? Or does the image and idea of this Jesus have more sinister origins? Or is this Jesus simply left up to the mind of the individual to construct according to personal whim?

If it seems easy to become confused in such an atmosphere, consider your assessment as accurate. The forward march of Emerging is based on the broadly consistent and shadowy search for absolute Truth, a search never quite consumated with anything definitive except the search itself. Therein lies the sacredness of Emerging, the absolute, ever learning journey.

Meanwhile the Absolute Jesus of Holy Writ remains accessible on His narrow path.

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

2007-03-04T04:21:00.000-08:00

I've been visiting the well known and popular Emerging Blog named Jesus Creed, moderated by Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Other emerging Leaders are Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, D. A. Carson, Leonard Sweet, Doug Pagitt, Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Scott A. Bessenecker, and Dennis M. Doyle.

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it. As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence.

One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?

The Cost of Living is Never Cheap

2007-03-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

I've said many times that many people naming the name of Christ are afraid to actually say and live what His Word says because they are not willing to pay the price for doing so.

The words of Jesus about counting the cost are very real because many have actually counted the cost of saying and doing certain things. They know that those particular things carry with them a steep price, too steep.

For this reason, many will approach the Word and its Truths with their position in society, family, carreer, church in the back of their mind. Sadly, they turn their backs on such scenarios and attempt to make the best of their current situation. Meanwhile, the Word of God is rationalized and morphed in order to conform to their situation, thereby rendering them obedient. Of course, disobedience, by any other name, is still disobedience. And the cost remains unpaid.

Absolutes: Yes or No?

2007-03-01T17:35:00.000-08:00

Many people in this world no longer believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. There are no absolutes.

Do we really believe this? Do we really live our lives on a daily basis not believing in right and wrong?

Think about it. Think about your life. Do you live your life any way you choose to? Do you actually do what you want on a daily basis?

Is the notion of an absence of absolutes a reality in the daily conduct of our lives? Or is it a charade we like to parade before our patterned life?

2007-02-24T13:35:00.000-08:00

Public Schools, The Gay Agenda & Parental Rights
America's Manifest Destiny?

In the latest highly publicized court case involving the forward propulsion of the radical Gay agenda within the United States, we learn that the exercise of parental rights and control over the upbringing of their children "… would undermine teaching and learning…" within the context of a public school classroom. World Net Daily reports that the federal civil rights case of David Parker has been dismissed in Massachusetts by U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf. Mr Parker. along with his wife, Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin initiated their suit by alleging that " district officials and staff at Eastbrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral"......."refusing to follow state law." Specifically, the school officials, on at least two occasions, presented to children information promoting the gay lifestyle without notifying parents, who could then choose to remove their children from this teaching.

Many have been ouraged by this ruling, taking it as a victory for purveyors of the Homosexual and Lesbian lifestyles. Part of the outrage stems from various statements by Judge Wolf in His official ruling, which can be accessed here. While outrage is understandable, what is more outrageous is that part of the ruling which has been left unmentioned and unexplained. While attention has been focused on official statements which surely can be disagreed with by most in this country, the foundation upon which those statements stand has been left completely unexamined by all, including Attorneys, Ministers, Politicans and Pro Family Advocates.

This foundation is a little known legal doctrine known as Parens Patriae. Succinctly put, it means that the State, the Government, is the parent of the Nation. Though not specifically mentioned in this case, as well as many other federal cases, it nevertheless undergirds the arguments of the State of Massachusetts as well as the official ruling of Judge Wolf and his particular statements. Most knowledge and understanding of this fundmental doctrine can be found in many State level cases and their final dispositions.

Within the doctrine of Parens Patriae also resides another far reaching truth which you may find hard to believe. Parens Patriae also means that the State owns your children. That's right! Your children belong to the State! They are State property!

Preposterous, you say!? Well, you may disagree, but I challenge you to look up the phrase Parens Patriae and cases within your State. Believe me, they are in every State of the Union and you will not have difficulty finding the evidence. You may be shocked, though, that such a legal reality could be found within the United States, a land known for Liberty. Actually, the concept is as old as the united States and has been advocated since its inception. I'll give you one example.

