Congregation Pitches Tent Towards Gomorrah Instead Of Heavenly Jerusalem

Calvary Baptist Church in Washington DC has selected a “married” lesbian couple to co-pastor the congregation.

Yet this is not the first time this particular church has deliberately violated with enthusiastic forethought what has traditionally been categorized as the theology of the body..

In 2014, the congregation appointed an interim pastor that was transgender, apparently to lead the church from bad to worse.

In defense of surrendering the congregation's pulpit to a transgendered pastor, the chair of the Calvary Baptist personnel committee told the Associate Baptist Press, “Quite simply, this is who we --- Calvary Baptist Church, specifically, and Christians more generally --- are called to be a place that reflects God's love and recognizes, affirms, and nurtures God's call in each of our lives.”

By such a statement, the reader is to assume that whatever warped inclinations an individual might feel are to be understood as the divine calling in our lives.

So if a pastor expressed a desire to and actually touched buxom teen girls inappropriately, does that mean that a church is obligated to celebrate such a ministerial candidate by granting the individual a position of leadership?

The advocates of progressivism will respond but the pedophile psychologically damages the underaged minor.

But what do you think “Pastor” Robinson is doing to his own children since he did not spring his desire to live in this manner on anyone until after becoming a father?

For now, it seems his wife is standing by him.

But will she continue to do so once his distinctively male appendage is hacked off like a whithered garden weed?

What those falling over the edge of rank apostasy and the vilest manifestations of paganism really mean when they invoke terms like “love”, “affirmation” and “nurturing” is that they will only support those plunging along with them into the depths of libertinism and licentiousness.

For would this sort of “church” stand by someone that admitted to uttering the “N-word” under their breath some thirty years ago?

Better yet, as a more revealing test of their sincerity, perhaps this congregation should welcome into its pulpit a fire and brimstone pastor that would expose these kinds of sheol-spawned delusions for what they really are.

By Frederick Meekins

Baptist Functionary Sides Against Common Christians In Christmas War

In “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis, one of the deprivations the White Witch imposed upon Narnia was that, under her rule, it was always winter but never Christmas. Through this literary device, Lewis was able to emphasize how the profound truths of existence are often reflected and even pointed to by the simplest pleasures of life.

It is ashame Southern Baptist cultural functionary Russell Moore has failed to grasp this particular axiom. In what amounts to a column posted at his website titled “Is There A 'War' On Christmas?” (the word “War” placed in quotations to no doubt undermine the seriousness of this concern), this particular theologian astutely analyzes and exegetes the seriousness of Christmas as the celebration of God incarnating in human form and how the flippancy in which that mystery is often approached is itself a symptom of the degree to which Western civilization has strayed from the straight and narrow.

However, Dr. Moore doesn't seem to grasp that these incidental slights that Moore seems to dismiss also point to the degree to which the culture has been deChristianized. For example, Moore writes, “But the huffing and puffing that we tend to do when marketers don't get our Christian commitments is, I think, a little bit off base.” Moore goes on to conclude, “...when we think about this war on Christmas, we shouldn't turn this into a fight for our right to party...And we need to remember that the darkness isn't overcome by sarcasm, or personal offense, or retaliatory insults, or boycotts of Wal-Mart or whatever it is.”

As part of his public persona, Russell Moore has positioned or branded himself as a minister sensitive to the concerns of particular favored aggrieved constituencies . For example, Dr. Moore serves as a token Anglo on the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and has released public statements that just about blame White people for the upheaval perpetrated during Black Lives Matter protests rather than the rampaging activists themselves.

These days linguistic tensions are so taunt with many of those in the majoritarian demographic walking around on egg shells for fear of a misconstrued verbal inflection resulting in a lost job or even threats of physical retaliation. As an historical reference one only need recall the outcry over Ross Perot's articulation of the phrase “You people”.

Therefore, if Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular see those in positions of leadership that don't mind instructing we mere dimwits of the congregation how we are to be in submission to them and to follow their example getting worked up into a froth over things considerable removed from the average American's daily purview of concern, why shouldn't it be expected for people to react vocally for the small yet existentially substantial things that they actually care about. For example, if we are expected to get worked up over someone manhandled by the police that deliberately decided to disobey la enforcement's perfectly justifiable instructions, shouldn't professional religionists such as Dr. Moore ought to express a little more sympathy for the common Christian feeling insulted that the holiday displays at the local mall or “big box retailer” don't seem sufficiently Christmasy?

Dr. Moore further observes, “...I think we need to keep in mind most of these issues that we take offense at are done by corporations ...[that] are trying to sell products. They are really not trying to offend constituencies...That's not good economics at all for anybody.”

Would Rev. Moore as dismissively let the actions of government he found questionable slide by without comment? After all, one of the purposes of bureaucracy (which it somehow never seems to achieve by the way) is to as efficiently as possible weigh, process, and prioritize the interests of the numerous factions that constitute an incomprehensibly complex technologically advanced society.

For example, if the average believer is to be persuaded that merchants harbor no nefarious intent by instructing that the greeting “Happy Holidays” be articulated rather than “Merry Christmas”, why shouldn't we believe that the misunderstanding is as simple in regards to something that the professional religionists might care about such as the effort to eliminate the tax exemption of the clergy housing allowance? It might, after all, merely be an attempt to raise revenue rather than as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to shackle ministers by undermining their freedom of religious expression to speak out on issues of moral importance (though it is never explained how authors and journalists are not similarly hindered by not being extended the same protection in the tax code).

Moore further observes, “...many, especially in the culture-making ...sectors in American life, see Christmas kind of in the same way that most Americans see Hanukkah. One knows about [it]...[But] They don't know the background story.” As such, Moore suggests that, instead of getting angry, we ought to instead teach those around us about the miracle of the incarnation and the blood atonement.

Always a good idea. But if these things aren't being taught, whose fault is that?

Perhaps the average pewfiller zooms in on retail establishments that blatantly thumb their noses at what Dr. Moore seems to dismiss as holiday trivialities rather than those that might appropriate the veneer of the devotional in pursuit of more trivial ends because deep down these believers have might have an inclination that something is askew but cannot hone in on something more specific. Many times they have not been taught much better than their secular non-churchgoing counterparts.

For example, as someone on the Southern Baptist payroll, does Russell Moore spend much time emphasizing and teaching what C.S. Lewis categorized as “Mere Christianity”? For it seems for much of the past year or so the theologian has spent an inordinate amount of time bashing Christians that got behind the Trump candidacy because, despite his faults, Trump was about the only presidential contender willing to admit that drastic action needed to be taken at the boarder.

Some might respond that it is not the place of a pastor or minister to co-opt the sanctified solemnity of the pulpit or even the clerical collar to wallow in the banalities of political affairs. However, that has not prevented Russell Moore and those of a similar mindset infiltrating the Southern Baptist Convention from speaking out on issues regarding immigration and related minority concerns.

These exegetical activists insist Scripture is inherently pro-immigrant as evidenced by the protections extended to the strangers dwelling in the midst of Israel. Yet seldom do these homilists point out that these outsiders were also compelled to live in respect of Israel's culture and the importance both the Old and New Testaments place upon abiding by the duly constituted laws of the nation's in which one happens to reside.

