Corporatists Profit From Christmas While Subtly Mocking It

Over the past couple of decades, the cultured despisers of religion have attempted to undermine celebrations primarily Christian in nature through outright bans of the symbols commemorating a particularly beloved time of year.

However, such efforts have proven largely unsuccessful.

Americans have resisted with such vehemence that the nation elected a President that raised the issue of referring to December 25th explicitly as Christmas nearly to the level of a plank in his campaign platform.

As masters of psychological warfare, secularists now seem to be pursuing a strategy where, if one cannot outright ban Christmas, one can at least insert messages disrespecting the holiday into the advertising pervasive throughout ubiquitous media.

In one advertisement, instead of a baby Jesus figurine resting in the manger, a British bakery replaced the Christ child with a partially masticated sausage role.

Given that sausage is often composed of swine parts that cannot be consumed as other cuts of meat, would this business if its executives desired continued existence portrayed Muhammad in a similarly flippant manner?

And speaking of Muslims, adherents of that particular faith are utilized in another marketing endeavor on the part of a business wanting to brand itself as slapping Christians across the face.

In a commercial produced by a British supermarket chain, those depicted are asked what it is that they like to eat for Christmas.

One of the families asked is not simply Muslim but there is no denying such as they are depicted in the head garb distinctive to hardline interpretations of that faith.

One might legitimately respond that the beauty of Christmas is that anyone is free to celebrate the joy of that particular season.

After all, Christmas is big business in Japan with the majority of the population there being Shinto and/or Buddhist.

However, the obliteration of Western civilization has not been a particular goal of the Japanese since the end of World War II.

It has been admitted that a number of Muslims do not so much wear these outfits out of a sense of piety or modesty but rather as a way to explicitly articulate their animosity towards Christendom and to do their part to see that that particular way of life is replaced with a global caliphate.

As in the case of the sausage role advertisement, could a similar commercial be produced where the roles are reversed where a Saudi Arabian grocery asked Christians residing there how they enjoy Ramadan with the Christians responding with a nice succulent pork chop or a crispy piece of bacon?

Corporate media is so deliberate in nature that nothing within the messages it propagates is an accident or mere coincidence.

As such, if an aspect of such can be construed as disrespectful of either Christmas or Christianity, it is pretty safe to assume such was the intention of the mind composing such a sentiment.

By Frederick Meekins

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

The Cultural Impact Of Worldview & Apologetics, Part 5

Sadly though, this is the age of extremes. On the one hand, there are Christians that no doubt find Disney classics such as “Snow White”, “Sleeping Beauty”, and “Pinocchio” too racy for their tastes. And on the other, there are those professing to be Christians that cannot adopt quickly enough the popular fads and affectations of any particular moment. One prominent example of overeager accommodation to the spirit of the time is the Emergent Church movement.

If one is to chastise the Evangelical and Fundamentalist wings of Christianity for overly embracing social conservatism as epitomized by the Republican Party, to remain consistent one would also be required to enunciate an admonishment against the Emergent Church’s headlong rush into what could probably be described as countercultural liberalism. Realizing the sway postmodernism has over Western society and the power of its methodology to expose potentially hidden hypocrisies and inconsistencies, advocates of the Emerging Church believe that the wiser course may be to surf the postmodern wave on a Christian board than to firmly plant one's feet and fight against the tide.

Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren hope that the postmodernist impulse to examine and in most cases set aside the cultural assumptions often below the surface we are not aware of will assist believers to get back to the earliest expressions of the Christian faith that existed before it was institutionalized as a socio-cultural edifice. McLaren views the impact of modernity upon the Church as having been especially deleterious.

Fundamentalists not that familiar with the direction in which McLaren takes his analysis might initially think they have found an ally in McLaren. However, in many respects, McLaren is harder on those one might categorize as conservative Evangelicals than he is on the shortcomings of the contemporary world.

According to McLaren, modernity in the West has fostered the desire to conqueror and control all of the structures of reality from the physical to the epistemological through the process of scientific analysis and classification. The result has been to mechanize all of existence (including human beings) to the point where the souls encountered by the Christian and the resulting relationships are not seen as ends in themselves worthy of care and nurture but rather as strategic stepping stones simply along the path to accumulating conversion statistics (230).

