Newsletter



Monday, April 16, 2018

Municipalities Take Aim At Basic Liberties

Municipalities Take Aim At Basic Liberties

The town of Deerfield, Illinois has enacted a regulation banning assault weapons.

Those violating the ban could face fines of up to $1000 per day.

Will progressives that tossed a fit over Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking it upon himself to enforce the national immigration laws that the federal government refused to get as worked up over mere town ordinances contradicting what might be allowed under state and federal law?

What other products otherwise perfectly legal in a state might municipal aldermen take upon themselves to ban?

For motorist safety, what if a town decided to forbid residents from owning compact automobiles that rolled off the assembly line after a given year since in traffic accidents such vehicles often have about as much structural integrity as the average soda can?

What, if in order to protect pedestrians, a town passed legislation insisting that smartphones present such a threat of distraction that it is not enough to restrict when these devices can be used but that these gadgets must be banned altogether within the boundaries of a specified jurisdiction?

While we are at it, if local authorities possess the power to ban products deemed legal by the state granting the municipality the right to exist in the first place, why not certain behaviors or even relationships?

 For example, if the representatives of Deefield, Illinois insist that if those electing them to office want to live in a town without firearms it is their right to do so irrespective of how neighboring jurisdictions might decide to order their own affairs, on what grounds then should some backwoods enclave be forbidden from retaining laws against sodomy or promulgating a decree refusing to accept the validity of gay marriage?

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, April 10, 2018

Ingraham Insufficiently Deviant For Leftists To Defend Her Speech

The world has about come unhinged over Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham for daring to poke a little fun at a petulant youth known to excoriate with the vilest of profanities those reluctant to embrace his policy proposals demanding the abandonment of centuries of constitutional theory deemed fouler than his acute potty mouth.

The font of deliberative political contemplation, GQ Magazine, has posted a column in support of the Ingraham boycott titled “Boycotting Ingraham Is Patriotic”.

Yet those assenting to this sentiment are the very sorts of thinkers that would condemn the Census for tabulating how many within the boundaries of the United States are actually citizens.

But if it is inappropriate to classify who is and is not of a particular jurisdiction --- the most basic of functions in establishing the foundations of a nation/state --- isn't the concept of patriotism --- the idea that a set of principles in large part derived from a particular geography inhabited by a specific sort of people is superior to all others --- even more verboten?

GQ is celebrating the decentralized justice inherent to a boycott as about the purest form of free expression imaginable.

After all, consumers are not obligated to bestow their funds upon someone advocating a set of values that they find abhorrent.

Likewise, Ingraham is not entitled to be lavished with these funds.

Interesting, though, how amongst postmodernist hordes this realization is a one way street.

For would the editorial staff of GQ Magazine as eagerly applaud a boycott organized by a Christian cabal seeking to impose their particular ethical idiosyncrasies in a way that would implement comprehensive revolutionary change across the entire culture even if a significant percentage was still not amenable to such a fundamental alteration of the social compact.

After all, those now threatening social upheaval are the children of many who denounced Pat Buchanan's culture war oration at the 1992 Republican convention.

At the time, opponents of the pious populist insisted that absolute objective values did not exist and, even if they did, it was not the place of cultural institutions to advocate on behalf of or to enforce a hegemony of values.

Of Lady Ingraham's status within the ongoing civic discussion, the enlightened archons of GQ assure the unsettled of weak mind, “Laura Ingraham remains as empowered as ever to impart her bad takes, whether to viewers on Fox News or to passer-bys on the street, without fear of being arrested by agents of the state.” But for how long?

Already the right of free expression --- deliberately enshrined among the first protections of the Bill of Rights --- is restricted in the presence of those seeking an abortion --- a procedure that honest jurists are compelled to admit cannot be found clearly delineated anywhere in this charter document but rather only in interpretative penumbras of it.

In the case of Lara Ingraham still enjoying her innate liberties as a free citizen despite being economically inconvenienced, how is that less of an outrage than the gay couple denied the wedding cake by the Christian baker?

In the transaction dragged before the judicial system, no one prevented the couple from the state granting its official recognition of their unnatural liaison.

The only thing they would have had to have endured was the search for a baker willing to provide it, which would have cost considerably less that the advertising revenue rescinded from Fox News.

So why are some forms of speech worthy of protection and some not the part of the most vociferously insistent that the most egregious imposition imaginable is to somehow insist that someone else's truth might not be quite as true as initially suspected?

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 4, 2018

No Hell for Pope Francis

Once again, Pope Francis the False Prophet is at it again. Frankie the Fakesymbolizes the betrayal of Christendom and the sacred teachings of Jesus Christ. He is the perfect disciple of Satan as this wicked world rapidly achieves an evil Zion that stretches across the planet. Ever since Cain killed Able the depraved nature of a fallen species has flourished over the righteous choices of free will. Billions of deaths have occurred as murder became the universal instrument of human destruction by all barbarians, from every era of history. Now this deceptive Pharisee Judas announces that "Bad souls “are not punished,” Pope Francis is quoted, “those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”

Well, if there was ever a Pontiff that rejected repentance, Francis is the embodiment of this new age of hedonism. The popular Debunking the myth of hell is expressed by Carol Meyer in The National Catholic Reporter.

"I don’t care if scripture mentions hell or Jesus talked about it, if saints had visions of it, or if it’s a time-honored Catholic teaching. It simply can’t be justified on any level. We have no proof of its existence. It doesn’t work as a preventative for wrong. Fear is the lowest form of motivation in moral development, and has probably been more the cause of the terrible crimes of humanity than any deterrent. People laugh and joke about burning in hell and draw cartoons about it, but almost no one takes it seriously."

