Will African Exuberance Save Biblical Christianity From Academic Blather?

Click On The Headline Link

Applications of Orthodox Theology for Family Today

Click On The Headline

Catholic Bishops Undermine Second Amendment

Click On The Headline

The Christian & The Socratic Quest For Truth

Not well acquainted with the Western intellectual heritage, some Christians readily dismiss all philosophical endeavor because of the results arrived at by many ungodly thinkers seeking to elevate their own finite speculations above God's revelation. However, it must be remembered that all truth is God's truth. Made in the image of God, man can mirror to a small degree a portion of his Creator's rationality if he is seeking after that truth in an honest fashion.

It has been remarked that Western civilization owes its foundation to the two ancient cities of Jerusalem (representing Judeo-Christian theism) and Athens (representing Greek philosophical inquiry). And while the primacy of the Judeo-Christian contributions must not be forgotten as it represents God's direct relationship with man, the Athenian connection must not be forgotten either. For it represents man trying to come to grips with the world --- both the terrestrial and the human --- made by that divine Creator.

Ranking among the foremost of ancient Greek thinkers was the Athenian Socrates. It must be remembered that the thought of Socrates rested outside the accepted canons of orthodox Christianity.

For example, Socrates believed that man existed prior to his earthly incarnation. However, the idea professed by Socrates that absolute morality exists apart from human culture and convention has a great deal of truth about it.

Like the current era, those living in Athens during the time of Socrates found their culture awash in the chaos of moral relativism. This situation arose in part as a result of Sophist teaching.

The Sophists were a group of traveling teachers who would share their insights with those willing to pay, namely the well-to-do of the Athenian aristocracy. The Sophist worldview was epitomized by the following aphorism attributed to Protagoras, pivotal member of the movement: “Man is the measure of all things.” This meant that man had to rely on his own experience with the highest arbiter of conduct being the collective conventions of any given reality and objective morality nonexistent.

Protagoras was not willing to live out the implications of his own ethical theorizing as he maintained that individuals ought to follow the practices of their own particular culture in order to guarantee social stability. The doctrines promulgated by other Sophists were just as dangerously inconsistent.

Gorgias said truth did not exist nor could it be communicated. Apparently with the exception of this truth of course. Thrasymachus believed might did indeed make right.

It was in such an atmosphere that Socrates undertook his relentless pursuit of the truth in order that he might live what he termed “the good life”, defined as living in such a way as to maximize virtue. He attempted to discover what constituted this morality by subjecting the truth claims propagated within his culture to careful scrutiny and reflection.

To Socrates, the knowledge of morality and truth were not merely intellectual commodities to be touted out to score points in public debates or used to pass the next philosophy exam. Similar to the Christian view of truth, knowledge of the ethical was to serve as the basis of action.

It was this conception of truth that Socrates sought after despite the hardships it eventually brought him. The events leading to the trial of Socrates occurred approximately 405 BC when Socrates as a member of the Committee of 500 refused to convict a number of generals accused of military negligence. The thoughtful sage reflected that to try the military leaders as a group violated the established judicial norms.

Throughout his trial for allegedly corrupting the Athenian youth, Socrates was confronted with several occasions where he could have escaped from authorities or played on their sympathies in order to spare his life. But instead Socrates let the truth stand on its own and accepted whatever consequences the defense of it brought.

Socrates' quest for morality and truth is to be commended, especially in light of the cultural conditions in which he found himself. However, the Christian must be careful when employing this thinker as an historical example worthy of personal emulation.

For starters, Socrates was only partially correct when he argued that individuals do evil because they do not know it is wrong. This might be true in some circumstances like when one eats an extra cupcake thinking it will be pure pleasure when in fact it ends up resulting in a stomachache. However, such is not always the case.

I Timothy 2:14 says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Adam, therefore, fell into sin knowing full well what he was doing when he went against God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

Even though Socrates is to be commended for searching for the truth in light of the spiritual darkness that gripped Athens in the form of Sophist philosophy and pagan religion, that search was only partial at best. For Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. If one's quest for truth is not to be washed away like the house built on the sandy shore mentioned in Matthew 7, it must ultimately be based upon Him.