Dear reader, don't fall for the delusion that what Russell Moore and allied malcontents are simply calling for is the humane treatment of those that have no right or permission to be here as they are escorted from the premises of the United States as part of the deportation process. What they are in fact calling for is the elevation of deadbeats and agitators to a place of superiority over the average taxpaying pewfillers and citizens.

For among a list of ultimatums issued by Evangelical progressives posted on the Huffington Post was one demanding that White Christians DEFER to their counterparts of color. Will there be similar pleas from the authors published by that font of leftwing propaganda for protesters to DEFER to the instructions articulated by law enforcement during roadside encounters or to the rulings handed down by the judicial system? So much for assessing individual by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin.

Given the nature of the public pronouncements that he has become increasingly known for, it would be easy to assume that Russell Moore is transitioning from being a minster of the Gospel to something more of a COMMUNITY organizer not all that different than Barack Obama in his early days. Perhaps the best thing any Christian might do next holiday season is to direct their charitable dollars towards institutions other than those affiliated with Moore's wing of the Southern Baptist Convention.

By Frederick Meekins

The Superiority Of Theism Part 3: Unbelief's Defiance Of Common Sense

According to Geisler and Turek, a number of scientific discoveries come down on the side of the cosmological proof rather than the steady state hypothesis. To assist in remembering what these are, the authors have provided the acronym SURGE.

“S” stands for the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Laws of Thermodynamics stipulate that, within the universe, there is only a finite amount of energy and that over time this energy is dissipated into disorder or entropy.

From this, both the scientist and the theologian must come to similar conclusions. If there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, by definition there had to have been some kind of starting point or things would have already reached maximum entropy in ages past. Yet we find that we are still here.

This alone is enough to cause the Steady State house of cards to come crashing down. However, from the remainder of their acronym, Geisler and Turek provide the apologist with additional lines of scientific evidence attesting to a moment of creation.

The letter “U” stands for universal expansion. In 1920, Astronomer Edwin Hubble deduced from the red shift in light that the universe is expanding outward from one particular point.

Traditionally, those embracing the idea of God creating the universe have held the notion of the Big Bang at arm’s length. The concept must be handled with caution because if one is not careful one can end up with a less than Biblical cosmology where matter is as eternally existent as God and not dependent upon Him for its existence. However, the expansion of the universe is itself a confirmation of the laws of thermodynamics as it points to a definitive point of creation because, if the cosmos was infinitely old, the universe would have collapsed back on itself by now.

The “R” in SURGE stands for “radiation” from the Big Bang. Discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, cosmic background radiation was left over from the moment of creation and has not yet dissipated (81).

Yet another aspect of the cosmic background radiation attesting to a deliberate intelligence at work in the universe is the concept of “galactic seeds”, which serve as the “G” in SURGE. According to the theory of cosmic background radiation, this energy signature would not be uniform across the backdrop of space but instead be scattered about in concentrated pockets.

Geisler and Turek write, “These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies (82).” These seeds themselves attest to deliberation, as Geisler and Turek further elaborate, “The ripples show that...the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself (83)."

The "E" in SURGE stands for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. According to Geisler and Turek, the theory posits a need for an absolute beginning for space, time and matter since these are interdependent with one not being able to exist without the others. It was because of the theory of relativity that scientists were able to discover the expanding universe, cosmic background radiation and galactic seeds (84).

Despite the marvels of nature, a number of those most familiar with its technicalities and implications continue on in their unbelief. For example, some such as Robert Atkins attempt to evade the matter of how matter came about. In his “Creation Revisited”, Atkins postulated origins derived from mathematical points swirling about in nothingness which Ravi Zacharias pointed out to him after a debate moderated by William F. Buckley were actually something (80).

Others such as Robert Jastrow admit, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proved by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an act of creation...That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." Yet according to Geisler, these minds continue on in their agnosticism despite the evidence. Hence the name of Giesler's book “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”.

The theist might be ready to let his guard down to rest thinking a decisive victory has been scored in the apologetic encounter. However, the battle is far from over.

For while the cosmological argument brings the unbeliever into a more theistic orbit, it hardly brings him to the embrace of a creator that cares about His creation or even relates to it on a personal level. The reluctant theist might even attempt to save face by countering that, even if some force or entity we have come to refer to as God set the universe in motion, what we see around us including ourselves is the result of random chance and deterministic consequences spanning back millennia.

By Frederick Meekins

Bibliography: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”

The Superiority Of Theism Part 2: The Refutation Of Unbelief

Portraying themselves as erudite and sophisticated, the the co-called "cultured despisers of religion" attempt to trip up Christianity right out of the starting gate. Fortunately, Geisler and Turek provide the equivalent of intellectual judo in the form of a number of easily-mastered tactics that can deflect and even redirect the attacks of even the most degreed skeptics.

Foremost among these is the Road Runner Tactic. Named after the famous Looney Tune character, the Road Runner Tactic shows that often the loftiest of notions upheld in secular academia provide no solid ground to stand on, bringing to mind the scenes where Wiley Coyote went over the cliff in these animated adventures because these ideas have the ground pulled out from under them as a result of being self-defeating and self-referentially incoherent (39).

For example, entire academic specialties base their justification for existence (and thus funding) on the assertion that "There are no absolutes". By this, a variety of intellectuals ranging from anthropologists to philosophers to literary theorists contend that no standard exists above or apart from the culture in which it is utilized and as such cannot be used to judge another society.

However, this is itself formulated as an absolute applicable in all circumstances. If one holds to the position in all situations, one has by definition refuted the position by inadvertently holding that absolutes do exist. And if this one can exist, why cannot others be discovered as the mind propositionally, existentially, and experimentally struggles to comprehend the inner and outer universes?

As one gazes outward from the self, among the first things one discovers is that something as a totality exists. And as with most issues in this contentious era in which we live, two philosophical divisions have formed regarding explanations how the things around us originally came to be.

A number of the foremost thinkers of Greek philosophy and the scribes of Hebrew revelation contend that the world and everything we see in it was ultimately caused by something from beyond that was complete in itself. Known as the cosmological argument, the justification for its conclusion can be stated in the following manner: “(1) Everything that had a beginning had a cause. (2) The universe had a beginning. (3) Therefore, the universe had a cause (75).”

In the early modern period before the development of a level of science and technology sophisticated enough to probe the very composition of the universe itself, philosophical counterparts to the traditional theistic conclusions arose. For example, opponents of the cosmological argument retorted that the conclusions calling for an “unmoved mover” were merely that of a personal preference and that an infinite regress backwards into eternity past was just as rationally valid as that of a moment of creation. Advocates of this position named it the “Steady State Theory” as it contends, as Carl Sagan would put it, that the universe is all there is, was, or ever will be.

While both the traditional cosmological argument with its starting point and the steady state theory with its assertion that things now are pretty much as they have always been might be coherent with the assumptions of those expounding them, the validity of each as a mental construct must be determined by how well they fit with the evidence at hand. With the advance of empirical science, one theory at this time clearly pulls ahead in terms of common sense and rational consistency.