One can easily see Pope Francis agreeing that hell is a caricature of fear, no matter what Jesus Christ aforementioned on the condemnation for sin. Why be surprised, since the Socialist Pope rejects our Savior for the teaching of the Marxist secularists.

By disavowing the nature of an immoral soul, the entire purpose of divine creation is denied by this heretic. The consequence from the reputation in the Gospels of Jesus, results in a rejection in the entire New Testament message.

For the self absorbed and narcissistic indulgent, such a refutation offers only empty gratification and ultimate social relativism. The state of world affairs is beyond salvation when the gift of redemption is rejected.

The Catholic Church has always been preoccupied with its own political power. Such a departure from intellectual scholarship and tenets founded upon spiritual canons of the Gospels has harmed the spreading of the testaments and the covenant, between God and man.

Papal doctrines and dogmas have fallen short of the literal word of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostolic church has maintained traditional precepts formally adopted in the Nicene Creed. Accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah as the complete fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament is fundamental to the faith.

Such historic basic recognitions within the Eastern Church and most Protestant Dominations share this belief with the Latin Church. However, variances about the character of our created spiritual being, illustrates that reason alone is unable to achieve pure perfection in the knowledge of the metaphysical composition and immortality of the soul.      

Pope Francis admissions are most disturbing on a cardinal level. In order to counter these charges against sacrilege, the Vatican issued a denial. Don’t trust report that Pope Francis denied reality of hell.

“What is reported by the author in today’s article is the result of his reconstruction, in which the literal words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”

Scalfari, a self-proclaimed atheist, is the founder and former editor of Italian leftist newspaper La Repubblica. In an article published on the site March 29, Scalfari claims that Pope Francis told him, “hell doesn’t exist, the disappearance of the souls of sinners exists.”

Scalfari’s fifth meeting with Pope Francis, it is not the first time he has misrepresented the Pope’s words following a private audience."

If the remarks attributed to Francis by Scalfari are so misleading, why has he been granted all these interviews? Let's not distract from the essential reality, that the sympathies and alliance between Pope Francis and the worshipers of Baal who make up the New World Order are the embodiment of demons in the service of Beelzebub.

Christians of every denomination share a basic belief in the salvation from the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. For those who do not accept HIS sacrifice, what would be the point of accepting the grace of redemption? If one rejects the promise of eternal life, it would be much easier to deny the punishment of hell.

For a list of reasons for scorning the torture of hell, read Why is the idea of eternal damnation so repulsive to many people? Pope Francis in not a spiritual Pontiff. He is an apparatchik of his fellow travelers. His pronouncements deny The Theology Of Hell And Damnation. For A Defense Of The Traditional Christian Doctrine Of Hell, listen to the presentation by Dr. Scott M. Sullivan.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has committed more damage to Christianity and especially to the Catholic Church than any other Bishop of Rome. The Heresy Charges Against Pope Francis are an unprecedented condemnation in modern times.

A list of Heresy charges follows:

"Last September, a group of 62 clergy and lay scholars took the rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a “Filial Correction,” charging him with permitting the spread of seven heresies, at least by omission, about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments.

The filial correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, was delivered to the Pope at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017. No similar action has taken place within the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, when Pope John XXII was admonished for errors which he later recanted on his deathbed.

Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” the group of clergy and lay scholars “respectfully insist[ed]” that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that, in their view, he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.

The initiative provoked admiration and consternation among Catholics and drew considerable attention in secular media outlets — including the AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, and Daily Mail.

The number of signatories quickly grew to 250 scholars, some from prominent institutions around the world. Pope Francis has issued no response. (Ibid.)"

Whatever the accuracy or lack thereof, the sentiments of Pope Francis are consistently erratic. If this is the reputation of the hellfire method of Papal Infallibility, the Church needs to bring back Pope Benedict XVI and relegate Francis to a retreat. Since Hades does not exist for this heretic, his sinful soul will just disappear.


"During a visit to Bolivia in 2015, he described unbridled capitalism as the “dung of the devil,” condemned the impoverishment of developing countries by the world economic order and apologized for the church’s treatment of native Americans. His departure from some Church precepts on family and social issues has roiled the mainly conservative Catholic hierarchy. In Sep 2016 four cardinals issued a formal correction of views the pope had expressed in his Amoris Laetitia. In Sep 2017, more than 60 Catholic scholars signed a document that alleged that Pope Francis had committed seven heresies regarding his teachings on divorce and remarriage and moral relativism. For conservatives, the pontiff’s announcement in 2015 that priests around the world would be allowed to forgive the “sin of abortion” during a “year of mercy” from Dec 8, 2015, ranked as virtually unforgivable. The pope did hew to Catholic dictates when he described birth control as a sin, but stepped back from it with the view that Catholics need not reproduce “like rabbits.” The liberation theology movement gained strength in Latin America during the 1970s, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of their insistence that ministry should include involvement in the political struggle of the poor against wealthy elites, liberation theologians were often criticized inside and outside the Catholic Church as naive purveyors of Marxism and advocates of leftist social activism. By the 1990s the Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, had begun to curb the movement’s influence through the appointment of conservative prelates in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. Prior to the 2013 papal conclave, Pope Francis had served as both archbishop and cardinal in Argentina for more than 12 years. He was the first citizen from the Americas, the first non-European and first Jesuit priest to be named pope."

As they say for the rest of the story, the souls of his leftist followers are already condemned. Remember what J.P. Sartre said "Hell is -- other people!"


