Pastors Needing To Get Somewhere Run All Over The Congregation

In a blog post at ChristianPost, it said that the most common reason a pastor leaves a church is because the pastor believes that they have taken a church as far as they can.

From the assorted scandals that erupt nearly constantly, I would have assumed it was because the pastor couldn't keep his hands off other men's wives or even underage minors.

But on a more serious note, why is it that a church has to necessarily “go anywhere”.

Isn't it enough that people show up each week, politely listen to the sermon, drop a few dollars into the collection plate, and wash and repeat the next week?

A pastor saying that they have to take a church as far as they can sounds like a pronouncement uttered from atop a dangerous precipice.

Primarily, it sounds like a pastor is willing to stomp all over a congregation in order to make a name for himself.

In such a situation as a member of the congregation or regular attender, if you don't go along with the pastor's outlandish schemes, you are made out to be some kind of dangerous subversive.
Slow and steady wins the race.

If you find yourself in a congregation where the church needs to “go somewhere”, you might very easily find yourself in the jungles of Latin America where the unsuspecting before they realize it are forced to line up to take the “spicy Kool Aid” whether they really want to or not.

Frederick Meekins

Church Bulletin Provides Little Comfort For Those Enduring Prolonged Suffering

A testimony on the back of a church bulletin detailed the spiritual journey of retailer J.C. Penney.

At a low point in his life at the age of 58, he found himself in a Michigan sanitarium. 

Here he cried out, “Lord, I can do nothing. Will you take care of me?”

Of that petition, the testimony reads, “God answered Penney's prayer for salvation and restored his health and wealth.”

Praise be to God.

However, the part about health and wealth raises a number of questions.

How is emphasizing that much different than the Osteenism that Independent Fundamental Baptists rightly preach against?

But what of those that God does not return to health and material prosperity?

Are not “no”, “later”, or “in a manner different from the way you asked” also answers to prayer?

If such souls do not receive restitution on this plane of existence, are we to conclude that the prayer requesting such was not sincere?

And what about when Penney croaked at 95?

Should that be taken that his prayer was not focused or directed, to use the faddish terminology we are hearing enunciated even in churches that go out of their way to assure how much they avoid prevailing theological innovations?

It can be uplifting to hear stories of those that find themselves in destitute or despondent circumstances that God elevates in this life to a level higher that from which the individual initially fell.

However, there also needs to be encouragement for those that sincerely seek God but who for whatever reason are for now denied the healing for which they ask.

By Frederick Meekins

St. Andrew The Apostle

The Feast of Saint Andrew the ApostleAlmighty God, who gave such grace to your apostle Andrew that he readily obeyed...

Posted by Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Saint Mary on Monday, November 30, 2015

The Lord's Sheep

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.John 10:27-28

Posted by Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Saint Mary on Monday, September 14, 2015

Will Christians Take A Ride On The Tyranny Buss?

In an analysis of Charlie Sheen's revelation that the actor is infected with HIV, Christian social apologist Scott Alan Buss pretty much blamed that development on all Christians.

In a column at his website FireBreathingChristian, Buss writes, “We see porn shops and strip clubs operating all across the fruited plain in direct violation of God's word.”

Those strip clubs are the fault of their owners and those that frequent them.

If you are Christian and you do not, you have nothing to answer for in regards to such smut peddling.

Even more disturbingly he writes, “We read about Muslims, witches, and even Satantists openly worshiping their false gods in the land in the name of all American/anti-Christian versions of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.”

Linked to that column is another titled “There Is No God Given Right To Worship False Gods.”
It would depend upon what is meant by that.

If that means that, after a life spent as an adherent of a false religion you go to Hell when you die, that is a correct statement.

But by that his pronouncement does Buss mean that the governing authorities should punish those advocating a perspective other than the religion officially sanctioned by those holding power?

In his condemnation of religious liberty, Buss insists that it is the epitome of statism to allow the adherents of non-Christian religions to worship publicly.

But what social institution would be charged with enforcing the law against those violating these statutes in his idealized Christian regime?

How is what he suggests little different than Iran that utilizes force, violence, and compulsion in the attempt to impose theological purity and uniformity?

The case can be made that there is less in the New Testament urging these as the preferred methods of evangelistic outrage than the long hair with which Buss is depicted in a number of photographs which Holy Writ counsels is a shame on a man.

By Frederick Meekins

Will Refugee Crisis Exacerbate Obama's Messianic Psychosis?

In remarks overseas, President Obama categorized opposition or even reluctance to admit swarms of Syrian refugees to the United States as offensive and needing to stop.

And what if it doesn't?

The free speech of actual Americans is a higher constitutional priority than granting entrance to those who are not.

The President added, “We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic.”

Would he be as brave if he was not surrounded by multiple layers of security?

White House propagandists have developed a social media hashtag welcoming refugees.

Will these migrants --- either vetted or unvetted --- be allowed to congregate unrestricted in the vicinity of the First Family?

The President and his decreasing number of supporters in Congress insist that welcoming refugees is an American tradition.

At one point, so was marriage only being between a man and a woman.

Liberals certainly didn't mind altering that to suit their policy agenda.

In his support of flooding American cities with potentially Islamist refugees, President Obama asked are critics afraid of widows and orphans.

However, it must be remembered that Islamic societies do not necessarily gage the age of majority in the same manner as Western ones.

After all, it must be remembered that many of these savages think nothing of marrying nine year old brides and deriving carnal pleasure from them in the same manner mentally healthy men do with woman around their own age.

In an attempted compromise, a number of Republicans have suggested that perhaps a system could be implemented granting verified Christians resettlement priority.

The President insisted such a religious test was an outrage and unacceptable.

However, it is more of a humanitarian gesture than what Saudi Arabia is even extending to fellow Muslims, none of whom will be allowed into that desert kingdom but for whom mosques will be gladly built in Western lands as part of their religious obligation of planetary subjugation.

If religion is not to be taken into consideration in determining refugee status, why is the Obama administration denying it at a higher rate to Christian applicants than Islamic ones?

It is generally considered bad form at best and borderline treason at worst for Americans to criticize their nation or even its leaders while on foreign soil.

As such, shouldn't a similar standard apply to the President as well?

By Frederick Meekins

Southern Baptist Defending Hunting Undermines Other Christian Liberties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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