By Frederick Meekins

Bibliography:

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”

The Superiority Of Theism Part 1: Worldview Comparisons

Though things change dramatically as the years and centuries unfold with the average person enjoying luxuries now that even the bards of old couldn’t have devised for the Homeric pantheon, some of mankind's most basic aspirations and perplexities have remained constant throughout the course of history. Even though he said it dismissively in an attempt to assuage his own conscience, Pontius Pilate’s exclamation of “What is truth?” rings as true today as it did in the time of the Roman Empire.

In fact, confusion over it and related concepts can be found at the heart of many of the disputes and issues tearing at the fabric of the early twenty-first century world. In “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek analyze why it actually requires more effort to remain an unbeliever and provide a number of tools the Christian can utilize to defend the faith in hostile situations before skeptical audiences.

Often, Christianity is downplayed and its influence minimized by secularists in the broader culture through the claim that the system is not objective. From this conjecture, critics diverge into two branches.

Older Modernists will argue that their perspective, superficially free of any prior faith commitments and extolling science as the ultimate foundation for truth, is the only objective viewpoint. Postmodernists, having grown weary of maintaining such a facade, dump the illusion of objectivity all together by postulating that every perspective is merely a matter opinion with no viewpoint being any more universally authoritative than any other. In “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek endeavor to show how Christianity is the best faith alternative for successfully balancing the tensions between the objective and the subjective.

Whether the detached skeptic --- often holding a tenured university chair --- wants to admit it or not, everyone (including himself) holds to some kind of religious position. In their analysis, Geisler and Turek classify religious worldviews into the three broad categories of Theism, Pantheism, and Atheism (23).

The authors define the first category of Theism as the belief that a personal God created the universe but that He is distinct from it. Examples of theistic belief systems include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The second worldview category is Pantheism, the idea that the universe as a mystical totality is God. To better understand this and the differences with Theism, Geisler and Turek provide the following example.

In Theism, God is analogous to an artist and the universe His distinct artistic work that is separate from Him but with which He interacts. In Pantheism, God is the painting. Major pantheist faiths include Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age movement.

The third worldview category is Atheism, which denies the existence of God and often a spiritual or immaterial component of reality all together. Under this category, Geisler and Turek have included Religious Humanism because --- even though differentiated from its secularist cousin in that it gives lip service to the existence of a power beyond the material realm --- Religious Humanism still looks to man rather than God as the final authority.

The Modernist and the Postmodernist have further skewered the discussion in their favor by creating barriers between the notions of belief and facts. Geisler and Turek write, “Despite its apparent persuasiveness, the claim that religion is simply a matter of faith is nothing more than a modern myth --- it’s just not true. While religion certainly requires faith, religion is not only about faith. Facts are also central to all religions because all religious worldviews --- including atheism --- make truth claims, and many of those truth claims can be evaluated through scientific and historical investigation (23).”

There is indeed a degree of correlation between what a person believes and the world beyond the self. One only needs to point out that insane asylums and mental wards are full of people who for various reasons and as a result of assorted circumstances have had their minds severed from reality. And though we as a society must exercise vigilance and even vociferously oppose those who would infringe upon the freedom and dignity of those whose outlooks run counter to prevailing perceptions but do not pose a definitive bodily harm to those around them, Christians should advocate for their worldview as the perspective that best harmonizes the inner and outer worlds.

By Frederick Meekins

Will Nanny State Decree How Many Christmas Presents Constitutes Too Many?

Outrage has erupted over a British mother that spent $1800 on Christmas presents for her three children.

She has been accused of spoiling her offspring and even abusing them.

Busybodies in both the social and mainstream media have decreed that she should instead teach her children about the true meaning of Christmas by redirecting the gifts towards charity.

Perhaps the amount spent is a bit excessive.

But is it PROPER (to invoke a term the British like to articulate) to invoke the specter of abuse?

For in overly regulated quasi-police states such as the United Kingdom, the phrase “abuse” usually serves as the bureaucratic pretext to justify intervening in a home for the purposes of subjecting a family to a variety of investigative and surveillance techniques.

Have the British become so totalitarian as to produce actuarial tables detailing what number of presents are allowed before anti-social tendencies begin to set in?

And if it is unacceptable for a parent to spend $1800 at Christmas, why is it acceptable for the Queen to have so many corgis or Prince Charles to have an even greater number of sports cars despite his insistence that he is an environmentalist?

Gifts piled high probably aren't the meaning of Christmas.

But neither is the Pavolian reflex endemic throughout Northern European social democracies that what the nanny state decrees to be excess wealth should be confiscated and bestowed upon the chronically destitute with no strings attached.

It has been claimed that the extravagance $1800 can accumulate will spoil these children.

But what about those making their livelihoods from institutionalized penury demanding increasingly sophisticated levels of luxury instead of expressing a modicum of gratitude for what private or public generosity they have been extended?

Are BBC “news readers” interviewing academics or policy analysts warning of the dangers that might take place as result of too many unearned entitled programs?

Anyone doubting the legitimacy of such a concern or observation only needs to be reminded of the British jihadist born of immigrant parents that not only murdered a member of that nation's armed forces in a ditch alongside the road but also proudly uploaded a video glamorizing the shocking atrocity.

Perhaps that is the subversive element that this concern regarding the consequences of incorrectly reared youth ought to be focused.

By Frederick Meekins

Special Christmas Message From The Bishop Of The Fellowship Of Christ International

Christmas is upon us once again. Many in the world are preparing to celebrate it. They all have different ways in celebrating it, but no matter how they do so we must always remember that it is in celebration of the birth of God’s Son, Jesus Christ!

On Christmas morning many will go around bragging about all of the gifts they have received and share with everyone the things they have been given. It seems however, that there is one gift many forget to mention. It is the best and most perfect gift of all. It didn’t come to us by a fat man driving a sleigh pulled by reindeer. It came to us in a manger over two thousand years ago. It is a gift that once we receive it, is always ours, but at the same time it is one that we must share and give to others. What is this gift that I speak of some may wonder? It is the gift of the greatest news ever, the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The world, however, has rejected God, His teachings, and His Son. All you have to do is look around and see how dark and evil a place the world is. A majority of the world has embraced to false teachings and lies of the “god of this world” (see 2 Corinthians 4:4). It has embraced with open arms such evils as homosexuality and the form of mass murder and serial killing known as abortion. We have seen this very same ungodliness finding its way into the church and even into the clergy itself, corrupting the 100% pure teachings of God, under the guise of tolerance, progressiveness, Etc.

This Christmas season, as we all should be doing with every day, we need to stand up against this evil and share with those who are lost in the world and its ways, the gift that God has given us. We must tell the world of the true teachings of God as found in the Holy Bible. We must rebuke all false teachings, no matter how innocent they may see, to be.

As Christians, that have been born-again in the blood of Christ, we must stand up against false teachings and expose them for what they are (see Ephesians 5:11; Ephesians 5:6-13; Romans 16:17; Titus 1: 13). We must continue to resist the devil and all of his works in all we say, think, and do (see James 4:7).

We must all stand firm and never under any circumstance compromise of the Word of God. We must be completely loyal to Him, especially for all He has done for us. He gave His one and only Son for us, so we must be willing to do all for Him. This Christmas season we must go forward and share with an unbelieving world what the one and only true meaning and purpose of Christmas is for and about.

No matter what may come in our way we must do as command by Christ Himself, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28: 19).