SARTRE - April 3, 2018

Read the entire article on the Solitary Purdah archives

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

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Southern Baptist Convention Undermined By Russell Moore's Propensity Towards Compromise

Granted, in response to what was seen as encroaching apostasy and unbelief eroding both strong moral and sound doctrine, Fundamentalism at times presented a militant brand of conservative Protestantism that could could occasionally be construed as a bit gruff around the edges. In such circles, a soft answer was not necessarily perceived as turning away wrath as admonished by Proverbs 15:1 but rather as a sign of spiritual weakness and, even worse, possible compromise.

In what is categorized as the nation's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention serves as an interesting sociological barometer in terms of what direction ideological winds tend to be blowing. For example early in the twentieth century, the ecclesiastical association nearly succumbed to the temptations of liberalism and modernism only to be pulled back from this brink by a conservative resurgence that coincided with the ascent of Reaganism on through the Republican Party taking both houses of Congress in the 1990's.

Now it seems the tide might once again be receding. Those that have in a sense grown up in an environment characterized as overwhelmingly religious are tempted to surrender the ground gained as a form of repentance in their minds for certain admitted excesses and as a way to promote the peace and toleration always being yelled about in one's ear.

In his early 40's as of this writing in late 2017, Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Theological Seminary and now the Ethics and Public Policy Commission is often fawned over as a prominent young leader who could very likely shape the Southern Baptist Convention throughout the course of much of the twenty-first century. If that is the case, conservative Baptists mind end up finding themselves betrayed on what could very well be a sinking ship.

Without a doubt, Russell Moore professes those fundamentals of the faith necessary to assure the individual of salvation in Christ and eternity in Heaven. But it is in those areas where it is easy to compromise for broad approval and applause that Dr. Moore presents the greater spiritual danger.

I Corinthians 9:22 counsels to be all things to all men. By this, it is believed that the Gospel message can be adapted within certain parameters or presented in such a way that addresses individuals in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves.

The problem with Russell Moore and an increasing number within Evangelical Christianity in general and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular is the growing conviction that, in order to appeal to what is perceived as untapped demographics, professional religionists must go out of there way to publicly denigrate those expected to financially sponsor these outreach efforts. And in so doing, one is expected to turn one's back on much of the foundation that was laid as the foundation that got us to where we are today.

This is particularly evident in Russell Moore's response to the Trayvon Martin incident. As someone that presents himself not only as a clergyman but as someone that also makes his comfortable living as such, one might think Russell Moore would have endeavored to remain above the fray in regards to such an issue by calling for cooler heads to prevail or to point out how quickly individual lives can be lost.

Instead, Moore came out quite publicly in favor of Trayvon Martin and against George Zimmerman. The mouthpiece of Southern Baptist public policy is quoted in the 7/16/13 edition of the Washington Post as saying, “Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong.

Perhaps we really should consider what transpired and especially what it was that Trayvon Martin was doing the moment his life ended.

From what the judicial process has been able to establish, Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman and delivering blows to the head that could have resulted in permanent injury and even death. Why does the criteria Moore invokes to defend Martin not apply to protect Zimmerman in this incident as well?

For example, according to Moore, the chain of events began when Zimmerman disembarked from the vehicle. That may or may not have been the wisest course of action. However, that was probably more legal and less suspicious than Martin zig-zagging late at night in and out of people's yards like a drunk or reefer addict up to no good.

So if Zimmerman committed a great wrong by laying his hands on Martin, why should Martin be exonerated for attacking Zimmerman who was doing nothing worse than perambulating over a public thoroughfare? However, it is apparently not enough for Moore to simply side perhaps with the party that did not have access to a fire arm in this altercation.

One can barely find a piece of direct mail promotional newsletter propaganda these days that does not go out of its way to denigrate White people for simply being white. A considerable number of these ecclesiastical functionaries have adopted a rhetoric of White guilt more typically emanating from the likes of Phil Donahue and Woody Allen that from behind a Dixie pulpit. One of the foremost practitioners of this victimization narrative is none other than Russell Moore.

To the analysis of the Trayvon Martin issue, Russell Moore added, “And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it related to African Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think makes for a huge crisis.” Moore further observes, “Most white evangelicals...are seeing [the Martin case] microscopically and most African Americans are seeing it macroscopically. Most white Americans say we don't know what happened that night and they are missing the point.”

As dumb as Whites are depicted now by the hierarchs of the Southern Baptist Convention, it's a wonder they are able to drop their tithe into the collection plate. But perhaps it is because of such stupidity that Whites so flagrantly mocked don't take their religious dollars elsewhere.

Notice that nowhere in those comments did Moore ponder that Trayvon Martin might have been as high as a kite or that George Zimmerman might have taken the only course of action that would have preserved his own life. If Moore is going to be this discombobulated over matters of race and ethnicty to the point where in matters of law enforcement and civil adjudication that the primary concern is not so much that of an individual's guilt or innocence in terms of committing a certain act but rather on the basis of the individual's membership in certain demographic categories, Russell Moore should be asked just what is he himself willing to sacrifice in terms of comprehensive social equity.

For example, if Russell Moore on a proverbial dark and stormy night found himself confronted by a Black assailant that proceeds to perpetrate violence against this seminarian naive to how the world actually exists, is he going to do what he expected of George Zimmerman and allow himself to be pummeled either to death or into a state of permanent mental imbecility as a result of brain damage received for the good of the cause? More importantly, is Dr. Moore willing for his wife or daughters to be raped in order to balance out what Southern Baptist functionaries such as himself now consider the scales of ethnic justice?

Just as important, should these kinds of tragedies befall Rev. Moore or his ecclesiastical allies and the scumbag is apprehended by law enforcement, are these theologians then going to parrot the fashionable liberal drivel about disparities in sentencing should the perpetrator of the crimes against them be one of the minorities the denomination has come to coddle and fawn over these past few years? For in his praise of Trayvon Martin and condemnation of George Zimmerman, Moore went out of his way to emphasize this issue.

