Newsletter



Monday, January 20, 2020

Greatest Story Ever Told's Opening Act Tweaked To Advance Leftwing Agenda

In the frantic effort to co-opt all of culture to advance the cause of comprehensive revolution, not even the symbols of the sacred and solemn are immune from being hijacked for the purposes of advancing the agenda. In fact, it is often the only time that otherwise intended for destruction will be tolerated by those already having pledged their loyalty to the one bent upon toppling the Most High.

According to a story published in the 12/9/19 edition of USA Today, a Methodist church in California erected a Nativity depicting Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as detained refugees. Apparently, this is not the first time the congregation has utilized what ought to be a reverent display to propagandize on behalf of a faddish social cause.

According to the pastrix, the previous year's addressed the California homeless crisis. The 2019 version wanted the beholding to imagine Mary, Joseph, and Jesus separated at a Trumpian detention center in juxtaposition with the presupposition that “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.” It seems this holiday display compounds the factual and philosophical fallacies and omissions one year to the next.

The first of these needing to be addressed is the issue of California's homeless problem. Foremostly, Mary and Joseph were not homeless. The couple anticipating the Messianic child were ordered by Roman decree to travel from their home in Nazareth to the town of their ancestors for the purposes of registering with the census and paying their taxes.

If the congregation wants to do more than posture, preen, and virtue signal as to how bad they feel about the homeless epidemic, perhaps they would do well to reflect upon what is causing this lamentable crisis. They might be surprised to learn that the sort of progressivism likely embraced by many attending this sort of church has exacerbated the situation.

For example, since easing the restrictions on cannabis across America (supposedly for so called “medicinal purposes” even for patiences not suffering metastasized cancer, seizure disorders, or glaucoma but usually for nothing more than lazy ass syndrome).homeless rates have skyrocketed noticeably. For often those for whom the consumption of this intoxicant has become the central organizing facet of their existence find it a challenge to keep themselves satisfactorily employed and domiciled.

One can legitimately debate the role to be played by government and/or charity in addressing this issue. However, it will not be resolved --- something that elites might not even want to see transpire as a number paradoxically have a vested interest in seeing that the problem remains ongoing ---- unless individual responsibility and choices are recognized for the role they play in terms of ruined lives.

Though the Holy Family was not homeless in the terms of having no designated locality of habitation once their business with the regime had been concluded, if we want to take the presuppositions as expressed by the interpretative spin of this particular Nativity to their logical conclusion, do the statists possess the conviction to point out the implications of California's infamous taxation and regulatory bureaucracy upon the homeless situation?

For if the taxes and level of government intrusion beyond basic safety becomes too great, businesses will either close or leave California. In turn, those working for these enterprises will end up losing their jobs. That could result in the forfeiture of their homes if there are not a sufficient number of open positions in which the occupationally displaced can find reemployment.

Often in America, if one found themselves in a situation where they could not find employment to their liking, there was always the possibility of making one's own job through some sort of entrepreneurial undertaking. However, given the extent to which government has come to exert punitive influence over nearly every aspect of life to the point that in order to sell doodads at a flea market one has to beseech a permit and then often have to preemptively estimate before hand how much revenue might be generated from such transactions one could easily be discouraged from pursuing the very forms of basic commerce that could have prevented one's plunge into destitution.

The reflection put into the display depicting the Holy Family as detained refugees is no better than the narrative casting them as typical homeless. The press statement referring to the figurines depicted in this manner states, “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.”

Jesus did emphasize kindness and mercy. However, He just as much emphasized that these qualities can only be extended when certain conditions are met. For the same corpus of divine revelation proclaiming the salvation found in Christ also just as explicitly extols “let all things be done decently and in order.”

It is because kindness and mercy play such a central role in Christian ethical thought that the nation is justified in exerting stringent oversight in regards to whom it will decide to grant entrance.

In terms of kindness, a government of a particular territory is obligated to extend this firstly and foremostly to those residing legally within the confines of its accepted borders. This is accomplished on the most rudimentary level by making sure those seeking to enter the territory under its protection intend that territory and those residing within no harm.

To those accustomed to living a comfortable existence in a nation relatively safe when compared to numerous others, detaining and separating families might not seem very kind or merciful. But given the circumstances, the United States should be commended for the merciful restraint that it does extend as a nation.

For example, if kindness and mercy were not priorities, the United States could very easily plant a minefield along the border without concern for what happens to any daring to cross it, with snipers standing ready to pick off any survivors happening to make it across such a daunting obstacle. But America is such an upstanding nation that the country has decided not to defend itself in such a manner out of a concern for the innate dignity of all human beings.