May God watch over and bless each and every one of you. Share the gift that God has given you. Each time you share this gift with others it will always give back to you.

Dr. Bradley Carey

Subversives Foreign & Domestic Attempt To Undermine Christmas

Here in the hypersensitive twenty-first century, one of the unique holiday traditions of this era is to see who can toss the biggest hissy fit in the attempt to frighten the less combative throngs into altering their very way of life and culture in order to alleviate the possibility of conflict.

One hundred activists have been arrested in Rotterdam for demonstrating in the streets against a fictitious character named “Black Pete”.

For those having no idea who that is, in Scandinavian folklore Black Pete is the sidekick of Santa Claus. But instead of distributing toys and treats, Black Pete dispenses punishment in the form of the dreaded lumps of coal in the stocking.

Tolerancemongers are tossing their typical tizzy because Black Pete is depicted with a blackened face, red lips, and what is perceived as an Afro wig.

One theory holds this is because Pete is believed to be a Spanish Moor while others insist it is simply because he is covered in soot as a result in trafficking in hydrocarbon residue.

It is claimed such a depiction is racist.

Before this subversive impulse dissipates, these radicals bent on tearing down centuries of Western tradition (as Black Pete's supporters insist that the character is part of their cultural heritage as an integral component of their Christmas tradition) will condemn the Santa motif in its entirety for imposing the standards of the chronologically advanced upon the recently nascent.

After all, who are the bourgeoisie to impede the vanguard destined to bring change and transformation through violent upheaval?

If defenders of the Western way of life do not say enough is enough, soon it will be more than those expressions of culture formulated in less socially aware times on the line.

For example, elsewhere in Western Europe at a Woolworth's store in Germany, Christian decorations were removed just days after they were put up.

The reason given was that the retail establishment was now a “Muslim store”.

Die hard freemarketeers of the sort that think that it is a good thing when pewee athletic coaches berate the kids and even smack them around a little will likely respond that a merchant should be allowed to sell whatever the business desires. That is of course unless the products in question that an establishment doesn't want to sell happen to be birth control related and then suddenly the concept of proprietary discretion is tossed into the conceptual remainder pile.

But do not customers have the right to demand that assorted enterprises provide desired goods and services?

If the heathen can pour across the frontiers of the West demanding under threats of and actually committed acts of violence demanding that these besieged populations alter a variety of longstanding norms and practices, the civilized peoples of the Earth are well within their own rights to withhold financial patronage of such non-responsive merchants.

If Woolworth's fails to comply, perhaps that name in Europe will become like it is across large swaths of North America as a defunct retailer relegated to the proverbial annals of business history and remembered little more by a quickly depleting pool of shoppers.

It should be interesting to see if this alliance between multiculturalists and free market purists will remain united and intact regarding a development in Saudi Arabia.

It was announced there that the private schools for internationals residing within that particular Islamic kingdom would be forbidden from celebrating Christmas.

The prohibition even forbade schools from even altering examination dates in the attempt to give students a bit of a surreptitious break.

Will there be similar outcry from the voices insisting that celebrations in primarily Christian and Caucasians lands must be altered for the purposes of establishing the ballyhooed safe spaces for minorities and that whatever choices these protected demographics might make within their own COMMUNITIES must be affirmed in a celebratory fashion by the broader society?

The Constitution warns that enemies can be both foreign and domestic.

As such, one of the most pernicious of threats is this paradoxical situation where many of diversity's most enthusiastic acolytes demand that we as Americans eliminate the cultural expressions of the faith that has guided the nation throughout much of its history while looking favorably upon the very creed whose most fanatic practitioners have few qualms about physically mutilating those with whom they disagree.

By Frederick Meekins

Sermon Suggests Pastors To Select Congregation's Spouses

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, a minister assured that the text detailing how Issac obtained his bride was more descriptive (meaning it details an historical incident) rather than prescriptive (meaning the passage contains binding ethical or doctrinal imperatives).

That in no way prevented the expositor from invoking the text in the attempt to beat the listener over the head with any number of assorted guilttrips.

In the story, Abraham details for the servant the process to find a bride for Issac.

Of this, the homilist remarked that Abraham showed more faith in his servant than most modern Christians do in their pastor.

To craft an appropriately contextualized phrase, what does that have to do with the price of petroleum in the Levant?

In the case of Abraham and Issac, this was to be the genetic line that would result in the Israelite people in general and the Messiah in particular.

However, any Baptist worth his communion grape juice will admit that God for whatever reason does not intervene as explicitly at this point along the time line of redemptive history.

Anyone desiring this degree of pastoral oversight in their lives to the point of selecting the spouses of their children is only asking for trouble on par with the cult tragedies of Jonestown, Waco, and Heaven's Gate.

By Frederick Meekins

Scalia's Name Invoked To Manipulate Average Christians

With the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, those admiring that jurist's particular variety of constitutional originalism stopped to reflect upon his legacy and influence. One thing that the observers of the intersection of the cultural and the theological can count on is the inability of the average Baptist pastor or minister to pass over the opportunity to invoke nearly any event as a rhetorical device for the purposes of berating the congregation as well as anyone else within earshot.

On his website, Russell Moore published a column titled “What The Church Can Learn From Justice Scalia's Life”. For the most part, the analysis is an approving appraisal and explanation of Scalia's philosophy of jurisprudence. However, there are points at which Moore can't resist the urge to get in slight digs.

For example, Moore writes, “One can disagree with Scalia on these principles, and one can argue that he occasionally seemed to contradicted them.” But the same criticism could just as easily be said regarding Russell Moore.

For example, Moore sits on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. Would Moore sit on the board of an organization titled the National Confederate Leadership Conference?

From there, Moore proceeds to invoke the death of Justice Scalia as a platform and a pretext from which to bash his fellow Evangelicals.

For example, Moore praises Scalia's prescience to foresee or extrapolate where the judicial rulings of the present might nudge the moral developments of the future. Moore contemplates, “Why were evangelicals so slow to advance the pro-life witness? Why were evangelicals caught so unaware by the shifting family structures in the United States?”

Moore answers these questions that he raises rhetorically by noting that the shortcomings he has pointed out in Evangelical social thought were the result of failing to see ahead of time how culture moves and for in part accommodating the “divorce revolution”. Maybe so, but the answer in part goes beyond that.

Many Evangelicals failed to see the direction in which culture moved because for generations probably up until the time Francis Schaeffer came into prominence and in some circles even later most Evangelicals had been indoctrinated and conditioned to have as little to do as possible with the culture whatsoever. The good Christian, it was often expounded from the pulpit, did not seek to investigate the issues and challenges of the day on their own.

Instead, you were simply expected to accept whatever your pastor was willing to tell you about them. An interest in anything beyond the casseroles at the church potluck supper was considered “worldly”.

Media and forms of art were considered evil not necessarily on the basis of content but rather in and of themselves. You can't really subject the students in your Christian school to a curriculum consisting of not much more than grammatically diagramming Bible verses and where about the only professionals exhorted as examples to emulate are missionaries to foreign fields and then sit around dumbfounded as to why so few graduates from such settings go on to careers in strategically important fields such as law, medicine, government, or media.