In 2013, the Convention went out of its way to enact a resolution condemning incarceration with little mention as to whether or not those tossed in the slammer might actually deserve to be there. Perhaps the denomination would instead prefer to come out in favor of more explicitly Old Testament punishments such as floggings and public executions.

The Convention also condemned former chairman of the Ethics and Policy Commission and eventually forced into retirement Richard Land for merely verbalizing what it was that the vast majority of Americans were already thinking that President Obama was “trying to gin up the black vote” and that allied racemongers “need the Trayvon Martins to continue perpetuating their central myth --- America is a racist and evil nation.”

It is not only in the area of race relations where Russell Moore falls pitifully short of the kind of leadership Baptists need if the denomination and that particular theological perspective is to not only ride out the waves of the looming cultural collapse but possibly even rescue the nation from drowning in these overwhelming historical tides.

In coverage of the 2013 convention in which Russell Moore was installed as the chairman of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, an observer gushed in one press account that his election brought a more moderate tone. As it was explained, “The new generation is less ideologically motivated.” However, is it that the new generation is “less ideologically motivated” or simply that it decided to collaborate in implementing a more leftist ideology?

It seems Brother Moore is quite adept at implementing a don't do as I do, do as I say mentality. For on an episode of the Albert Mohler Program broadcast sometimes around 2006 probably around the first time I had ever even heard of Russell Moore, he confessed that, while thoroughly enjoying Halloween himself as a youth, it is now wrong for contemporary Christian children to participate in Halloween. And the point of raising this issue, some are probably asking with perplexity? After all, such a viewpoint is no doubt common among a variety of theologies found among Independent Baptist, conservative Southern Baptist, and even Pentecostal or Charismatic churches.

Indeed it is. However, the example is brought up to point out that Russell Moore and the young Turks advocating his style of social engagement are not quite of the live and let live mindset those unaccustomed to fully parsing phrases such as “less ideologically motivated” might be led to believe. If anything, it would seem Russell Moore has something of a tendency to crackdown in those areas where individual preference should be allowed to flourish while allowing things to get a bit out of line where, if one slacks an inch, assorted subversives will take a proverbial mile.

How does this represent a more moderate wind being blown into Baptist sails? I can assure you, I know first hand the sort of message has been pounded into the minds of Christian youth for nearly thirty years.

I remember back in my day that, along with whether or not you watched “The Simpsons”, you would speak in hushed tones about celebrating Halloween for fear of bringing the wrath of the more religiously fanatical teachers in Christian day school down upon you. It often seemed that some would even go out of their way to assign extra homework or schedule a test for the next day as a way to punish those that might succumb to the temptation of masquerading for prepackaged nocturnal confections.

This hypocrisy aside, it is not the only issue regarding which this new breed of seemingly less ideological Southern Baptist leader may actually be more ideological than ever before. Baptists might be mocked with the mantra of “Don't drink, don't chew, and don't go with girls who do” in terms of the rigorous behavioral codes many adhere to in the attempt to differentiate themselves from those considered worldly and in an effort to adhere to a lifestyle that they believe would be pleasing to God. However, if there is one area in which Baptists are noted for a spirit of liberation it is in the area of food.

However, Russell Moore and his allies would likely impose an additional set of regulations upon those in their congregations and within their respective spheres of homiletical influence in regards to this aspect of existence in no way derived from Biblical principles such as those regarding booze.

On 1/2/2006, Russell Moore posted an entry on the blog of the Henry Institute at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary titled “Crunchy Cons and Veggie Tales”. The brief essay is a review and elaboration of an emerging ideology known as crunchy conservatism coined by Moore's “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher.

In the post, Moore describes crunchy cons as, “...conservatives who are religious traditionalists and political conservatives but who are deeply suspicious of the materialism and consumerist assumptions of the reigning culture.” However, the materialism denounced here goes beyond that requiring the latest iteration of the I-Phone when the one acquired last year still works perfectly fine or having to acquire an entirely new wardrobe every year irrespective of whether or not the duds from the previous season have worn out

Rather, it is of the variety of how we mere working slobs are expected to willingly embrace with deliberation and aforethought a harsher and less convenient lifestyle because doing so makes detached intellectuals like Russell Moore that have not gotten their hands dirty in years or even decades feel so much more satisfied with themselves because they know more about how you ought to spend your miserable existence better than you do.

In the TimesOnline article referenced by Moore titled “Mr. And Mrs. Crunchy”, his “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher begins, “We had come to believe that the family, not the individual, is the basic building block of our society.” It depends upon what the writer means by that.

Bravo if by that he is expressing a realization that, upon having children, his wellbeing and that of his wife takes a backseat and their needs play second fiddle to those of the children. However, to those such as Rod Dreher and Russell Moore, the notion likely goes considerably beyond that.

For example, often those of this mentality having procreated believe that they are entitled to an ever-increasing percentage of the income and accumulated resources of those that do not have children, especially if such people are single. This confiscatory compensation can take on a number of forms.

The first is in the form of traditional taxation. Those of a communalist mindset believe that each additional child that they parent into the world should grant them a larger piece of the economic pie to be siphoned off as form of punishment from those not having produced children or not having produced by what in their standard is an acceptable number. One radical homeschooler has even insinuated that those not having at least four (the particular number he just happens to have) of harboring an insufficient love of children. It is about time to end manipulation of the tax code as a kind of mind game to trick supposedly free people into engaging in predetermined behavior of any kind.