By Frederick Meekins

Astute Parents Alert To Jihadist Intrusion

A Virginia school system shut down classes for a day over protests that erupted in response to a Geography assignment that would have required students to write in Arabic the fundamental Islamic statement of belief known as the shahada.

If Jews or Muslims rebuffed an assignment to write John 3:16 or “Jesus Is Lord”, would the leftwing media formulate coverage of this story in such a manner so as to paint those standing up for their First Amendment rights against the state attempting to impose a particular religious perspective as the villains?

Students are rarely taught English penmanship these days.

So why is time being spent now in regards to what amounts to a Third World language?

Before progressives look down their haughty noses in condemnation at those seeming to oppose the celebration of pluralism, perhaps they ought to realize to what it was these parents were reacting.

In Islam, to be considered a Muslim, the primary requirement is to recite with conviction the disputed statement that the students would have been required to write.

That is, in essence, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad was his prophet.”

In the eyes of jihadists and allied extremists, if students sign their names to such a statement, is that considered a binding proclamation of conversion?

If so, should jihadists discover the names of students having completed this assignment reverting back to their Christian professions of faith and ways of life, what is to prevent fatwas from being drawn up calling for the violent execution of these unsuspecting pupils?

For the punishment regularly called upon those those leaving Islam for another faith is often death.

The parents noticing this subtle subversion of the public school system should not be looked down upon as unsophisticated rubes or rednecks.

Instead, they ought to be commended for exercising a degree of vigilance and discernment many in this day have been conditioned to overlook for fear of the reprisals that might be imposed for failing to surrender to the tyranny of political correctness.

By

Frederick Meekins

PCUSA General Moderator Insists Christ Would Remain In Ecclesiastical Union With Those Violating His Explicit Revelation

Click On The Headline

Columnist Compares Candidate To The Son Of Perdition

In a commentary transcript, columnist Cal Thomas compared the rise of Donald Trump with the rise of the Anti-Christ.

The consideration of such is always good discernment on the part of an Evangelical public intellectual when a political figure begins to accumulate a devoted following..

However, out of curiosity, did this commentator make an as bold a statement regarding President Obama?

After all, there was a point when church worship bands and elementary school choruses alike were singing songs of praise in homage of the forty-fourth president.

Thomas observed that at one time a divorced man could not expect to be elected President but that Evangelicals are now comfortable with a candidate that has been married three times and can barely quote a single Bible verse.

But didn't Thomas himself help get this kind of ball rolling when he co-authored “Blinded By Might”?

In that work, Thomas advocated the thesis that Christians shouldn't really get that involved in politics.

Instead, believers ought to recognize a distinction between an individual's personal sense of piety and their ability to govern effectively.

Interesting how such a directive is rescinded as soon as average Christians are considering a candidate that does not spew the social justice platitudes infiltrating religious circles to an ever increasing degree.

By Frederick Meekins

Apostate Televangelists Insist Opulent Accommodations Protect Them From Demonic Assault

Click On The Headline

Transhumanist Candidate Insists The Truly Spiritual Celebrate Infanticide

Click On The Headline

Why Study Philosophy?

Because of its reputation as an esoteric field thanks to areas within the broader discipline concerned with matters barely connected with everyday life, many ask, “Why study philosophy?” when confronted with the subject. Related to this are concerns and reservations raised by many sincere Christians regarding this area of study because of luminaries such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx who used their formidable cognitive abilities to undermine the Judeo-Christian framework of Western civilization.

But in reality, philosophy can be a powerful tool capable of helping the Christian to better comprehend God's universe and to fulfill their Scriptural obligations as salt of the earth. In “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, Norman Geisler provides the reader with a number of reasons why the study of philosophy is useful beyond the exercise of mental abilities (20-22).

For starters, philosophy can aide the individual in understanding human society. Though many fail to realize it, philosophical issues are found at the base of civilized life and how a populace approaches these issues will determine the very quality of life enjoyed throughout society.

