Newsletter



Sunday, June 16, 2019

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Refuses To Pay Reparations But For How Long?

Despite an amount of hand-ringing, groveling, and self flagellation that might make even Phil Donahue say enough already in regards to slavery and the race issue, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is refusing to fork over a hefty sum as reparations to a coalition of assorted activist malcontents.

The Seminary is correct to oppose this ultimatum.

Maybe these denominational functionaries now have an idea how the average pewfiller or frontline pastor feels constantly being clobbered over the head these past few years with this social justice tripe.

But for how long will resolve against this sophisticated form of ideological extortion remain?

After all, it did not take long to get the seminary's president Albert Mohler from one year categorizing C.J. Mahaney as one of his closest friends to the next referring to the controversial founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries with phraseology as if the two were barely acquaintances.

If the Southern Baptist Convention is now passing resolutions praising critical race theory, before his retirement, Albert Mohler will probably have a big smile plastered across his face as he surrenders the seminary's endowment to the equivalent of Al Sharpton who will immediately proceed to squander it.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

One of the fundamental axioms of politics and policy is to never allow a crisis to go to waste. By that, it is meant that, if at all possible, a tragic event should not only be invoked in reference to limit the circumstances surrounding it, but also to taint one's opposition with the ensuing heartache so as to make their own defense against the allegations directed towards them seem callous and insensitive.

An article posted 7/26/18 on the Washington Post website is titled “Why Some Christians Don't Believe In Gun Control: They Think God Handed Down The Second Amendment”. The analysis opens, “We're now at a point when Americans are killed or injured in a mass shooting almost every month...Despite this, resistance to gun control in the United States remains fierce.”

However, blame is not placed on those actually perpetrating such horrific acts of violence. Instead, blame is aimed at those nebulously referred to as “Christian nationalists”.

The author defines Christian nationalism as an ideology that holds to the inseparable bond between Christianity and American civil society. Adherents of the philosophy are accused of believing that America should remain broadly Christian in terms of underlying symbols and policies with the nation's foundational liberties to be understood in terms of a literal and absolute meaning.

Interestingly, the authors of the study point out that adherents of Christian nationalism do not necessarily adhere to a singular interpretative theological tradition. Rather those of this perspective are not only conservative Evangelicals but also traditionalist Catholics or even those that construe existence through a religious lens but do not necessarily practice their faith through formalized church attendance.

Such a definition raises a number of issues and questions perhaps even more important than the right to bear arms. Among these rank why certain technocrats want to eliminate this particular liberty and, conversely, why Americans must not allow this precious freedom to be taken away if they desire to retain those more obvious such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The first presupposition denigrated as going “beyond merely acknowledging some sincere religious commitments of the Founding Fathers” is that America should always be distinctively Christian in terms of national identity. But if the majority in the nation are Christian at least to the degree that they have no problem identifying the institutions of such in terms of origin, why are these obligated to be altered to placate a small cabal of disgruntled secularists?

The next issue raised by the authors of the study that ought to be of concern is opposition to enumerated liberties understood as being divine, literal and absolute.

If rights are not understood as being divine in origin, it follows that these protections must derive then from being bestowed upon the individual by the state as the ultimate authority answerable to nothing higher in a materialistic or naturalistic universe. After all, even if for a moment the institution decides to grant those subject to it a degree of leeway referred to colloquially as “rights”, there is nothing preventing these from being revoked at a moment's notice because of the near monopolistic use of force utilized by the state. For even in a situation where the population has access to basic firearms, these are minuscule in terms of the sorts of munitions available to the state in the era of total war.

Only when rights are construed as being bequeathed upon mankind by God apart from the state can they be perceived as absolute and unchanging. For such a gift would be a reflection of God's absolute perfection and unchanging goodness.

Nor would an honest or descent person want it any other way. For if rights are granted by an individual or institution that is fallible by nature, who is to say that these rights were not mistakes to begin with.

This concern is evidenced in the case of Alex Jones. It has been concluded that a controversialist such as himself must be “deplatformed” for the sake of the social good because of his propensity to disseminate ideas contradictory to the narratives concocted by globalist puppet masters determining what will or will not constitute acceptable factuality.

Most people, even his admirers, will eventually admit that Jones has said shocking and outrageous things over the years. But what if this government that can adapt the scope of the allowable in order to calibrate what the technocrats conclude is the sort of society that they desire decide to contract the boundaries of permissible utterances further?