In expanding that the family and not the individual is the building block of society, Rod Dreher expounded, “I heretically came to realize that Hillary Clinton was right: it really does take a village to raise a child. We conservatives, with our exaltation of consumer choice and the sovereign individual, were dismantling the village as effectively as the statist libertines we opposed.”

This notion of the village goes beyond simply perhaps curtailing the amount of smut broadcast on television. Rather, it allows for the COMMUNITY often in the guise of government authorities to have final say over decisions regarding your existence that might not really be based upon any principle clearly delineated in the pages of Scripture.

Dreher further elaborates regarding free market principles, “But they were based on fundamentally materialist assumptions about human nature which conservatives ought to have known were inaccurate and which would lead to a loss of purpose, of community, or idealism.”

But is it really the place of government (because that is ultimately what is meant by COMMUNITY to these neo-beatnik types) to police these matters in the lives of individuals and families? For what if these are at variance with what communal elites decide constitutes prevailing values and acceptable citizenship (for lack of a better term for those advocating for the elimination of traditional borders).

For example, what ought to happen when the COMMUNITY decides you as a professional baker you will provide your particular goods and services for gay weddings? Better yet, in such circumstances, what happens when the COMMUNITY decides that its vision of marriage not being limited between a single pair of heterosexual partners but rather open to any combination of consenting adult partners is the view to be taught to your children?

Granted, it is doubtful that a good Baptist like Russell Moore would applaud such social decay. In fact, overall the Southern Baptist Convention has stood for the God-ordained traditional heterosexual family even if a number of the association's spokesfolk have been hoodwinked into public forums and dialogs where the attendees mired in that specific inclination are not so much looking to be delivered spiritually from that particular sin but are instead attempting to lure the well-intentioned but somewhat naïve Baptist into a state of ever-increasing compromise.

Russell Moore could be one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of the twenty-first century with the possibility as many as five additional decades of theological productivity before him if he is blessed with mental vitality and a long life. As such, American Evangelicals need to be cognizant where his accumulating compromises undermine what little remains of the nation's conservative values and influence upon America's cultural institutions.

Most would agree that a progressive licentiousness pervades much of the Western world's media landscape. However, one of the few remaining areas in which conservatives of varying stripes have been able to hold their own has been talk radio.

Yet, if Russell Moore had his way, conservatives ---- particularly of the Evangelical variety --- would relinquish the ground that they hold in the media or at least moderate their tone to the extent that such voices would be indistinguishable from any other variety of broadcaster.

At the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention's 2014 Leadership Summit, as that body's president, Moore said that if all he knew about Christianity was what he heard on Christian radio in the Nashville area while driving to that particular conference, he would hate Christianity too. Such an allegation, in and of itself, might have merit. The thing of it is that, since then, Moore has been disturbingly vague and elusive regarding the nature of these criticisms.

In this particular tirade, Moore said, “There are some people who believe that fidelity to the gospel simply means speaking 'you kids get off my lawn'. That is not the message of the gospel. If the call to repentance does not end with an invitation that is grounded ...in the cross and the empty tomb of Jesus we are speaking a different word than the Word that has been given.”

Such a statement is accurate if the venue and/or media under consideration is the pulpit on Sunday morning. However, talk radio (even Christian talk radio) can have a slightly different methodology dependent upon the particular program under consideration.

For example, in his tirade Russell Moore said, “If all you and I are doing is standing and speaking a word, including a truthful word, about sexual immorality...the world does not need us for that. The devil is able to do that on his own. We have not been called simply to condemn. We have been called to reconcile.”

It seems that increasingly in Dr. Moore's homiletical repertoire that “reconcile” has become a euphemism for capitulation and pandering. There is indeed more to repentance than condemnation. But in order for someone to admit that they are wrong and want to do something about that situation, doesn't the individual need to informed that they have done something wrong?

Apparently in his attempt to garner the approval of religious leftists, Russell Moore insists that the world does not need us to stand and speak against sexual immorality. But if not Christians and conservatives of various persuasions, who will be left to do so. In light of the Duggar and Bill Gothard scandals most prominently and to a lesser extent R.C. Sproul Jr's confession to his own carnal temptation, it seems this variety of compromise is even coming to grip those uplifted among us as supposedly the best that Evangelicalism has to offer.

For how long did Russell Moore listen to talk radio during the day in question? Shouldn't he be required to listen to a station's entire weekly program rotation before rendering a somewhat objective verdict that the complete Gospel message is not being presented?

Russell Moore dismisses Christian talk radio as little more than the rhetorical equivalent of “you kids get off my lawn”. But if certain people are deliberately somewhere they ought not to be doing something they definitely shouldn't be, why shouldn't they be told about it? Professional religionists and clergy such as Moore certainly don't mind letting this be known when the tithes and offering slack off.

In the effort to protect their stations and privileges placing them on a rung on the social ladder higher than that of the average pewfiller, a number of ministers like to emphasize the passage found in Ephesians 4:11 stipulating that some are called to be teachers, some pastors, and other evangelists.

So why cant this also apply to the various ministries and programs features on an average Christian radio station? Some shows might emphasize family life and personal relationships. Others such as Moore seem to prefer, according to his remarks, to focus upon explicitly evangelistic outreach. Others might be a bit more hard hitting (in a way that seems to turn off Dr. Moore) by exposing the doctrinal deficiencies in systems in competition with Christianity or the moral controversies eating away at the heart of American society or Western civilization.

Russell Moore is partially correct in that if all we know of Christianity came from the assorted radio programs broadcast in the faith's name one might very well not want anything to do with this particular religion. Does the theologian articulating such scathing remarks intend to repent of the role he has played in such a development surprisingly not always so much the result of an excess of conservatism but often times as a result of his desire to curry favor with religious leftists?