For example, does a woman's right to reproductive choice outweigh the human rights of the tiny life growing within her? Or, is it just to discriminate against those who have done no wrong in order to benefit the descendants of those who have faced historic injustices even though these descendants currently enjoy a considerable degree of equality?

It has been said that America is the only nation based on a set of ideas rather than an accident of geography. Those seeking to solve these complex social issues had better offer justification beyond the brute power of the state if delicately balanced liberties are to remain intact.

Professor Geisler also points out that philosophy with its emphasis on clear thought can help liberate the individual from provincialism and clarify the meaning of Scripture. Many times what the Church considers holy writ are in fact human accretions added on for whatever reason. These might be legitimate or mere grabs at power whose origins have been forgotten in the distant past.

Besides assisting the Church in sifting between what is God's directive and man's opinion, legitimate philosophical inquiry can elucidate the holy reasoning behind a number of divine decrees. For example, through the application of reason and analysis, one can deduce that the Biblical dictates forbidding adultery are in fact rules set down by a loving Father rather than by a deity seeking to be a cosmic wet blanket.

It would be an accurate analogy to compare history's philosophical giants with the great military leaders of the past. Just as aspiring military officers study the strategies and tactics of these figures for the purposes of perfecting their own craft in order to defeat their battlefield adversaries, Christians must know their own opponents in the arena of ideas so that they might win souls for Christ and to retake social territories in the culture war (or at least prevent the loss of additional intellectual or moral ground).

For those turned off by military analogies and comparisons, John Warwick Montgomery suggested that the apologist must soak up the ideology of his day in a fashion not unlike a missionary learning a foreign language in order to communicate with those spiraling down the path towards eternal damnation. Philosophy, rightly applied, can be an immense help in the accomplishment of this task, especially when so much of contemporary thought is an eclectic mishmash of Nietzschean, Darwinian and Marxist ideology. With even a passing familiarity with philosophy, one is able to realize how many blows are struck at human liberty simply through poorly defined phrases and concepts.

II Corinthians 10:5 says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” For too long assorted factions within the Church have sought to sanctify their own ignorance. As a result, culture is reaping a harvest of bloodshed, blasphemy and disbelief.

It must be realized that God is the God of all creation, including philosophy when built upon a solid foundation. If Charlie Church is to reach out to Phil Philosophy, he must do so by showing that this field rightly divided also points back to the creator and sustainer of all things.

By Frederick Meekins

Naive Religionists Eager To Find Shackles Under Their Nonsectarian Commemorative Photosynthesizing Lifeform

The scene is a classic one in terms of cinema. Depicted is an army defending its position with muskets or rifles drawn as the adversary marches steadily closer. To maintain awareness of the situation, a commanding officer reminds those under his authority to remain steady and not to fire until explicitly ordered to do so. Inevitably with the tension so thick, a trigger will release and a weapon fires before the desired moment.

Observers of America's cultural situation witnessed something similar in the developments that unfolded surrounding the 2015 Starbuck's Christmas cup. For whatever reason, the purveyor of shockingly overpriced caffeinated beverages decided to go with a plain red cup unadorned by any additional ornamentation with the exception of the company's mermaid logo. Absent were the snowflakes or decorations of Christmas cups past.

Christian Evangelist Joshua Feuerstein responded that this design alteration was akin to removing Christ from the celebration of His birth. Most Christians shrugged off such a reaction with a laugh or two, remarking that they really didn't care as they never purchased a $7.00 cup of coffee in the first place and weren't about to begin doing so now.

Others such as Lutheran theologian Chris Roseborough reflected that it is the duty of actual Christians rather than retailers to take the true meaning of the holiday to the broader unbelieving world. Still others such as Southern Seminary President and former Southern Baptist functionary Richard Land assured that there will indeed be a boycott of Starbucks nevertheless just to assure the captains of commerce that conservative

Christians are still capable of exerting economic influence. Yet an additional perspective contends that, since lack of a snowflake on a red cup has got to be the flimsiest of evidence of a war against Christmas that one could come up with, that must mean the war against Christmas must be about as real as flying reindeer. However, children born the day I published my first column regarding the effort to undermine Christmas are now nearly old enough to legally spike their eggnog.