Russell Moore really strives to bore the assembled a new one as he moves towards the conclusion of his analysis. In particular, Moore praises Scalia's aptitude to befriend his opponents.

Of this tendency, Moore writes of Scalia, “He was certainly one of the most combative justices in print and in argument in history. Even so, he had a strong friendship with liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Was that an inconsistency?”

Moore answers his rhetorical question, “No. This was confidence. He knew that his ideas could prevail, so he didn't see the persons who opposed him as those to be avoided or shunned. He knew that his convictions were clear, so he didn't play tribal politics by isolating himself with an ideological cocoon.”

Speaking of “tribal politics”, once again, it must be asked, if Russell Moore enunciates that phrase in such as say as to imbue it with negative connotations, why does he sit on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference? Moore is likely nothing more than the organization's token gringo. For outfits with such ethnically explicit names are all about tribal politics and don't give a rodent's hindquater about good of the nation as a whole.

Justice Scalia is to be commended for his many contributions in the effort to preserve what little remains of America's constitutional liberties. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding his passing, as with all who achieve lofty status or position (including Russell Moore most likely as well) one will find that his ultimate loyalty was probably to the elite and its continued perpetuation rather than a set of enduring principles necessarily.

For example, the hunting lodge from which Justice Scalia transitioned into the Afterlife was owned by the International Order of St. Hubertus. According to the Washington Post (a mainstream media institution and not Alex Jones mind you), the International Order of St. Hubertu is an order where its exclusively male membership gathers to prance around in silky green robes while slaughtering animals not so much for subsistence hunting but rather for the thrill of taking another creature's life.

Even worse, this organization is itself believed to have ties to Bohemian Grove. For those not familiar with that particular term, that is a place deep in the woods of California were many elites thinking they are so much better than the rest of us that they are the ones that will determine the course of our lives gather before a giant owl statue ritualistically pledging to bring about the New World Order. The ceremonial proceedings usually conclude with drunkenness, occasionally orgies, and (if certain conspiracy theorists are to be believed) sometimes even a human sacrifice or two.

Pastor Moore could have attributed this observation to just an aspect of Scalia's personality that enabled the jurist to find that murky balance between standing for one's principles and the degree of compromise necessary to prevent the political or judicial process from getting eternally mired in interminable gridlock. Instead, Moore utilizes the point to once again bash the mere pewfiller over the head.

Moore writes, “If our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with us or our politics, then it could be that politics is our god. And if our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with our theology, then maybe our talk about mission is just talk.”

If this is how Evangelicals in general and Baptists in particular act in Moore's estimation, much of that fault lies in how the leaders of the movement have indoctrinated their respective congregations, followers, and students (not necessarily in error) over the past several decades.

Among churches of a more doctrinally rigorous nature, it is simply not enough to earn the status of good or even satisfactory Christian by attending worship on a semi-regular basis and to attempt to apply what is taught in such gatherings in the normal course of life. Instead, formal organized religious exercises and church attendance are to become the focal point of one's existence.

For example, you are also obligated to attend Sunday school, Sunday evening, and possibly even a variety of small group studies during a given week if your church is sufficiently large enough where these cell groups are not necessarily so much about studying objective doctrinal content but more about confession and denunciation of shortcomings in a manner not surprisingly different from what might take place in a prisoner of war camp. But if your church isn't large enough to provide an assortment of such groups, fear not. For yours will likely include a midweek service.

This will likely be marketed or specifically presented as a “prayer meeting”. Pewfillers will also be shamed of manipulated into attending from the pulpit as well. The common rhetorical set up for this will begin with explaining how prayer is simply talking with God and who doesn't enjoy talking to or spending time with those we hold most dear. As such, it is concluded, if you fail to show up for prayer meeting, you must not really love God all that much.

But the thing about that conversation is that it really needs to be a two way exchange if the train of thought and ongoing dialog is to consist of more than the equivalent of a telepathic voice message. Furthermore, often what transpires is that pastorally led prayers end up being a combination of an extension of the sermon and newsletter announcements by other means. But at least when the sermon and newsletter announcements are made as sermon and newsletter announcements rather than as extended prayers, you don't have to sit there with your eyes clamped shut for fear of being called out for it by the pastor who must need the privacy to quickly pick his nose.

This extended exposition must seem like an unrelated tangent. However, it does provide a bit of explanation as to why the Christian probably doesn't have much time to hobnob with reprobates outside of the church.

Of course Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, and even Elena Kagin are probably going to hit it off. Though most aren't going to have the courage to say it, both Roman Catholicism and Judaism are two religions that love their booze. So what exactly are upper class Jews supposed to bond over with blue collar Baptists that have had it drilled into their heads their entire lives (and possibly even rightfully so) to avoid alcohol at all costs? A love of pork barbecue that the Jew isn't even supposed to eat unless they are of the variety that invokes that particular identity not so much because of a devotion to Old Testament teaching but rather as something to invoke quickly to justify an often noticeable hostility towards anything even remotely Christian?

In this situation of whether to interact or separate, the mere pewfiller cannot hope to prevail in terms of avoiding some manner of verbal chastisement. For often these clergy live by a double standard that they would not approve of if they saw it manifested in the lives of their fellow believers.

For example, in Spring 2015, there was a bit of ecumenical excitement in the air as it was announced that NBC planned to broadcast a dramatic miniseries titled “AD”. The purpose of the drama was to provide the viewer with a bit of narrative insight into what the early Church centered around the Apostles might have had to deal with following the Resurrection of Christ.

But instead of supporting this undertaking as a respectful attempt by the entertainment industry to present the founding of the Christian faith even if not entirely accurate down to the tiniest painstakingly exact detail but in a way that might spark the curiosity of an individual to investigate further if so inclined, a number of ministers and theologians openly criticized the production. Interestingly, instead of pointing out where the narrative might have strayed from the Biblical record, Pastor Randy White on an episode of “Standing For The Truth” droned on and on about the producer of the miniseries Roma Downey being a Roman Catholic sympathetic towards the New Age movement. White continued on by calling into question Evangelical leaders such as David Jeremiah that set aside differences with this competing system of theological interpretation to emphasize the common first century heritage shared by these distinct brands of Christianity.

From the vehemence of that particular episode, the average listener might come away with the impression of the importance of limiting one's exposure to Roman Catholics if one wants to be considered the kind of person that puts faith first in one's life. But apparently that is the kind of rule Pastor White expects everyone else to abide by with the exception of himself. This particularly seems to be the case when it comes to individuals that can advance Pastor White's own career or rather ministry (to put it in terms that sound less secular and more pious).

For example, on “Standing For The Truth” (the very same program on which nearly one year prior he condemned fellow Evangelicals that had cooperated with a Roman Catholic in terms of promoting a cinematic production inspired by Biblical sources), Randy White deliberately name-dropped how highly he thought of his good friend Brett Baier who just happened to be a Fox News anchor. White also confessed that Baier also happened to be Roman Catholic but one whom White was proud to call his friend because of Baier's sincerity to do the right thing despite the theological differences that White went out of his way to downplay in this instance. So why can't Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett be thought of in a similar fashion as an alley with whom Evangelicals can at times cooperate regarding shared aspects of the faith?