Believe that Jesus is the only path to Heaven? But if rights do not exist above the material world, what if a government concludes such cannot be said for fear of undermining the sense of equality of those residing within its jurisdiction? Unless the people are allowed to retain some kind of tangible check on such power run amok.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #122

Students at a Minneapolis high school are under investigation for holding a “patriotic black out” where the participants adorned themselves in red, white and blue regalia while a number also clung to a Trump 2020 reelection banner. The complaint was instigated by the coach of the visiting team that stayed in the locker room during the national anthem. So if it is their First Amendment Right to disrespect the flag in this manner, why don’t the students have a First Amendment Right to support the flag and anthem? Likewise, if students can be investigated for supporting the flag as a preparatory step towards punitive disciplinary measures, shouldn’t similar steps be taken against those that deliberately snubbed their noses at this nation’s most rudimentary symbols?

Regarding the senile Indian that beat his tomtom while a Catholic student who did little more than look on with a bewildered smirk was initially tossed to the wolves by operatives of his diocese . What does being a veteran have to do with the issue? In that case, are Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McViegh deserving of extra sympathy for simply being veterans?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has decreed that a system that allows for the existence of billionaires is immoral. But isn’t a system immoral when it imposes so many regulations and confiscatory assessments that the individual of average intelligence and ability is discouraged to the point of no longer striving to better themselves or expending the effort to accumulate wealth for the fear of being destroyed for violating these byzantine obligations?

In his criticism of the purity movement, a homeschool activist applauds his grandmother for getting married at the age of 15. So if this is to be allowed nowadays in Christian settings, will these young couples be expected to provide for themselves? Or, as in the case of many missionaries, is everybody else going to be guilt-tripped into providing those with outstretched hands and superiority complexes?

In his condemnation of the unmarried, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that our primary concern ought to be keeping the commandments of God and that likely means that our children are to be married. In other words, getting children married is not about their individual happiness or personal well being. Rather it is apparently about children existing to mollify the psycho-spiritual quirks and mental deficiencies of their parents. Along with that, Swanson warned that Christians must not get sucked into romantic or idealistic conceptions of marriage and instead view the institution as a tool (much like haired shirt one supposes) to mortify the flesh. In other words, kids ought to smacked up side the head (probably literally in the minds of some acolytes of this extremist form of pedagogy) if they refuse to settle for a mediocre partner they are less than enthused about and must apparently acquiesce to because of their parents diminished sense of self-worth.

In condemnation of fantasy films, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson upheld as praiseworthy a movie detailing a massacre of early Virginian colonists on the part of American Indians. But why is it acceptable to examine the moral implications of those sorts of actions in the light of that described narrative but instead inappropriate to contemplate a similar ethical situation in the form of Thanos’ use of the Infinity Gauntlet?

Regarding the alleged assault against actor Jussie Smollett, Joe Biden tweeted that such attacks must never be tolerated in this country. Did the former Vice President ever issue similar statements against the knockout game where urban youth predominantly selected White victims euphemistically referred to as “polar bears” or in regards to activist hordes looting private property in response to unpopular police actions or jury verdicts?

The Governor of Virginia pontificated that, since most legislators are men, they should stay out of the abortion debate. Applying similar reasoning, does that mean women should remain silent regarding the formulations for determining child support since it is usually men paying it?

The 1/30/19 Washington Post announced that Rand Paul was awarded $580,000 in a lawsuit over injuries sustained in an attack by his neighbor over a landscaping dispute. The story also pointed out that the perpetrator spent a month in jail for assaulting a member of Congress. As a good libertarian, shouldn’t Paul be opposed to an increase in penalty based upon the station of the victim when the crime was not necessarily motivated by the elected office held by the victim? Likewise, did Joe Biden issue a statement how neighbors physically attacking neighbors cannot be tolerated in this country? Guess Rand Paul is neither gay or Black enough to warrant such additional sympathy.

Sophisticates across the political spectrum are warning that Trump’s border national emergency will open the door to dictatorship. So where were these voices when their beloved Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were drawing up plans to suspend the Constitution, seize private property, and to conscript the civilian population into slave labor details? Aren’t the political figures that formulated these sorts of procedures as much at fault as any office holder that might implement any power already on the books?

Alaska airlines is threatening to hire more minority pilots. So pandering to activists is apparently more important than successfully transporting aircraft from point A to point B.

Regarding the weather forecast. The way the meteorologist is referencing the transition of snow to rain as "the change over" sounds more like a report on menopause.

Presidential contender Kamala Harris assures that the New Green Deal is more something to aspire to rather than concrete policy proposals to actually implement. So she wants an America where people will not be allowed to eat meat or fly? Can it be explained why it is an outrage to erect barriers to keep out those that have no right to be here but perfectly acceptable to impede the travel within designated borders of those sanctioned to be within a particular territory?