Concerns raised by McLaren regarding authenticity are quite valid. Even for those that have been Christians for years and even decades, it is easy in a megachurch setting to feel like little more than a statistic used to justify the next phase of the building expansion while in a small church it is easy to come away with the sense that one is not welcome unless one is in complete enthusiastic agreement on nonessentials if one is an average pewsitter. However, there are a number of dangers that result from the Emergent Church's posture against dogmatism.

According to McLaren, the modern age was marked by a quest for certainty and absolute knowledge (230). In the Church, this has manifested itself in the tendency to insist upon an exclusivity of belief that points out the deficiencies of competing faiths and emphasizes the superiority of Biblical revelation. Of this approach to matters of theology and religion, R.Scott Smith writes, “In that process...faith tends to be treated as a rigid belief system that must be accepted instead of a unique, joyful way of living, loving, and serving (230).”

Ideally in a world accepting of and at peace with the Gospel, that would be how Christ would be introduced to those hungering to have their sins forgiven and life more abundantly. And though the Christian must always strive to show as much respect and kindness to the unbeliever as possible, neither can it be ignored that the world has been so warped by sin that Satan is always on the prowl seeking those whom he may devour. There are those out there that are wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing seeking to infiltrate the church for the sole purposes of destroying it.

There are things that are just plain wrong. Both clergy and possibly even more so the laity must be on guard against them.

If the Christian does not possess an existential certainty that makes the leap of faith from the ledge of high factual probability, though one does not attend to secure salvation one can think of a number of more enjoyable ways to spend Sunday morning. A number of these would include remaining in ones nocturnal raiment rather than slipping into the most uncomfortable garments likely hanging in one's closet. More importantly, if one is to be of the mindset that it is improper to point out where other faiths and creeds do not measure up to Christianity, how are the young to protect themselves when these competitors attempt to lure them away? For especially when (as in the case of Islam) these outlooks have no qualms about insisting upon the superiority of their own practices and dogmas.

To the Christian fatigued by some of extremist Fundamentalism's rules which in some circles extend to no facial hair on men despite there being no Biblical mandate for such a grooming preference, the care free times of the Emergent Church with its disdain for systematized doctrine may sound like a relief. However, once the prospective adherent delves deeper into the movement, disillusioned Fundamentalists may discover they have merely exchanged one form of excessive control for another.

R. Scott Smith writes in his analysis of the Emergent Church that Brian McLaren believes, "modernity has emphasized inordinately the autonomous individual ... Likewise the church has perpetuated this individualism to the detriment of the body of Christ (230).” This assumption is itself in need of careful examination.

If by this McLaren means that under the banner of modernity that many an individual has abused the freedoms of the contemporary world to ignore those behavioral restrictions given to us that a percentage find stifling or inconvenient, he could very well be correct. Yet in a Time Magazine profile naming him one of the nation‘s most prominent Evangelicals, McLaren did not seem all that concerned about the growing support for gay marriage and homosexual intimacy. To McLaren, lamenting the advance of individuality means something else entirely.

For example, in an interview broadcast in June 2010 on Issues Etc. with Todd Wilken, McLaren kept emphasizing that Jesus did not so much come into the world to live the sinless life that we could not, die in our place as the penalty for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him in Heaven. To McLaren, the traditional Christian emphasis of Christ’s work of reconciling the individual to God in preparation for eternity is secondary to establishing God’s Kingdom here on earth.

To McLaren, the transforming power of Christ is not so much about the changing of the human heart one individual at a time on a level imperceptible to merely human eyes. McLaren believes that such shifts in consciousness or perception (to borrow New Age and postmodernist phraseology) need to be societal or planetary. However, such a revolution would not so much turn the world into one giant campus extension of Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College campus with well intentioned busybodies armed with rulers measuring to see if young men's haircuts are short enough, young ladies' hemlines long enough, and a respectable distance kept between the two sexes as they perambulate down the street.

Things would, more likely, come to resemble a form of religious socialism where the morality of an economic decision would not be determined by how well it benefited the individual or by how closely it adhered to the explicit dictates of Scripture but instead by the criteria of how it benefited the overall group, predetermined oppressed classes such as ethnic minorities, and whether or not the decision adhered to the consensus of the community. McLarenite Emergent Church types have often condemned how those on the Evangelical Right have long served as the dupes of the Republican Party; however, those enunciating such criticisms have turned right around and snuggled up with Christian leftists such as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo who have little problem with homosexual domestic partnerships or professed Communists such as the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.