For example, as previously stated, where in the pages of Scripture is the pastor or evangelist instructed to berate the Christian for acquiring provisions from large chain retailers such as Target or Walmart? Likewise, what self-respecting White person is going to want anything to do with your religion when you rhetorically flog them for things that happened nearly half a century ago when it is often the minorities that these self-loathing Caucasians go out of their way to pander towards destroying property and threatening the innocent in the blighted urban areas?

It might be one thing to strive for the Biblical admonition to be all things to all men. However, in the way in which they attempt to do so, Southern Baptist functionaries such as Russell Moore would do well to remember that those having been loyal members all along are just as much worthy of respect and admiration as those attempting to be brought into the fold.

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, March 7, 2018

Hit & Run Commentary #106

Technically, referring to some of these countries as excrement holes would be an actual improvement as to their actual conditions.

Regarding the tolerancemongers and diversity fanatics outraged that President Trump would invoke blunt earthy language to accurately describe a number of countries.  Would these outraged voices continue to reside in neighborhoods with noticeable influxes of migrants from these particular regions continuing to adhere to the second rate standards of conduct sparking the decline of these respective homelands in the first place?  Would those placing multiculturalist dogma over survival either vacation in or retire to these particular countries?

In Venezuela, it is claimed that the starving are feeding upon flamingos and anteaters in an attempt to satiate gnawing hunger.  But the true outrage would apparently be to insinuate that this particular country is anything less than a first rate place in which to live or vacation.

For articulating earthy language to accurately describe the countries for which some of the most questionable immigrants originate, Donald Trump has been accused of taking the country to a new low.  Shouldn’t the lowest point be viewed as the moment when those that govern this nation decided not to enforce immigration law with the utmost vigor and those that guide the culture decided to allow Third World squalor to take root.

Fascinating how multiculturalists are tossing a bigger fit over Trump articulating a blunt assessment to describe certain countries than that significant numbers from these places are allowed to enter or remain here for the purposes of dragging the quality of life in this country down to Third World standards.

So was the $1000 bonus granted to many WalMart employees provided from proceeds retained from Trump tax cuts or from eliminating the positions of those having lost their jobs as a result of layoffs in the company’s Sam’s Club division?

Senator Dick Durbin has said, “I cannot believe that in the history … of that Oval Office any President has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our President speak yesterday.”  And are we to assume that when Monica Lewinsky was underneath the desk in the Oval Office and her head between the legs of Bill Clinton that he only spoke to her using terms found in Grey’s Anatomy or in Elizabethan love poetry?

So since the media has declared that we must only speak of other countries in the most glowing of terms, does that mean that the only thing that can be said of Nazi Germany is that the regime excelled at chemistry and the moving of large numbers of people by railway? Ironic that some no doubt complaining the loudest about President Trump articulating an earthy term for digestive effluent are part of the media elite slipping the term more and more into the dramatic dialog of their television and cinematic productions.

Religionists opposed to Donald Trump’s alleged articulation of an earthy term to describe certain countries is one thing.  Because at least these folks are usually consistent about it an eschew such language in all circumstances. However, the hypocritical ones are those that any other time insist such lignuistic formulations are merely words or downplay their use in such urban or ghetto artforms, instead celebrating such as expressions of the unique truth as embodied by the artists bold enough to convey them.

An U.N. spokesman has denounced President Trump’s categorization of certain countries as excrement receptacles as “shocking and shameful”.  Perhaps U.N. elites would be willing to surrender the organization’s prime New York real estate and instead set up headquarters in one of these lovely locations the foreign policy establishment apparently feels compelled to deny the prevailing conditions of.

Charlie Daniels is correct in reflecting upon the Taco Bell commercial spoofing concerns regarding the globalist conspiracy that the Illuminati is no laughing matter.  So does this often insightful country singer refute the frivolity of his classic “The Devil Went Down To Georgia” suggesting that a mere human could best the Old Deluder at Satan’s own game?

In the President’s Martin Luther King Day proclamation, Americans were told to use the day off to perform acts of service.  Given that the employed will be serving the public the other four remaining days of the week, how about directing that imperative at the deadbeats on public assistance that never get off their rears to do anything productive?

Lindsey Graham has denounced President Trump’s characterization of certain Third World nations as  “blank hole” countries. Yet in 2013 Senator Graham referred to similar places as “hellholes”. Is one acceptable because some do not even believe that the modifier describing one type of hole doesn’t even exist while proof for the other presents itself whenever someone drops a proverbial number two in the toilet?

Regarding the pastor that got up on his moral high horse regarding what the minister characterized as Trump’s “dehumanizing and ugly” remarks pertaining to certain Third World nations while Vice President Pence was in the audience.  Interesting that the church (and most likely the pastor’s residence) is located in the part of the county celebrated the world over for higher than average minority income rather than the part of the county where immigrant squalor and gang infestation predominate to the point that it rated recent coverage by the Washington Post.   

The White House website on Martin Luther KIng Day featured an essay the title of which characterized the civil rights figure as a “Model Of An American Patriot”.  Will those that regularly get jacked out of shape about President Trump’s past praise or associations with questionable entities of the AltRight pitch a hissy fit just as loud about this?  It must be admitted that King’s philosophy of judging by character rather than color is admirable. However, can someone without reservation be celebrated as a “model patriot” if there are documented instances of him working in close affiliation with people and organizations agitating on behalf of Marxist upheaval?  