Bernie Sanders raised nearly a million dollars just hours after announcing his latest presidential bid. As a good socialist, shouldn’t he insist that these funds be seized and redistributed to less successful candidates?

by Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Diversity Fanatics Manipulate History Not For Education But To Advance Agenda Narrative

There is no pleasing diversity fanatics.

These subversives constantly harp the shortcomings of the past in the hopes of disgusting the otherwise undiscerning into going along with the pending revolution to collapse what remains of America's constitutional liberties.

Now, the First Lady of Virginia Pamela Northam is accused of a thought crime for handling a legislative page a piece of cotton during a tour of the Governor's Mansion and asking the student to imagine what it would be like to be enslaved and forced to pick that all day.

Is not that the entire point of history, to try and better understand as much as possible what those in he past endured?

One must ask then what exactly was it that Mrs. Northam did so wrong?

Try and prompt someone to try and think for themselves rather than reflexively respond in a manner as commanded by social engineers?

A complaint letter --- not even written by one of the students to whom the cotton was handed which also included Whites as well ---- states that the First Lady of Virginia's presentation made one of the delicate snowflakes within eartshot “uncomfortable”.

So how is that worse than what the average American feels every time these regrettable transgressions of the past are invoked to justify developments such as looting after unpopular trial verdicts and the expansion of social programs that will plunge the nation further into a debt spiral from which it will likely never recover?

So what is it going to be?

Are we going to reemphasize the negativity of the past to the point where the positive things we do have as a country are forgotten or are we to ignore them entirely because some have so pandered to the aggrieved so spoiled by unmerited concessions that the fawning attention demanded now overwhelms them?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Reparations A Down Payment On National Decline

History teaches that, when candidates are swept into office largely as a result of promising the electorate significant outlays from the treasury, the particular regime in question is at its death knell and on the verge of collapse.

In an attempt to pander to Blacks in this sort of manner, Elizabeth Warren --- identified by Reuters in the account of this policy proposal as White so we can be relieved that the leftist press has settled this brouhaha as to whether or not she's actually an American Indian --- has come out in favor of reparations.

In particular, the Senator is backing legislation that would assist minorities in making a down payment on a house.

But if it is wrong to deny someone access to housing on the basis of race, why is it right to assist an individual to procure housing when it is obvious that the person does not deserve to own a house on the basis of meritorious achievement?

Conversely, why is a Rustbelt or Appalachian White barely getting by as a box store cashier obligated to provide the taxes so the likes of Jussie Smollet, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson can be provided a down payment on a house?

If targeted populations were lavished with these handouts, would they shut up once and for all regarding historic mistreatments they never directly suffered or will they continue to invoke these in the ongoing attempt to extort additional concessions from gullible and easily manipulated Whites?

Providing government housing to vast swathes of the population benefits neither those it is lavished upon nor the areas in which such individuals come to reside.

The squalor endemic to numerous public housing projects is testament to this truth.

If Elizabeth Warren really was an Indian, you'd think she'd already be familiar with this sad reality.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Vocations Of Magistrate & Missionary Divergent At Core

For decades, secularist and religious progressives have urged their more theologically conservative counterparts to recognize a distinction between those that administer the affairs of the state and those that administer the affairs of faith.

However, with the Trump Presidency, it has become evident that what is meant by that admonition is that those that hold to traditional notions of piety are instead obligated to surrender to leftwing policy proposals.

This is particularly evident in an article posted at CNN.com titled “Why evangelicals should rethink Trump gospel”.

For example, the article says, “The Great Commission assumes the the faithful make disciples everywhere, including so-called S-hole countries.”

No Christian says otherwise.

However, the vocation of the President is not that of the frontline missionary.

The role of the President foremostly is to protect the well being of the nation he governs and those legally dwelling within its boundaries.

Nowhere in Scripture are entire nations obligated to lower their standard of living because others are insufficiently governed.

One of the most prominent critics of the Trump Presidency is none other than Pope Francis.

So before CNN gets on its high horse about Evangelical voters, if the Pope is such a fan of unbridled immigration and refugees, shouldn't the world's most influential media organization ask why the physical holdings of the Vatican are not being utilized to house these weary souls but instead remain open as what is essentially one of the world's oldest tourist traps?

God is not the one that needs those finely furnished structures.

After all, Acts 7:48 assures that God does not dwell in houses built by the hands of man.

Perhaps as the alleged Vicar of Christ, it is about time the Pope did the same.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Monday, February 11, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #121

Did the ones tossing a fit about the emoluments clause of the Constitution supposedly being violated by President Trump get similarly jacked out of shape over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton profiting from the Uranium One deal or contributions made by certain regimes with notorious human rights records to the Clinton Foundation?