These deprivations of liberty and subversions of culture have occurred with such regularity that I was able to assemble a sufficient number of these holiday-themed columns into my first book published in 2006 titled “Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors” and am well on my way to completing an even longer sequel. Among these apparently non-existent incidents ranked students denied the opportunity to attend a performance of “The Christmas Carol” because of the work's holiday-specific content, municipalities terrified to refer to their celebratory greenery by the traditional nomenclature, and students forbidden from distributing to classmates something as simple as a candy cane accompanied with a card interpreting the confection's origin from a religious perspective.

Even more disturbing than either Christians that don't celebrate Christmas over objections as to what they perceive as the holiday's questionable origins or outright unbelievers wanting to censor the Gospel message because of the offense of the cross comes an additional outlook that is apparently aroused by the prospect of cultural subjugation. This particular viewpoint was articulated in a ChristianPost column titled “Why Christians Should Lose The Christmas Culture War” by Jared Byas. Of his particular bias, Mr. Byas writes, “For me, defending God means letting go of 'Merry Christmas' so my non-Christian neighbors feel respected when I invite them to the holiday table. For me, keeping Christ in Christmas is not about winning the culture war --- but about losing it.”

If that is how Jared Byas gets his Christmas jollies, that is his own business. But just because his mental lights exhibit the symptoms of a loose bulb, there is no reason the remainder of us must also. If your neighbor is such a burro excretory orifice that they have a mental breakdown at the sight of religious symbols or even decorations where the religious meaning might not be quite as obvious, is there really much of a point in inviting them to this hypothesized nonsectarian holiday table? If we are to gradually set aside the traditions that characterize this particular season, perhaps the first to go is pretending to care about those that you barely give the time of day to the remainder of the year.

It might be one thing to tone down one's in your face religiosity in the attempt to reach out to an acquaintance overtly hostile towards true spirituality. However, this attitude of abject surrender is not without profound consequences.

Those such as Jared Byas elevating nicety to the status of something akin to the Prime Directive from Star Trek have failed to realize that God establishes different missions or objectives for what are conceived of as the distinct social spheres or what might be referred to as orders of creation in Augustinian theology. For example, Romans 13:3-4 stipulates, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil...For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (KJV).”

However, for someone that is thought of as a traditional minister in terms of church office that administers the sacraments or delivers the public proclamation of God's Word to draw a sword to settle an acrimonious debate on what color the new carpet in the sanctuary would be or to resolve a heated doctrinal disagreement in Sunday school class would be for such a pastor to overstep the boundaries of appropriate authority. Translated in terms of the Christmas issue, it might be in good taste that, if you invite the adherent of another faith over for Christmas, you don't berate them up one end and down the other as to the shortcomings of their errant belief unless they first proceed to attack you in like manner.

However, a culture or nation cannot necessarily afford to be as lenient in terms of its standards and foundational assumptions. For example, those that do not share in the assumption that values Christmas as a cherished celebration should be allowed to verbalize that they do not, articulate the reasons why, and pretty much allowed to continue along in their affairs without bodily harm or without fear of such to an extent that a person steeped in a common sense realism would deem sufficiently reasonable. However, that does not mean that the majority that value, celebrate, and derive meaning from the comprehensive narrative source from which Christmas is derived should be required to cower in silence for fear of upsetting those that do not or of receiving punishment for having done so.

In the attempt to position themselves as profoundly pious, it is quite evident that some fail to comprehend the full implications of what they are actually advocating. Jared Byas writes, “For me, keeping the Christ in Christmas is not about winning the culture war --- but about losing it.”

As in any conflict, sometimes the battles go on for so long and become so acrimonious that the involved parties can end up forgetting that for which they are fighting. The term “culture war” gained widespread notoriety in Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican convention. In the address, the political analyst and former presidential candidate gave rhetorical voice to the proverbial Silent Majority noticing then that the embrace of progressivism and permissiveness on the part of various institutions such as academia, media and government was resulting in symptoms of noticeable decline throughout American culture and society.