Towards the conclusion of his tirade, Russell Moore pontificated, “And if our friends and acquaintances are all those who agree with out theology, maybe talk about our mission is just talk.” In essence, you, average Christian, are to be chewed out from the pulpit if you associate with people that are now Christian as defined in a narrowly dogmatic manner and you are going to apparently be chewed out nor if you don't have any friends that are not Christian in a narrowly defined dogmatic manner.

In response to Dr. Moore's catch 22, is it really the average pewfilling Christian that talks so much about mission? Or is that more so those that run or administer the church and related paraministries?

Missions does have its place in the life of the church and by extension the life of every believer. However, it is the occupational ministerial class that has placed what could legitimately be considered a disproportionate emphasis upon formalized missionary outreach to the exclusion of many other as legitimate Christian undertakings.

For example, back during what seemed the verge of a pending ebola epidemic, Ann Coulter dared question why couldn't those inclined towards acts of piety try rescuing their own homeland from the perils of spiritual destruction for a change rather than these backwards lands from which a single microbe hitching a flight on an unsuspecting airliner could potentially lay waste to much of the industrialized world. For enunciating such insightful speculation, professional religionists castigated and condemned Ann Coulter much more vociferously than they ever did for her apparel of questionable modesty.

If professional clergy such as Russell Moore want to talk up missions but do nothing about it in terms of their own lives, then it is indeed a problem and they should be criticized for it. However, if the average believer hears these admonitions but after reflection conclude that the Holy Spirit is leading them to focus upon other callings and areas of ministry just as essential to the fulfillment of God's will in this world, there really is not anything regarding this matter that the Christian ought to feel guilty about.

Justice Scalia will be remembered as one of the great minds of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. It is too bad the lesser minds of this era have invoked this jurist's name for the purposes of manipulating those over whom they have been granted a modicum of authority and influence.

By Frederick Meekins

Insisting The Foretelling Of John The Baptist Is About The Elderly Attending Church Misses The Homiletical Mark

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to invoke the passage regarding the conception of John the Baptist to condemn the ailing elderly that aren't able to get to church as often as they used to?

The text implies that God intervened in regards to the withered reproductive tracts of Zacharias and Elizabeth. So unless God intervenes similarly in regards to dimmed eyesight and crippled legs, isn't He the one to be held responsible regarding this attendance issue?

The pastor insisted that, if an elderly individual can make it to the doctors or the supermarket, they can make it to church.

One is reminded of the line from the movie “Dodgeball”, “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”

But doesn't such a imperative analogy postulate a weak God bordering on the heretical?

The decrepit of advanced chronology are forced to go to the doctor's or the grocery store because such services are often physicalized in a singular location.

But doesn't the God of the Christian go out of His way to make it known that He is not confined by a structure built by the hands of man no matter how ornate or well intended such dedicated edifices might happen to be?

By Frederick Meekins

Russell Moore Elevates White Guilt As Religious Sacrament

A common refrain in the analysis of the 2016 presidential election cycle is that this particular contest has rubbed a raw nerve in terms of worldview assumptions and even animosities usually left hidden and simmering below the surface. In a column published initially in the New York Times titled “A White Church No More”, Southern Baptist Ethics and Policy Commission functionary Russell Moore tips his hand to reveal the true radical colors beneath his polished pulpit facade.

Moore commences his analysis by detailing the plight of an Alabama church in decline as the vicinity of the congregation's physical locality transitions from a predominantly White to Black population. Moore blames the decline on the fact that during the tumultuous years of the civil rights movement, often marked by shocking and noteworthy acts of violence, the church decided to focus on its primary mission of “simple gospel preaching”.

But how was the activism Moore would hope for in that historic setting appreciably different than the cultural Christianity that this theologian now explicitly celebrates the demise of? Interesting how Moore calls for the law and justice imperatives heralded in Scripture when it is minority lives and property on the line but seemingly downplays the physicalized expression of outage when it is Whitey's or a capitalist's window being shattered.

In mentioning this tragic violence, Russell Moore hopes to link its perpetrators with Donald Trump and any that might vote for the blunt real estate tycoon. As I have mentioned in previous columns, if we are to pursue this line of reasoning, why shouldn't we conclude that Russell Moore through his assorted ecclesiastical relationships must believe pedophile pastors and the churches that shelter them haven't done anything all that wrong and shouldn't be sanctioned so severely?

For at a recent pastor's conference, Moore's mentor and close colleague Albert Mohler did not chastise C.J. Mahaney for allowing a sex abuse scandal to spiral out of control. Instead, Mohler instead assured the megachurch minister that he was in the company of thousands of his closest friends. Mind you, these are the very same kinds of people that will call the validity of your faith into question if you are not in church multiple nights per week or aren't married by the time you are 23 years old.

In the indictment of Trump that reads reminiscent of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Moore writes, “This election has cast light on the darkness of pent-up nativism and bigotry ...There are not-so-coded messages denouncing African-Americans and immigrants; concerns about racial justice and national unity is ridiculed as 'political correctness'. Religious minorities are scapegoated for the sins of others, with basic religious freedoms for them called into question.”

Daniel Patrick Moniyhan (a Democrat actually) was credited with popularizing the concept of the bigotry of low expectations. Dr. Moore craves nothing more than to be applauded as a Southerner that has come around to the perspective of the Yankee elite regarding racial issues. However, given that he does not apply the same standard to all individuals irrespective of skin color, it must be asked does Brother Moore view minorities as fully human in the same manner as he would his fellow Caucasians?

If Dr. Moore is so concerned about the causes of national unity and racial justice, why doesn't he resign his position from the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference? For by the organization's very name, the National Hispanic Leadership Conference is exclusionary of the interests of Caucasians of a non-Iberian ethnography. If Caucasians of a more northern European extraction are not worthy of status and privilege (to invoke the parlance of these crypto-Marxists) on the basis of what color they emerge from the birth canals of their respective mothers, why are Hispanics deserving of such on the basis of Scripture which says that before God there is neither Greek nor Jew?

Despite whatever errors he might have made in terms of his presentation on the Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck is to be lauded for making the public aware that the notion of “social justice” is not about justice at all but rather about in the name of socialism downplaying the rights and protections afforded to the individual in favor of the collective and what is allegedly better for specific groups as determined by largely unaccountable technocrats. That is the kind of threat posed by Russell Moore in his raising the battle cry of “racial justice”.

If persons are not to be considered as individuals and the totality of their accomplishments but rather upon the shortcomings inflicted by and/or on certain groups, what if Dr. Moore's string of highly prestigious positions were seized from him and bestowed upon someone that has hardly cracked a book open a day in their lives but instead knocked over a few liquor stores and sired a number of out of wedlock children by as many women because a life of study and delayed gratification were categorized as acting just “too White”? By the very standards advocated by Dr. Moore, wouldn't a response other than affirmative agreement to such a course of action not only undermine social cohesion but also negate a number of Biblical imperatives such as submitting to authority and turning the other cheek?

Dr. Moore goes on to lament, “The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's 'I Have A Dream Speech' did not envision that more than 50 years later 'Go back to Africa' would be screamed at black protesters.” Probably because, as someone enamored in part with the delusions of socialism, Martin Luther King might not have been able to fathom Black people often lavished with a standard of living enviable by world standards descending into debaucheries most of them avoided when the status of this demographic was at its lowest in terms of material prosperity.

