It would be a proverbial understatement to say that the death of Cecil
the Lion at the hands of hunters touched something in hearts and
imaginations around the world. The mark of a skilled theologian or
apologist is the ability to take nearly any subject and try to view the
topic through the lens of a Christian perspective.
The Baptist Press of the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to do
this in regards to Cecil the Lion in an article titled “Lion's Death
Occasions Defense Of Legal Hunting” by that news service's chief
correspondent David Roach. Overall the examination of the topic was
quite balanced.
On the one hand, the article recognized that the Bible allows for
hunting in that man in this dispensation has permission to use the
animals with which we share the world for our benefit and enjoyment.
However, the article also pointed out that this activity must be
undertaken only with a sense of solemnity and responsibility.
The really discerning theologian goes beyond what is plainly said to shine light on that which might not be noticed so easily.
Accompanying the text is a photo of former Southern Baptist Convention
president and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Paige Patterson. The caption reads, “Paige Patterson and his son Armour
killed a roam antelope during a hunt in Zambia.”
Patterson was interviewed to provide a great deal of the article's
theological context. Of his analysis, one really can't find much fault.
However, it really should be pointed out that the variety of antelope
depicted in the accompanying photograph aren't known for a territory
that overlaps geographically with the ecclesiastical stronghold of the
Southern Baptist Convention in, well, the American South. That would
mean that, in order to get within rifle range of such a creature, Paige
Patterson would be required to travel a considerable distance.
There is nothing inherently wrong or morally alarming about travel. It
is, in fact, one of the great blessings of the contemporary era that
people can travel in a matter of hours distances that in decades or
centuries past would have taken days, weeks, or even months.
However, the question must be asked. With what funds did the Pattersons
travel to Zambia where they recreationally killed one of God's
creatures? Did these funds come out of their own pockets or were these
collected under the banner of some grandiose missionary outreach effort
for the purposes of reaching the lost in the forsaken corners of the
Third World?
Concern over this is sparked in part over the way in which conservative
Evangelicals such as Southern and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists
raise funds to conduct missionary outreach. No longer is the spiel
formulate, “Look at those poor savages languishing in squalor. If you
could spare a little, we might be able to increase their quality of life
and also try to convince them that they need Jesus rather than their
heathen witchdoctor to keep them out of Hell.”
Now, the missionary bordering on the fanatical blows into your church
and drums up support for their overseas expedition by laying a guilt
trip on the pewfillers as to how wretched the American culture and way
of life is because the Land of the Free is not characterized by these
Third World deprivations. By the time that the presentation is
concluded, the donations are not collected so much to better the lives
of the less fortunate but rather as some kind of penance for you having
committed the sin of having been born in the United States. It is
almost as if you are expected to thank these foreigners for accepting
your money rather than the foreigners thanking you for your willingness
to give.
Even if Paige Patterson is as clean as the wind-driven snow in terms of
how the funds were obtained to finance this hunting safari, the issue is
not settled. For to Patterson the professional religionist, your money
that you earn is not yours to do with as you please within the
parameters of morality even after you tithe or slip a little into the
collection plate.
Rather, much of what you have is to be at the ready disposal of your
ecclesiastical betters. Patterson has insinuated as such in a number of
epistolary appeals.
One of these letters is titled “Ten Things That We Owe Dr. David Platt.”
These are essentially ten disturbingly cultish pledges Dr. Patterson
believes Southern Baptists are obligated to undertake in relation to the
denomination's International Missions Board President David Platt.
Propositions seven and eight are particularly relevant in regard to this issue at hand.
Number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Platt asks that is not
contrary to our deeply held convictions and within our power.”
Principle number eight spells this out in more detail as it reads,
“Willingness to make sacrifices in order to extend the kingdom of our
Lord...and if the gospel is to go to the people of the world, without
question Southern Baptists who believe in the world mission enterprise
must be prepared for even more sacrifices.”
So whereas you are expected to flagellate yourself over and over in your
mind as to whether or not you really need that day trip to the beach
this year, Paige Patterson and his son expended the resources necessary
to fly themselves to Africa. For despite such near messianic fervor
lavished upon David Platt, it is doubtful that even his most
enthusiastic supporters are able to walk on water.
Those conditioned to blithely accept nearly anything done by those
anointed to these ecclesiastical offices will respond that Patterson
might have been among the deprived heathen as part of some grand
missionary undertaking. Surely such a servant of God has earned the
right to relax in a manner of his own choosing.
In an open letter addressed to Southern Baptists regarding this topic to
which Patterson is a signatory, it is written, “Revivalist and church
historian Lewis Drummond once asked whether we would be willing to see
our country brought to its knees financially if that is what it takes
for revival to come to America. This may be that day.”