In every direction the Christian turns, he finds adherents of every conceivable worldview gaining ground throughout Western civilization and around the world. Constantly bombarded by these competing perspectives, after a while the mentally fatigued believer can grow so weary that it is easy to throw up one's hands wondering what is the point in even trying anymore. Often it is concluded that the best strategy would be to cordon ourselves off in a Christian subculture in the attempt to preserve sound doctrine and their family's spiritual purity.

Though that might be a noble sounding justification, it is often not the case. Often on the grounds of aspiring to a simple "just give me Jesus" kind of faith, many believers shut down their minds all together to the point of where they do not only fail to familiarize themselves with the knowledge of their adversaries but also fall into appalling ignorance of Christian things as well.

William Lane Craig points out in the essay "In Intellectual Neutral" that, on tests of generalized knowledge (think of the Jaywalking segments from the Tonight Show), Christian young people faired little better than their unbelieving counterparts. Of these findings, Craig concludes, "If Christian students are this ignorant of the general facts of history and geography then the chances are that they...are equally or even more ignorant of the facts of our own Christian heritage and doctrine...If we do not preserve the truth of our Christian heritage and doctrine, who will learn it for us (5)?"

Thus, when the Christian disengages from what are snidely referred to these days as the "Culture Wars" as if our way of life was somehow not worthy of preserving or fighting for, he does not succeed so much in keeping himself from deeds he considers impure such as heated disagreement and argument. Rather the result of such surrender is ultimately the erosion of our civilization if Christians do not rise to the challenge in a variety of venues ranging from government, academia, and even the new social media such as blogs and podcasts. If such happens, those trapped by the blinders of secularism may never otherwise be exposed to these ideas and concepts.

As a neglected discipline in many Christian circles, it becomes an easy temptation for those enthusiastic to promote a more intellectually rigorous and vital expression of the faith to downplay more existentialist manifestations of it. However, if anything, one thing that can be adapted from the Emergent Church movement is the need to be consistent and authentic in regards to how our lives should reflect closely the things that we say.

In Ecclesiastes 1:9, scripture assures that there is nothing new under the sun. Sean McDowell in the essay “Apologetics For An Emerging Generation” insists that, despite the complexities with which the issues dress themselves when confronting the inhabitants of the contemporary world, the young continue to ask the same but profoundly deep questions that they always have (260).

Therefore, it remains essential for the Christian to remain grounded in the foundations of the faith as well as familiar with the assorted challenges always arising to undermine the faith once delivered unto the saints.

By Frederick Meekins

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

Headline Potpourri #101

A number of jurisdictions are now considering the removal of Confederate monuments not on the grounds of opposing the values such edifices are believed to convey but rather out of a desire to prevent disturbances like the one that transpired in Charlottesville. For an age that spends a considerable amount of time contemplating the bulllying phenomena, it is clear understanding of that is lacking now more than ever. By this logic, all that “White Nationalists” would need to do to provoke the removal of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Barack Obama commemorations would be to threaten to throw a similar tantrum and these milksop bureaucratic functionaries would be required to cave to these demands like the proverbial house of cards.

Apparently even in his historically popular tweet, Obama could not promulgate an idea not placed in his mind by yet another Marxist totalitarian terrorist sympathizer.

Statists and social engineers are lamenting how Trump's alleged reluctance to quickly and unequivocally condemning only the “White nationalists” for the Charlottesville disturbances was a missed opportunity to bring the country together. But aren't these the same people that lecture how regrettable it is that nothing unifies people like a shared adversary to despise.

It is claimed that a primary reason to oppose the Confederate statues is because these figures conspired to tear the nation apart on the basis of racial grounds. What, like the organization La Raza that these same malcontents rank among their fellow travelers?

So do those insisting that one should be inherently suspicious of loners plan to offer up the bare number of friends required in order to evade law enforcement or intelligence community scrutiny? Furthermore, do loners really cause as much mayhem as claimed? For by definition, gangs and terrorist groups consist of numbers drawn together out of a shared desire to commit mischief in the company of others. Finally, I am not sure loners are all that into mass rallies and protests. Frankly, I am not all that thrilled with more than ten in a movie theater and will at times avoid going down a store aisle with people in it if the adjacent one is otherwise empty.

So has Ted Cruz called for a Justice Department investigation into these events held on public property were White people are banned because minority agitators are so mentally defective that they need safe spaces in order to forestall emotional breakdowns.