Perhaps Dr. Moore should have provided additional context such as where and to what particular group this directional imperative was being directed. For example, could these have been the sorts of protesters that express their disagreement with particular trial verdicts or police actions by appropriating the latest electronics or haircare products unencumbered by medium of exchange after the proprietors of such establishments have left the premises for the evening or in fear of the repercussions the mob might decide to inflict upon bystanding property owners?

Russell Moore is making quite a reputation for himself regularly publishing tirades against what academics such as himself might lament or denounce as White majoritarian culture. Does he ever intend to speak out as eloquently against outrages such as the knockout game?

In Moore's column, one is given the impression that the remark “Go back to Africa” is a negative or bad thing. Yet doesn't fostering this impression expose Moore's own ethnocentricism or White privilege?

For in a world where, as Moore writes, “The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner' who is probably not all that impressed by chants of 'Make America great again', who is to suggest America is a more desirable place to live than Africa?

Moore continues, “The center of gravity for both orthodoxy is not among Anglo suburban evangelicals but among African Anglicans and Asian Calvinists and Latin American Pentecostals.”

The first part of that statement that ought to be like fingernails across a chalkboard to the mind of the discerning reader is the way in which “Anglo suburban” is articulated like a slur. What it means is that Moore has a problem with Whites that work hard and save their resources to provide for a reasonably comfortable dwelling where the occupants are able to stay to themselves and their individual families.

What the communitarian new urbanists of whom Moore is probably an enthusiast prefer is to chorale people into congested population centers where the residents probably don't even own their property, where they are more easily controlled, and where it is easy to snoop into someone's private affairs. For nowhere in his comments did Dr. Moore condemn the largely White beatnik hipsters that prefer to habitate in largely metropolitan settings.

While we are at it, even if he does not provide his address outright, perhaps Dr. Moore should describe in which manner of dwelling he hangs his own ecclesiastical robes or clerical collars. It is doubtful it is in a rundown apartment project where English is about as dead as Latin.

For in the mind of this theologian under scrutiny in this particular analysis, Mrs. Moore and the little ones are no doubt deserving of a safe and spacious place in which to live and thrive. It is your obligation, dear pewfiller, however to put your own family at risk for reasons little more than because some pulpit blowhard tells you to in order to assuage his ever expanding sense of racialist guilt.

What must be asked next about this assertion that contends that the center of theological gravity is to be found among African Anglicans, Asian Calvinists and Latin American Pentecostals is why is it acceptable for Christians of these particular phenotypes to clump together for the purposes of religious identity and affiliation but not acceptable for White believers to do so? And if you were to grill members of each of these demographics they would probably admit that they are no more eager for their traditional way of doing things to be overwhelmed by the nebulous “other” postmodernist sociologists are always droning on about as those attending the aging Caucasian congregation.

Furthermore, just how much doctrinal compromise ought the Christian to agree to in pursuit of Russell Moore's demographic amalgamation before we are verbally reamed for abandoning those ballyhooed “Baptist distinctives”? After all, the problem with the church initially mentioned by Moore was not necessarily doctrine but rather because it was “too White”.

The Anglicans no doubt practice infant baptism and don't fly into a frenzy as to whether or not adults seeking membership have been dunked or sprinkled in what is considered this Christian act of initiation. This particular modality of ecclesiology also tends to follow a highly ritualized liturgy many Baptists would denounce for stifling the move of the Spirit.

With the Latin American Pentecostals, at the bare minimum the problem would arise at the opposite end of the decorum spectrum from the Anglicans. For an old joke describing how to tell the difference between Baptists and Pentecostals observes that Pentecostals jump over the pews while Baptists sleep in them.

Wanting to look as multicultural as possible, those such as Russell Moore will respond that Whites more uptight in church will just have to adopt the more exuberant forms of religious expression often practiced in minority communities. For if you ask the overly rambunctious to tone it down a bit, you will be accused of demanding that these other groups “act White” before their worship is deemed acceptable in the eyes of God.

But who was it that taught these aging White Baptists so despised by Moore to stifle the expression of their feelings in favor of an order of worship that emphasizes the rationally didactic over emotionalism? Why none other than the professional religionists and denominational functionaries once holding the kinds of prestigious positions now occupied by the likes of Russell Moore! It is amazing how these leaders seldom take responsibility for the policies or decisions of their particular class without first blaming it on the mere pewfillers and concocting ways to make the common church goer feel that they are nothing more than someone obligated to keep the collection plate filled.

Beyond the Pentecostal tendency towards emotional outbursts, for the sake of ethnographic solidarity, just how much Charismatic buffoonery is the average Baptist expected to put up with to placate the honchos flagellating themselves on the floor of the annual convention? Kenneth Copeland has insinuated off and on over the course of his ministry that those of his theological persuasion can resurrect the dead both feline and human. Joyce Meyers believes that she is so important that she shouldn't have to do her own housework. Todd Bently socked an alleged cancer patient in the stomach in the name of curing that particular affliction.

Critics will respond that each of these is White. Fine, if you want to play the game that character is indeed determined by the color of skin, I will be more happy to comply with such a silly standard.

T.D. Jakes has denied that the Godhead is a unity composed of three distinct persons known as the Trinity. Instead, this particular televangelist holds that the verbal identifiers of “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are rather masks or roles assumed by the singular unitary God.

Frederick Price is yet another Black pastor that espouses doctrinal notions nearly as aberrant. The website LetUsReason.org in an article titled “Fred Price: Is The Price Right Or Is The Price Wrong” examines a number of these. Among these rank the idea that we enjoyed a preincarnate existence (not unlike Mormonism) and that Jesus was rich while He dwelt upon the Earth despite Scripture teaching that he didn't even have a place to lay his head.

As errant as these happen to be, Prince propagates others that are even more dangerous. According to Price, the believer is so assured of bodily healing in this life that the truly faithful can even forbid sickness to enter into one's home, meaning that the Christian is in no need of medical interventions such as surgery. Unless of course you are Mrs. Price who had a cancer operation despite similar procedures being frowned upon for the less prominent amongst their flock.

But hey, that's no big deal. If Russell Moore wants to remain consistent, doesn't he have to assure us that compromise for the sake of superficial appearances and heartwarming photo op is more important than sending the wrong impression resulting from standing for the faith once delivered unto the saints.

Galatians 3:28 says that before God there is neither Greek nor Jew. It is also through the providence of the Almighty that all of humanity that traces its origin back to one single family now finds itself distilled into a variety of nations, tongues, ethnicities, and races largely to prevent for the time being the equivalent of another Tower of Babel. As such, a church should extend kindness and courtesy to anyone showing up on its doorstep sincerely seeking the Lord. Yet if particular varieties of people show up more at certain congregations more than others, there is no reason for controlling snobs at denominational headquarters (whose own offices are described nowhere in the pages of Scripture) to hand down pronouncements as to how ungodly such natural affiliation happens to be in their particular eyes.

By Frederick Meekins

The Pied Piper Of Apostasy?

Throughout the history of His people first in terms of pre-Messianic Israel in the form of the Psalms and then ultimately in terms of the Church following the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, music has played a crucial role in conveying the great truths of doctrine and teaching to the faithful. As such, many of these lyrical works referred to as hymns have endured for decades and in some instances even for centuries.