What such religious leaders are saying is that they hope to see you
starving in the streets in the hopes that such suffering will break your
will and bring you into compliance with the ecclesiastical elites.
Don't worry though. Such prominent fat cats will not only always eat
well but will continue to enjoy the privileges you are obligated to deny
yourself such as opulent vacations such as oh, I don't really know,
perhaps HUNTING SAFARIS TO AFRICA.
It is doubtful anyone in the upper echelons of the Southern Baptist
Convention eats from discount grocery chains. In fact, at one time
Russell Moore penned an article sneering down his nose at those
frequenting such retailers as a way to stretch their nutrition dollar.
One must ask is he as critical of those that do not so much hunt as way
to provide subsistence for their families but rather as an excuse trot
halfway around the globe for mere pleasure?
Paige Patterson is to be commended for his balanced yet eloquent
consideration of the moral complexities surrounding the hunting issue.
Let us hope that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention would be
less pushy in those areas of life where the explicit oracles of God do
not necessarily say as much as these theologians would lead those under
their teaching to believe.
By Frederick Meekins
Inclusion of a resource/presentation does not indicate endorsement of the contents. Provided for educational purposes regarding perspectives in the fields of theology, ethics, and religious studies. Issachar Bible Church is conservative Trinitarian not affiliated with any organized denomination at this time.
Tuesday, November 17
Wednesday, November 4
Southern Baptists More Condemnatory Of Trick Or Treating Than Inner City Rioting
Of Halloween, theologian Albert Mohler posted on Facebook “Christians
need to consider that there are pagan roots to many of the holidays on
our calendar, but what makes Halloween different is that it alone is a
celebration of paganism and the very attempt to recover in one means or
another those pagan roots.”
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 3
Ministries Condemning Halloween Less Than Ideal In Other Areas Of Doctrine & Practice
In an anti-Halloween sermon, a pastoress remarked how if those in
Satanic or Wiccan covens are late for a ritual, they are punished by
demonic entities. Instead of celebrating how the Christian possesses a
degree of freedom not found in spiritually counterfeit systems of
belief, the pastoress lamented lack of similar discipline in the ranks
of the true church. If one wants to be such a ramrod stickler to detail
with everything being done by the book to a fanatical degree with
little room for forgiveness, what is a woman doing being a pastor in the
first place?
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 2
Cemetery Visitation Condemned As Part Of Halloween Hysteria
In a criticism of Halloween, a pastor condemned a Scandinavian custom
where loved ones visit the graves of the departed on that day to light
candles of remembrance as a form of mourning.
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 26
Baptist Pastor Advocates The Abuse & Persecution Of Other Christians
In addressing the Oregon community college shooting, Pastor William
Strum of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina observed
in remarks posted at SermonAudio how this incident likely portends the
increasing martyrdom of believers as America becomes markedly less
Christian.
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 22
Fundamentalist Hardliner Takes A Stand Against Everything Except That Which Matters
With some of these hardline Fundamental Baptists, it seems everything must be explicitly “religious” 24/7.
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 28
Episcopal Hierarch Threatens To Undermine Immigration Law
The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland Eugene Sutton has posted a pastoral letter titled “Are Not These Our Children?”
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 16
Theoanthrocide: The Death Of God & Man
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?” Without a doubt, the twentieth century ranks among the
deadliest in all of human history and it seems the twenty-first will
likely continue this appalling legacy. This era will also be remembered
as a period of intense philosophical upheaval where the pillars of
culture and belief were shaken and in many cases even shattered. A
number of sophisticated liberals will contend that one cannot establish a
link between these sociological developments because innocents have
been slain in societies assenting to Judeo-Christian assumptions and not
every unbeliever has been an ax-wielding serial killer. Yet it cannot
be denied that in nations where the God of the Bible comes to play a
role of decreasing significance, the value placed upon human life soon
follows such a downhill plunge.
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 9
Baptist Church Mocks The Pretribulational Rapture
In a SermonAudio podcast, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in
Fayettville, North Carolina mocked those holding to a pretribulational
view of the Rapture.
It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution.
Maybe so.
But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use
of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors
suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be
coming?
Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral
negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual
teaching?
Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also
thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable.
But what about this particular congregation?
For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the
nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its
coffee bar and such make a tempting target?
For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform
the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there
isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in
front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio
profile photo.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 8
Let Hungerstrikers Starve
Ecclesiastical rabblerouser Jim Wallis went on a fast in protest over cuts to social programs in the Congressional budget.
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, September 4
Thursday, September 3
Wednesday, September 2
Are Evangelicals Too Quick To Embrace Bonhoeffer As One Of Their Own?
In a column regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer, shouldn't Cal Thomas have
been a bit more reserved in his praise of the theologian executed by the
Nazis?
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)