Therefore, in calling for a surrender in the culture war those of the viewpoint shared by Mr. Byas think that what they are calling for is a truce on the part of all parties to simply play nice on the part of all parties irrespective of creed. What they are inadvertently giving the green light to is an anything goes mentality that will eventually result in the worst depravities and possibly even atrocities imaginable.

The veracity of this observation is already playing itself out in regards to the gay marriage issue. After standing up for years against the steady drumbeat to normalize this particular moral corrosion, many sincere Christians finally relented. They essentially said, “Fine, go ahead and do as you please in the privacy of your own bedroom. Just don't expect the remainder of us to stand around applauding in approval.”

This armistice of don't ask don't tell did not last long in terms of history's lengthy reach. For throughout this unfolding cultural revolution, the propagandists and social engineers insisted that the love between a couple of any combination imaginable was not dependent upon a piece of paper. But nearly as soon as those attempting to order their thoughts and their lives in compliance with the sanctified and the holy began to make peace with the fact that much of society was going to recognize such unnatural couplings as perfectly ordinary, additional blows were landed by the ephors of the judiciary that those objecting to the solemnization of wanton carnality would also be required to render the legal equivalent of acceptance and adulation.

In a court ruling upholding the right of conscience for the marrying couple but apparently not for the objecting merchant, a baker was threatened with financial ruination and the profound psychological trauma resulting from such for doing little more than refusing to bake a cake for a wedding that the baker believed to be an abomination in the eyes of God and for a couple not even likely to remain faithful to one another within the next couple of years anyway.

Libertines will snap why can't the baker just go ahead and bake the cake? Traditionalists can retort why can't the couple simply find another baker (which shouldn't be too difficult given that those of the couple's boudoir proclivities are often quite skilled in those crafts requiring a creative flair).

So what other freedoms and liberties is Jared Byas willing to surrender when he hoists the white flag in the culture war? Edmund Burke admonished that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

At the University of Mississippi, not only has the word “Christmas” been banned because it “connoted too much Christianity on campus” but so has the traditional color combination of red and green, having been replaced with red, blue, and silver. Commissars at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville decreed that in the future staff and student organizations must eliminate all religious themes and cultural allusions associated with designated celebration periods commonly referred to as holidays. But do such acts of censorship also apply to Muslim or secularist Jewish populations as well?

One waits with anticipation to hear of the commencement of orgies and human sacrifice. Think that remark goes a little too far?

It must be pointed out that the Nazis were also big on removing Christ and Christmas in favor of generic winter celebrations venerating nature, the state, and the COMMUNITY. As to the orgies, the University of Mississippi has changed the name of its celebration from the festive yet dignified “Grand Ole Christmas” to “Hotty Totty Holidays”. And with a name like that bringing to mind drunkenness and lewd behavior, academic administrators will still gawk on dumbfounded and flabbergasted at the expansion of the alleged rape culture supposedly reaching epidemic proportions on campuses across the country.

From the way Byas formulates his argument, it is assumed that insisting that the existence of Christmas be recognized is an inherently selfish act. This is evident in the phrase ...laying down my demand that the coffee shop I share with my non-Christian neighbors 'privilege' my religion.” The word “privilege” was no doubt deliberately selected in the attempt to link this issue with the revolutionary fervor of the Black Lives Matter movement with its constant drum beat of “White privilege” in the hopes of eroding resistance to increasingly extravagant demands. But are the motives for demanding a generalized respect for Christmas necessarily an either/or dichotomy between selfishness and altruism? Why can't it be a little bit of each?

In “The Wealth Of Nations'”, Scottish economist Adam Smith hypothesized that it was through the enlightened self-interest of numerous individuals making decisions on behalf of their own particular needs and desires that the great invisible hand was able to manifest the will of providence. This particularly brought about the distribution of a finite quantity of goods and services.