The Emergent Church movement is a philosophy of ecclesiology holding that much of what Christendom professed throughout the modern era was either in error or in needs of being reformulated as society transitionally progresses into an epoch more postmodern in orientation. However, given that its musical tastes have apparently found it difficult to expand beyond so-called “Seven Eleven Choruses” where songs composed of a mere seven words are sung over and over for what seems like eleven times in a row, this methodology of ministry might have hit something of a roadblock in terms of didactic lyricism.

Emergent Church poobah Brian McLaren announced that he thinks he may have found a way around this formidable impasse. He contends that, if generations of Christians have enjoyed classic songs to such a noticeable extent, why throw out the baby with the bathwater? That might happen more often in a literal sense than you think given the support for the deliberative neo-natal infanticide epidemic throughout the circles of religious leftism.

Instead of composing entirely new songs that may or may not catch on, according to an article published at Christianpost.com, Mclaren has decided to simply formulate new lyrics in compliance with his doctrinal preferences and peculiarities to those tunes that have stood the test of time. It also probably doesn't hurt that most are probably so old that they have also passed into the public domain in terms of copyright status.

The first released by McLaren bastardized in this fashion is “Onward Christian Soldiers”. That particular hymn wasn't good enough to be left alone, in McLaren's view, because of its emphasis of warfare against “the foe”.

According to McLaren, his sensibilities were unsettled by the original version because “the foe” could be interpreted to mean “our neighbors outside of the Church”. McLaren further insists that metaphors of warfare were not in accord with Jesus' and Paul's program of peacemaking.

So once this apostate is finished, will he next turn his cross hairs to explicitly rewriting the Bible? The argument could be made that McLaren is already well down that path in terms of the warped practices he advocates as evidenced by his co-officiating at his son's homosexual wedding.

Like it or not, the Bible is already full of war metaphors. For example, at His Second Advent, Christ does not intend to return as the friend the lowly Jesus, but instead upon a white steed amidst a battle where the blood is prophesied to flow up to the bridals of the horses.

The timid will respond that is merely a metaphor for the ultimate triumph over evil. Maybe so, as the interpretation of eschatological motifs is not the point of this particular analytical exposition.

As such, even if one wants to go that interpretative route, that does not take away from the truth that the Messiah proclaimed in the pages of Holy Writ is not one that turns away from conflict at all costs.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:34-35 that He has not come to bring peace but rather to set son against father and daughter against mother.

McLaren assures that he would not have as much of a problem with the song if “the foe” had been identified with his own preferred bogeymen such as greed, racism, domestic violence, or apathy. But aren't those things that nearly all Christians oppose when these evils are defined in a traditional sense irrespective of whether one views oneself closer to one of the primary dichotomies of either Fundamentalism or Progressivism?

A primary danger of the Emergent Church movement is how it often defines terms in ways that catch the unsuspecting off guard. For example, corporate greed is often defined as little as simply making a profit or those participating in a business undertaking keeping most of their financial reward for themselves without most of it siphoned off in taxes or in the form of assorted bribes more commonly referred to as contributions to mollify an assortment of radical activist groups.

Likewise, “racism” becomes little more than failing to blame Whitey for the preponderance of problems gripping the contemporary world and that certain minorities should be excused for their substandard behavior. Domestic violence is downgraded simply to mean raising your voice in response to a nagging banshee that first raised her voice at you.

Nearly all rational Christians deep down want to diminish the impact of these evils when they actually exist in the world in order to make it a better place the few short years we reside here in comparison to the eons of pending eternity. However, from McLaren's emphasis for a number of years now, one has to stop and wonder if this particular thinker actually believes that this world is all that exists.

For along with “Onward Christian Soldiers”, it seems that Brian McLaren has a particular disdain regarding hymns emphasizing and teaching about Heaven. This vehemence runs so deep that, in this article, McLaren admits that the first lyrics he mangled in the name of propaganda were actually to “I'll Fly Away”.

In that particular song, the composer says that, in a few short days when his life on Earth is through, he'll be flying away to Glory. In the McLarenite reworking, the emphasis is instead placed upon how “I'll Get Involved” in which the theologian urges the faithful “not to evacuate but to engage and transform”. “Transform” is usually a euphemism how everyone else (with the exception of the religious and cultural elites who will continue to enjoy their posh lifestyles as vanguards of the proletariat in classic Soviet tradition) ought to have what they've worked to accumulate redistributed largely to those that often did not toil away in a similar manner.

Admittedly, there are a number of Christians that are, as is said, so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good. However, one must ask is McLaren's problem with songs that misinterpret Biblical doctrine sound teaching and theology itself?

When “I'll Fly Away” says that when life on Earth is through that the composer will fly away, such a declaration is not a call for the passive resignation and detachment of the Eastern mystics. McLaren would probably have little problem with that spiritual methodology when it came to emphasizing existential inwardness over objective creedal dogma or when the time came to separate people from their possessions during the great redistributive upheaval advocated by religious leftists.

Instead, the song is a realization that life here is short at its longest but that we at least have somewhere else worthwhile to go if we profess Christ as Lord and Savior. That is the essence of divine revelation.

James 4:14 reminds that life is but a vapor. Job 14:1 laments, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.” Psalm 90:10 establishes that the average lifespan is three score and ten years and four with sorrow and suffering.

Yet Jesus assures in John 14:2-3 that He goes to prepare a place for us and that in His Father's house there are many mansions. If, as McLaren seems to teach and imply, the fullness of Christ's kingdom is in the here and now of this world rather than in the future glory of the Celestial City, we had better see what we can do about getting a refund from the Almighty.

To those steeped and even mired in pious verbal formulations, such a sentiment might sound overly blunt as they claim to be satisfied with a Jesus they perceive to be primarily about tender moral axioms. However, I Corinthians 15:19 boldly declares that, if only in this life we have hope, of all those in the world we are the most miserable and pathetic.

McLaren further conveyed that many of these songs that emphasize the transient nature of this temporal existence plant the worldview presuppositions that lead to the environmental abuse that put the planet in peril. But what about McLaren's own globetrotting lifestyle as he hops from location to location spreading his borderline apostasy?

McLaren doesn't simply sit at home writing books or Internet postings to advance his ideology. An inordinate amount of fossil fuels are consumed to enable him to speak at venues as divergent from one another as Australia and Great Britian.

Nor in his days of pastoral ministry was McLaren merely a humble storefront or country preacher. McLaren's suburban Washington congregation (interesting how suburbs are evil when inhabited by those valuing free market exchange but perfectly acceptable when inhabited by Rolls Royce revolutionaries) took what was once a productive farm and converted it into a religious entertainment complex. Yet, in a podcast a few years ago addressing environmental issues, McLaren lamented how it was somehow an abomination in the eyes of God that people live within four square walls.

Every movement that wants to persuade others as to the superiority of a particular set of values at one point or another utilizes music in order to do so. Perhaps it is a sign of the theological bankruptcy of the Emergent Church that its foremost spokesman feels that the only way to do so is to hijack the joyful noise of a tradition on surer dogmatic footing.

By Frederick Meekins