Probably not more than a decade ago, the advocates of gay marriage assured that states not wanting to recognize such unions would not be required to do so and that this development would in no way impact the lives of those opposing such relationships on moral or religious grounds. However, today gay marriage is for the most part, as those that like to hide behind the legal system for the purposes of eroding cultural foundations, “settled law”. Christian professionals refusing to provide a variety of services for these ceremonies face the prospect of the forms of violence utilized by the state to coerce compliance. Today we are assured often by mobs rampaging through the streets that antiquarians will be permitted to retain their Confederate statues so long as they are not on public land but rather on private property. Seldom are revolutions easily mollified. Given that many of those making these sorts of ultimatums aren't known for their respect of private property, low long until these marauders renege on this compromise and lay waste to the treasures of those refusing to acquiesce to an interpretation of the past imposed by blatant threats and intimidation?

Russell Moore's response to the Charlottesville disturbances conclude, “White supremacy angers Jesus of Nazareth. The question is does it anger his church?” Jesus isn't too keen on mobs burning down people's businesses and looting their inventory. However, Dr. Moore didn't really have much to say about that during assorted Black Lives Matter protests. Instead he droned on about how Whites were obligated to strive to understand the hurt that led to such outbursts. If Russell Moore is so opposed to believers organizing themselves by the category of race or ethnicity, why does he sit on the board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference?

So do these preachers that condemn the tendency to judge in part based on appearance themselves marry physically unattractive women?

So if tech companies can now deny you services for violating their terms of conduct on the basis of things you do off their respective websites, why can't Christian bakers deny gays wedding cakes for violating God's terms of conduct?

So are those yelling the loudest about “Fascism” also going to call for the abolition of most laws regarding how you use private property such as how it can be landscaped and what natural resources found on it that the owner may use for their own benefit? For a fundamental tenet of this ideology is government control of private property and the systematic regimentation of all aspects of society. It is actually from that principle that the deprivations of civil rights on the basis of ethnicity are derived and implemented. It used to be that racism was categorized as a particularly pernicious kind of evil because of the mindset's attempt to dehumanize individuals created in the image of God. But the offense is in danger of degenerating into a criticism invoked against those refusing to acquiesce to leftwing threats and policy preferences. As such, “Republican” political strategist Ana Navarro is even more deserving of condemnation for insisting that Donald Trump is not a human being for failing to condemn the Charlottesville disturbances as quickly and in a manner acceptable to revolutionary statist sensibilities than the President for his apparent hesitation to condemn certain perpetrators of violence even when what he did was condemn all sides undermining America in that tragic series of incidents.

WorldNetDaily needs to consider for a moment its hypocritical disingenuousnesses. In a recent article, the website seemed to insinuate that the Bible Answer Man should likely no longer be considered a Christian because the broadcaster converted from being an Charismatic Evangelical to being Eastern Orthodox. Yet in another article, Coast To Coast host George Noory is praised for respectfully considering Christian viewpoints on his broadcast and professing belief in Intelligent Design. Yet WorldNetDaily is woefully negligent in warning of the spiritual danger posed by Noory. For the type of Intelligent Design usually promoted by Noory is that man was designed by extraterrestrials. He is regularly featured on Ancient Aliens (a series that conveniently edited from its episodes most Christian researchers providing Biblical explanations for the paranormal phenomena examined by the program) spewing this cultism and Noory is a contributor to the New Age “Gaia Network”.

In response to the Charlottesville disturbances, high military functionaries are coming out in condemnation of racism. But is it the place of the military to speak out on political and cultural issues apart from the direction of the President? Do we want military brass to issue directives as to what length civilian dresses ought to be for the upcoming fashion season or how many glasses of water you ought to drink per day? Perhaps we ought to be more concerned that the military did not speak out against the destruction of private property in pursuit of policy objectives as exemplified by the Black Lives Matters and Occupy Movement upheavals?

So why is there apparently no room in America for “White nationalism” but it is apparently out of line to scrutinize migrants from nation's where Islamic extremism is pervasive?

During the National Anthem, a number of Cleveland Browns knelt in protest. The offenders claimed that they were praying, in part, for social justice at the time. As such, perhaps they would be pleased if their salaries were confiscated and instead bestowed upon those that did not make the cut in training camp or, better yet, directed towards someone that didn't even bother trying out for the team. For the phrase “social justice” is little more than a euphemism for wealth redistribution.

By Frederick Meekins

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