Outcry has erupted over the deportation of a 39 year old father of two residing with his family in Detroit who has been living in America as an illegal since he was 10 years old.  This raises a number of questions. First, if his family is not accompanying him by choice, doesn’t that mean that they love the American standard of living more than their father?  Do religionists such as Russell Moore and even James Dobson have anything to say about that? They certainly don’t mind invoking alleged Hispanic family values when these can be invoked to bash the rest of us over the head as supposedly being morally superior to those of the average American.  Second, if it is not the American legal system that will not allow his family to accompany him back to his homeland, shouldn’t humanitarian and related bleeding heart types be as vocal in their condemnation of Mexican immigration law as they usually are of that of the United States?

A Christianity Today article is titled, “What Student Ministry Really Needs? Homework”.  Maybe so. But how is a church or youth ministry going to compel such? If students don’t do the homework assignments of their formalized schooling, they will fail which will prevent them from entering college or even obtaining a desirable job.  But if church gets too pushy about assignments, the student is simply not going to return to the church.

According to the Federalist, actor Kevin Sorbo  --- best known to genre fans as Hercules from “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys”  and as Captain Dylan Hunt in “Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda” and to Christian audiences from the film “God’s Not Dead --- has been preemptively banned from East Coast ComiCon.  Interestingly, this is news to the actor as he revealed to the Federalist that he had no plans on attending that particularly convention in the first place. In the article, others claimed to have been similarly blacklisted by Marvel over matters of ideology.  Seems the company has more in common with Hydra than Captain America. Perhaps it is about time for conservatives of assorted varieties to organize their own pop culture conventions or even zine and small press festivals.

In an article titled, “Moralism Is Not The Gospel (But Many Christians Think It Is), Southern Baptist Theologian Albert Mohler points out this important observation.  But there is no self-reflective criticism in this essay where he points out where his own ministry has fallen short of this noble realization. For nowhere in the Scripture does one find the condemnation Mohler himself propagates of those not having married by the time they are 25 years of age.  What he teaches in this regard is merely personal opinion that has no place in a pulpit claiming to stand for Sola Scriptura.

In an op-ed, Senator John McCain has issued a warning about President Donald Trump’s constant attacks against the media.  It is the Senator’s concern that these will harm democracy. As if his own McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act with its own suppression of free speech raised to the level of statutory law with threats of severe punishments did not.  While concerning, about all Trump has really done thus far is to shoot off at the mouth. Like it or not, that is still an act protected by the First Amendment.

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, March 5, 2018

Monday, February 12, 2018

Would A Dung Pile By Any Other Name Smell As Sweet?

Responses have poured in over President Trump's use of blunt earthy language to describe a number of countries from which migrants of dubious quality have poured across the border often with little regard for various immigration laws.

A spokesman for the African Union remarked, “Given the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the United States as slaves, this statement flies in the face of all accepted behavior and practice.”

That translates as how dare a White person contradict the threatening ultimatums of a vaunted minority.

It's rather ironic that a propagandist from an organization once controlled by Muamar Qaddaffi would lecture America regarding “accepted behavior and practice”.

For just how are we going to define that?

In many parts of that continent, slavery and the mass murder of religious dissidents are still considered “accepted behavior and practice”.

And the way women are treated there such as property to be bought and sold and their genitals mutilated make Harvey Weinstein look like the proverbial gentle and solicitous lover.

So when can we expect the MeToo movement to educate the public about the horrors that transpire in these cesspool nations we are threatened with retaliation regarding if we classify them as anything other than picturesque vacation and real estate investment locations?

President Trump's critical assessment of the world might be jarring to those that prefer a genteel approach where certain realities are downplayed nearly to the point of denial.

However, it was this sort of tendency pursued as regular practice by the Foggy Bottom diplomatic-industrial complex that has resulted in a global situation where America is no longer feared and regularly taken advantage of.

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, January 10, 2018

Hit & Run Commentary #103

If it is a rule that NFL players must stand during the National Anthem and a rule that players can't engage in showboating gyrations following a touchdown, on what grounds now is it legitimate to penalize a player that engages in celebratory dance?

A homily posted at SermonAudio is titled “Signs Of I Spiritual Immaturity”. A foremost one ought to be that this pastor in question went on for 92 minutes on this one topic.

Having returned from a tour of assorted Reformation sites in Europe, home school activist Kevin Swanson in a SermonAudio podcast now thinks it is his place to hand down decrees as to how you are obligated to spend your vacation. If that sort of itinerary emphasizing ecclesiastical tourism now makes him spiritually superior to other believers, how does that differ appreciably than medieval Catholic pilgrimages?

It was posted at SermonAudio by one minister having returned from a tour of religiously significant sites in Europe that many Christians leave Jesus out of their vacations. So unless you are being explicitly religious at all times as you relax, your weekend at the beach or afternoon at the local amusement park is now the equivalent of Thai sex tourism.

It was astutely pointed out in a sermon that the Christian must be careful in desiring to the point of envy the blessings God has given someone else but not intended for you. It should also be pointed out for the need of other Christians not to look down on those or to hinder the opportunities of others to whom God has not extended certain blessings that organized religion often instead views as life milestones that indicate that those having not experienced them for whatever reason are morally or spiritually deficient.

Frankly, Americans ought to be less offended about a President calling on professional athletes to stand during the National Anthem than these Presidents demanding we give back to the COMMUNITY with uncompensated voluntarism as if what we do for pay is of no public benefit.

In support of the professional athletes disrespecting the national anthem and the flag, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in a SermonAudio podcast remarked how America is still racially divided and how 11 AM Sunday is still allegedly the most “segregated” hour of the week. So which of the all White pastoral staff is going to resign so that a minority can hired to start the racial healing that these ministers are demanding of the remainder of us?

It is being suggested that Americans should be required to pass a mental fitness evaluation up to and including a record free of depression before being allowed to own a firearm. What would then prevent such a requirement from being placed upon other constitutional liberties before a citizen would be permitted to exercise such rights?