However, this theory can just as properly be applied to a Christian approach to the controversy surrounding the Christmas issue. In his call for abdication along this front in the culture war, Jared Byas believes that he I upholding the Biblical admonition to esteem others more highly than ourselves. And that principle does indeed have a place in adjudicating the relationship between specific individuals.

For example, if someone wishes you “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” and they seem sincere in their extension of the sentiment, there is no need to go “Old Testament” upon them calling down holier than thou condemnation in how you go out of your way to maintain the theological formalities of the holiday. Such stridency might do more harm than help in advancing the cause of Christ.

However, what about addressing the attempts of unbelievers demanding that their own animosity towards traditional expressions of religion be granted a place of privilege so militant that in order to be satisfied an entire civilization is expected to lay down in what amounts to ritualized suicide? Therefore, provided one goes about it in a levelheaded manner, each time that you speak out against a censorship or deprivation of Christmas even if as little as letting someone know how much these radical activists tick you off, you are not being selfish.

You are in fact defending the right of someone else to enjoy Christmas unabashed in compliance with their particular convictions. Even more importantly, you are also lighting a candle against a pending Dark Age bent on plunging the world into an engulfing and pervasive tyranny.

By

Dr. Frederick Meekins

Tyrant Pastors Insist Congregations To Be Viewed Like Dimwitted Children

In an examination of alleged rebellion in the church, Pastor Jason Cooley compared rebellion in the sacred assembly to rebellion within the context of the biological family.

As an example, the pastor provided the illustration of a husband telling his wife to do one thing while the wife responds how she feels led by the Lord to go in another direction.

But provided that either alternative is equally godly, wouldn't a loving husband take into
consideration what the wife had to say and perhaps in many instances even defer to her suggestion?

So why wouldn't a pastor worthy of respect as such do similarly?

Rev. Cooley insists that, since such indolence would not be tolerated in the home, it should be just as quickly punished in the church.

Pastors insisting that they should be obeyed without question or hesitation like a parent in general and a father in particular need to be reminded of a fundamental assumption that cannot really be altered.

That is you have no say into what family you are born; however, an adult is perfectly free to up and leave any church in which they do not feel that they are being respected as a free human being.

This legalistic pastor admonished in this same homily posted at SermonAudio that one cannot have a foot in what would be considered a strict congregation in terms of the expectations imposed upon the members and the other foot outside in terms of refusing to relent to pastoral obedience.

So does Cooley intend to bestow a blessing upon those that depart such congregations to attend those that still adhere to essential Christian doctrine but which do not deem it necessary to clamp down so tightly regarding secondary matters?

Or will he hint at Hellfire in the attempt to frighten people from looking for more psychologically or methodologically balanced churches?

In this sermon, Pastor Cooley also criticized those that set out to establish churches on their own without proper authority.

By that, does that mean he intends to repent of being a schismatic and to return to the Roman Catholic Church?

By Frederick Meekins

Terrorist Attacks Prompt Church To Downplay Its Open Border Homilies

In response to the terrorist attack in Paris, Pastor William Strum of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, NC remarked how dumb a nation had to be to grant entrance to swarms of refugees.

Both he and Senior Pastor Sean Harris suggested that the approach of targeting specific Jihadist leaders and cells would ultimately be doomed to failure.

Rather, the Western World must consider eliminating significant swaths of the Islamic population.

Yet in a SermonAudio podcast uploaded a little over a week prior to these remarks that addressed Hungary's refusal to admit Islamic refugees, Pastor Strum declared that, as a minister of the Gospel, that he would teach that these infidel indigents should be allowed entrance since it is our obligation to be more “Christian” than “American”.

Pastor Strum was previously so sure of his position regarding this issue that he announced in the podcast that he was requiring the students in his world religion class to write a paper on the Christian approach to immigration.

In Christian school jargon, that means the essay will likely be graded down if the approach taken by the student is not in agreement with the personnel opinion of the instructor.

Apart from not machine gunning down without warning those violating our borders without permission, the primary obligation of the American government is to protect actual Americans first and foremost.

If a nation decides not to admit a single immigrant, a society has fulfilled any so-called Christian obligation.

by Frederick Meekins