Relatedly, it must also be asked was it an act of kindness and mercy to create a situation where droves are apparently under the impression that all they had to do not only be allowed admission but also lavished with extensive (and the case could be made even extravagant) benefits was simply showing up with an outstretched hand? Such lawlessness is a boon to neither newcomer or longstanding citizen alike.

Given that, overall, Americans are a kindhearted and sympathetic sort, those skilled at manipulating the narrative in the direction of predetermined ends have made use of images depicting children ---- a number appearing to be quite young --- detained in locked cages with nary a parent in sight. Admittedly, such a situation is far from ideal. Yet in light of the circumstances, the policy could very well be the kindest and most merciful thing that can be done in this particular circumstance.

Firstly, there is often little proof that these children actually belong to the adults that are just about using them as human shields in the hopes of sneaking them past what are assumed to be dimwitted and softhearted border patrol officers. For all we know these urchins could very well be in transit by human traffickers to lives of sex slavery and prostitution.

Thus, do not the mercy and kindness called for on the part of Claremont United Methodist Church demand that these identification and relationship claims be proven and verified? After all, were not actual Americans put through similar wringers when forced to authenticate themselves before being granted documents in compliance with the Real ID Act required in order to continue their lives as fully recognized residents and citizens of the territorial United States?

It could be responded but why must children be separated from their parents during the detention process? But would it be an act of kindness or mercy to leave these vulnerable individuals even with their alleged parents in facilities just as likely to contain the perverted dregs as well as the noble destitute from the society from which both classes are fleeing?

Those na├»ve as to how the world actually works would likely reply, “At least allow these children to remain with their mothers even if they have to be separated from their fathers to protect children from predatory men.” Like it or not, at this time under United States law to enter into the country without proper authorization is still a crime.

As such, if the children of those accused of this act get to remain with their parents throughout detention, why do not actual American children get to remain with their parents then they are taken into custody for other criminal violations? Do these so-called “human rights” activists intend to articulate a similar degree of outrage over parents arrested for failing to comply with vaccination requirements or on behalf of the German family arrested there for homeschooling and denied asylum by the Obama regime because the family happened to adhere to Christianity rather than one of the forms of Third World heathenism lavished with accolades by the otherwise godless adherents of secularist multicultrualism?

The Reverend Ristine's comment closes in the article with the remark “a radical welcome of all people.” But just how radical is the welcome that would be extended by Rev. Ristine and the Claremont United Methodist Church?

For example, some churches along with others in their areas on certain nights in the winter allow the homeless to shelter in a designated building to get these individuals out of the cold. So what if Claremont United Methodist Church agreed to take in a certain number and a dozen more than planned forced their way into the building, proceeding to use the facilities in a way that was wantonly deleterious or even explicitly disrespectful of the graciousness extended by the hosts? Would the congregation be required to allow these souls to urinate in the baptistry or defecate in the pews since interdicting such behavior might be interpreted as contradicting the “radical welcome of Jesus”?

The Claremont United Methodist Church is first and foremost a church. As such, central to its identity is a scheduled weekly time of worship where the agreed upon leaders of the congregation provide a didactic oration usually accompanied by music of a style those assembled deem appropriate.

Thus, what if a group came into the sanctuary without prior authorization and proceeded to drone on incessantly about the imperative of reelecting President Trump? Better yet, what if the uninvited interrupted the otherwise orderly execution of the liturgy (particularly during Rev. Ristine's homily) with an exegesis elaborating their understanding how certain Scriptural texts are correctly interpreted as forbidding women from the ranks of the ordained clergy?

A church has the right to say, “Look, we will allow you to enter our arms welcoming you. But there are rules you will be required to abide by. If not, we are going to have to ask you to leave and you won't be allowed to come in.” As such, does not something similar apply to other social institutions as well?

It might not be the place of government to decide complex questions of theology. Yet inversely, as part of its mandate, the state has the obligation to be not quite as welcoming as the church as its primary function is to ensure that those existing within specified boundaries do not pose a viable threat and that a set of objective standards are adhered to in order to prevent widespread social breakdown.

There can be debate as to how stringent these ought to be in a society endeavoring to balance the needs of liberty and security. Yet to argue that the welcome must be so broad as to allow all arrivals irrespective of intent is to invite nothing but the destruction of what made this land a relative oasis amidst a troubled world in the first place.

Often President Trump addresses the hard truths that face the nation in a manner that some might construe as blunt or inartful. It must be admitted ---- something that he himself at one point refused to do when he insisted that he had never done anything in need of divine forgiveness ----- that he suffers (as do we all) from any number of flaws. However, his sincerity in wanting to see the borders of the United States protected for the benefit of all cannot be denied and should be applauded by all that profess to love America.

By Frederick Meekins

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

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