Why do we need to ban silencers if they were not used in the Las Vegas attack? A silencer is not part of the gun that kills a person. Most really know no more about silencers than they do lightsabers. They are nothing more than something fascinatingly spooky that has been seen in a movie.

Moron pundit Joe Scarborough claims that the only reason civilians stockpile weapons is in order to kill American soldiers or the government. But isn't that the primary reason why law enforcement and military also stockpile weapons in order to coerce compliance from civilian populations?

It was said on Saturday Night Live in reference to guns, no one needs 47 of anything. Does that include the number of sex partners had by the average homosexual or even straight deviant of whom an inordinate number of entertainers rank?

Rush Limbaugh is concerned that President Trump is becoming increasingly dictatorial. In particular, the broadcasting legend is referring to Trump's ongoing remarks regarding the intentional disrespect of the flag and national anthem on the part of a number of professional athletes. But wouldn't Limbaugh's keenly analytical mind be better directed towards the hints on the part of Trump threatening the revocation of broadcast licenses over news coverage critical of administration policy?

For leaving a game amidst NFL players refusing to respect the National Anthem, Vice President Mike Pence has been accused of political grandstanding. So how is what he did any more reprehensible than the actions of the recalcitrant athletes? Why must their rights of conscience by celebrated but not those of the Vice President?

A pastor remarked that, if you don't like an opinion articulated by a pastor, you should not leave the church because the pastor is merely exercising his First Amendment rights. But what about the First Amendment rights of the mere pewfiller to find a church the matches closest with their particular understanding of doctrine and its application in the life of the believer?

Diversitymongers have condemned a group of Poles that gathered along the border of that Eastern European nation in an act of prayer. Critics opposing this event claimed that this mass invocation of deity could be construed as a deliberate refusal to accept Islamic migration into the country. So apparently Poles aren't allowed to preserve their heritage but little is apparently said when Islamic regimes execute converts in order to preserve theirs.

A church that actually tossed its support in favor of the anti-American NFL protesters remarked that there is actually nothing the NFL could do that would prevent most American men from watching football. To watch or not to watch in light of these developments is an individual decision and not exactly one where church leaders ought to be making “Thus sayeth the Lord” style proclamations.

Interesting how Michael Savage buttered up to Laura Ingraham on his 10/11/17 broadcast. I remember him at one time deriding her as “that woman that always wears a cross” as if he didn't even know her name.

Producers of the upcoming flop Star Trek: Discovery revealed that the new version of the Klingons are based upon Trump voters in that the characters are advocates of genetic purity. As if the moronic Federation and Starfleet policy that all philosophies are equal is workable and wouldn't lead to civilization's collapse. If anything, Trump would be more like a Ferengi. It is a shame that those now granted control over this venerable science fiction series understand neither current events or the backgrounds of these characters.

President Bush said White supremacy and bigotry are blasphemy against American values. And Black Lives Matter, La Raza, Islamic jihadism, and Jewish supremacism are not?

Soon one will need an ID or even a passport (if one's home state is not in compliance with the Real ID Act) to travel between domestic airports within the United States (but apparently not to vote). Mark these words. Just as it is now against the law to withdraw an amount from the bank less than the amount that now triggers the scrutiny of revenuers if for the purposes to evade these reporting requirements, citizens will be subjected to criminal penalties if it is learned they selected a mode of transportation other than flight in order to avoid this form of intrusive surveillance.

If these actresses were so appalled to find out what Hollywood producers were really like (something known since the middle decades of the past century), why didn't they return to lives of relative obscurity such as Walmart cashiers? Some of what has been exposed is akin to going on American Idol and being shocked when Simon Cowell proceeds to berate you for a shoddy performance.

Even if not himself guilty of any direct incident, in regards to sexual harassment and the verbal mistreatment of WOMEEEENNN, isn't Howard Stern the equivalent of Tokyo Rose or Jane Fonda in Hanoi?

Donald Trump has Tweeted: "Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened." That means secret society elites will have the final say as to whether or not this information is released. And if it is, what proof will we have that it is complete or not doctored?

Regarding those wanting to ban Civil War reenactments. If that form of free speech and right to assemble can be infringed upon, why not also ban Antifa and Black Lives Matter while we are at it? There is nothing in the First Amendment about those wanting to assemble on public land being required to meet a specific ideological threshold.

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, January 8, 2018

You Wouldn't Want To Live At The Time Of Christ's Birth

A line of narrative in a Christmas cantata described the time in which Christ was born as “simpler”.

One could legitimately say that era in question was certainly less technologically advanced.

However, a case could be made that life then was actually much more complex and complicated to navigate.

Most today might want to get away from the ubiquitousness of their gadgets for a time.

However, would anyone from today really want to remain in such a setting?

It's doubtful most of us would survive for very long, but that is nothing to be ashamed of as we were not meant to be in that time.

The infrastructure of Bethlehem, and probably even the most advanced cities of that day such as Rome or Athens, was so lacking at the time that Mary had to give birth in a barn.

Statistically, just think how many other women had children that night traveling to fulfill the requirements of the census with less of a guarantee that the child was going to survive until adulthood.

Most of the discerning distrust the government now.

But despite the shortcomings of these agencies, have any of us faced the military or law enforcement deliberately killing all of the babies of a particular town just for spite?

IRS requirements to file taxes are burdensome and frustrating enough; however, at least we are not required to return to our respective hometowns in order to do so.

The celebrations of Christmas beautifully announce to the world that the Savior entered into it so that we might be redeemed from the consequences of our sin.

However, we also need a reminder that the world into which the Messiah willingly entered ultimately to die at the time was neither all that joyful or beautiful.

By Frederick Meekins

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