There were three movers and shakers among the Founding Fathers when it came to Education, two of which were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush. Rush was arguable the most accomplished in the field and had this to say about the education of youth.

"Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property."

You would expect a statement of this nature out of The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, wouldn't you? Yet this is from a Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Not exactlythe language of liberty!

So, what does this mean for us today? If your child is actually public property, what is the legal position of parents in relation to their child? What is the legal position and responsibilities of the State to the Parents? And you thought you understood education!

2007-02-20T14:00:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush & Pope Benedict: Conspiracy Crusaders Against Islam

This past fall when the words of Pope Benedict incited a violent response from radical Muslims in various parts of the world, the focus of the World was on the Pontiff. Curiosity had many waiting to see the outcome of this diplomatic exchange.

Well, before the leader of the Vatican State could complete his scheduled trip to the Middle East, spokesmen for Islam had plenty to say, none of which edified Pontifical self esteem. In addition, the President of the United States, George W. Bush was included in such lowly verbiage.

The statements make very interesting reading! Please see above!

Any insights to offer?

2007-02-19T17:25:00.000-08:00

Anglicans and Roman Catholics: Together Again!

In a startling move for many religious types, it looks as if Anglicans and Roman Catholics will again be joined at the hip. In a major move towards melding the religions of the World, the Vatican would welcome back one of its long lost Protestant rebels.

Can you imagine what Luther and Calvin are saying now?

2007-02-19T16:51:00.000-08:00

A New Cold War? Russia Gives Warning!

On the heals of President Vladimir Putin's announcement of the possibility of "a new cold war" comes this bold warning by Russian General Nikolai Solovtsov to Poland and the Czech Republic.

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made," Solovtsov told reporters in Moscow, asserting the U.S. plan could upset strategic balance of power in the region.

So, has the United States become the World's antagonist? Or do we just happen to be on every Nation's "Bad Guy" list?

Are the Russians to be taken seriously? Or is this an idle threat offered by a pompous Military leader?

2007-02-19T16:43:00.000-08:00

U.S. Attack Plans Revealed

This article from the BBC reveals potential attack plans by the United States against Iran should the Iranian state refuse to cease plans for nuclear capability.

Could such a leak be planned? If so, why? What could be gained by such a move?

Who stands to gainwith such a confrontation?

2007-02-18T16:22:00.000-08:00

Madonna: We All Need To Be Like Jesus!

Of all the personalities clamoring for our attention, who would have guessed that Madonna would have it by this type of statement!

This is typical Madonna, as this article reveals. By that I mean that Madonna chooses Jesus as an example we all should emulate. She includes him among other notable personalities, specifically, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and John Lennon.

Kinda makes one wonder just what Jesus she is talking about. I don't think it is the historical Jesus as revealed in Scripture.

2007-02-18T10:57:00.000-08:00

The Shock of Culture Change

Here is a quote from the above article by Pat Boone:

"If there were an evil genius coordinating the perfect plan to undermine the basis for all morality in America, one who had control of most influential media – movies, television, popular music, newspapers, magazines, radio and even ad agencies; if this genius could infiltrate the churches and many humanitarian organizations and convince them that the "old rules" no longer apply; and if he had the power to intimidate political leaders and judges into abandoning the "old rules" as well … he couldn't change our lives much more radically than they're already being changed."

Do you find yourself agreeing with Pat Boone? If so, what is the proper response? How do you combat the onslaught of cultural change?

If not, in what way do you disagree with at Boone? And what is your response to the radical changes taking place?

2007-01-29T16:12:00.000-08:00

The Next President Bush?

So, everyone is frantically searching for the best candidate for President to carry the GOP banner in the next national election? Sorry, but the best Republican candidate is not running. At least, that's what he says for now. To the detriment of the early field of candidates, this presidential non-factor is easily acting the part of the consumate conservative leader of a directionless party.

Don't believe me? When was the last time you heard of any current GOP presidential candidate preaching the dogmatism of conservatism while receiving multiple standing ovations? The other candidates had better take note, because Jeb Bush is giving political lessons, as this article from the Washington Post reveals. For now they are free. The other candidates can only hope that they don't have to pay in the future. The price will be high indeed!

Until then, they can only take Mr Bush at his word. I will not believe it until the Iowa ballots exclude his name.