On the one hand, one wants to rush to the defense of Veggie Tales for being accused of fostering racism. On the other, one cannot help but burst out laughing thinking their creator got exactly what he deserves for the inordinate amount of time he spends on his podcast vocalizing Emergent church style White guilt.

The Violence Against Women Act is up for congressional reauthorization. Where is the Violence Against Men Act? Are men that have scalding water thrown on them by their wives somehow not as burned as a woman having the same thing done to her by her husband? The fact that women might more often be the victims of this unacceptable sort of behavior is a moot point. For are not these progressives usually the ones that drone on about a single victim being one too many when it comes to justifying their niche and intrusive agenda proposals?

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer find walls to be so immoral and that ingress towards particular destinations should instead be encouraged, does the duo intend to advocate for the removal of physical barriers impeding access to the Capitol?

If Kapernick is so opposed for what the flag stands for that he refuses to stand for the National Anthem, why is he considering playing for the very team that his political allies indoctrinate the public into believing is the epitome of oppression and insensitivity, namely the Washington Redskins?

Diversity fanatics went ballistic over a photo of a White model wearing a Black Panther sweater. Where will this stupidity end? Applying this standard, must one possess nearly genius I Q before wearing a Reed Richards’ Fantastic Four t-shirt? Does one not only have to be a genius but also proficient in in snark and sarcasm before being allowed to wear anything with an Iron Man logo? Must one be blind in one eye before being allowed to don anything alluding to Nick Fury? Even more importantly, why aren’t those objecting to cultural misappropriation and such still not outraged over the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. being switched from White to Black in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with racial awareness is to be the utmost priority in regards to the enjoyment of speculative costumed narrative? Along similar lines, isn’t casting Idris Elba as the character Heimdall in the Thor movies offensive to the practitioners of Nordic spirituality?

The Leah Remini episode regarding Scientology’s infusion into the National Of Islam was interesting. However, it was a bit disingenuous in overlooking the interest in extraterrestrials shared by both sects.

It is unfortunate that an 8 year old Guatemalan boy died at the border. But if his parents refused the offered medical treatment, isn't that their fault rather than Donald Trump's?

Regarding those in apoplexy over Trump threatening to invoke “emergency powers” to build the Great Wall of America. Did they ever lift a finger in response to tyrannical executive orders already on the books that would allow the federal government in a time of concocted crisis to not only seize any resource it desired but to also conscript and relocate vast swathes of the population into what would amount to a civilian slave labor force?

It is a shame that the establishmentarian media is not as jacked out of shape over multiple presidential administrations failing to secure the border as over a single president perhaps mischaracterizing what his predecessors might have said regarding his proposal to address this gaping hole in national security.

If no civilization or nation is superior to any other as has been hypothesized by the ostracism of Rep. Steve King from committee life, why do the migrant hordes press ever onward to violate Western borders?

Biologically, all humans are equal. However, in terms of the way they live, some civilizations are indisputably superior others.

Now that the House of Representatives has taken a self-congratulatory stand against “White sumpremacism and nationalism”, will Nancy Pelosi be as decisive in imposing condemnation and ostracism on Rashida Tlaib for having her photo taken with a Hezbollah operative?

A California Bible Presbyterian Church has dismissed its pastor over a message on its church sign reading “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.” The founder of the Bible Presbyterian movement, Carl McIntire, would be rolling in his grave. For despite his faults, Carl McIntire never backed down from a fight, especially when divinely revealed truth was on the line. Bruce Jenner might have mutilated his genitals and defaced his biochemistry with the injection of certain hormones. But that individual’s underlying genetic structure is still composed of an XY pairing of chromosomes. So what of other previously undeniable truths of Scripture or of nature’s God is this Bible Presbyterian congregation willing to surrender for the sake of social utility or cultural convenience? Will Jesus no longer be upheld as divine once the Islamists pull into town?

A Harvard panel discussion posted on Youtube is titled “The Future Of News: Journalism In A Post-Truth Era”. The moderator begins with a lament how this topic is of great urgency to the survival of our democracy. This is in large part, she continues, do to the erosion of fact. But wasn’t it just a few short years ago that academics and intellectuals of the variety lavished with endowed professorships at elite universities were at the forefront insisting that truth did not exist? Any insistence that facts as objective descriptions of reality was to impose White male heteronormative cognitive preferences upon those disposed towards alternative modalities of conceptualization. After all, just recently the darling upon whom these sorts pin their political aspirations in the hopes of setting the world right anew, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, admonished that the facts don’t matter when you are morally right.

If the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Electoral College in order to prevent smaller states from thwarting the will of the majority, why can’t the Constitution be amended so that smaller states can withdraw from the Union so citizens there do not have California or New York values imposed upon them against their will?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network