In Emergent Circles Da Vinci Code No Worse Than Left Behind

In the spring of 2005, I wrote a column detailing what I considered a few of the shortcomings and dangers of the Emergent Church Movement. Much to my surprise, the piece sparked more of a debate than originally anticipated, full detail of which I am not privy but it must have been a real humdinger.

According to one pro-Emergent blog called TallSkinnyKiwi, since I have dared to say my peace elsewhere about tattooing, smoking, and boozing (three things Emergophiles seem to revel in with impunity), as well as enunciated differences with Presbyterians, and Southern Baptists (as if these institutions were somehow above criticism [perhaps they should be reminded about the Protestant Reformation ]), my comments about the movement ‘s grand pooba Brian McLaren are therefore out of line and not worthy of consideration.

In the spirit of ecumenical inclusion gripping much of mainstream Evangelicalism, TallSkinnyKiwi categorized my classification of McLaren as “the worst McLaren slam” making the rounds on the Internet and “This is NOT the kind of discussion we want to have, so please…no wrangling about words, no arguing, no divisiveness…Let’s have a good productive discussion that allows us all to move ahead.” No doubt headlong into the arms of apostasy. Thus, the practitioners of liturgical diversity hold the sacrament of tolerance should only apply to those agreeing with them.

My column regarding McLaren might seem utterly bizarre to minds too small to fathom the revolutionary apocalyptic changes sweeping across certain sectors of society, but I stand by my conclusions and assessments of this aberrant movement and its foremost luminary. Yet, from what I have learned since then, the situation might even be worse.

In the May 9, 2006 Sojomail ezine of the leftwing Christian rag Sojourners, McLaren is interviewed as to his opinion of The Da Vinci Code. According to McLaren, though The Da Vinci Code is lit with fallacies and distortions, these are no more serious than those in the Left Behind Series.

Though there is room for debate among committed Christians as to the specific chronology of certain eschatological events and that some of the plot elements seem needlessly drug out or somewhat silly, overall one cannot deny that the Left Behind novels depict a milieu where Jesus is Lord of the universe. The Da Vinci Code portrays Jesus as little more than a sex fiend no more divine and thus worthy of worship than the rest of us. But since in their own words a good story is more important to the Emergent crowd than cold hard fact, all that is beside the point.

What McLaren and his disciples really can’t stand is the reasonably conservative outlook espoused by the Left Behind novels. McLaren writes, “The Religious Right has polluted the air. The name ‘Jesus’ and the word ‘Christianity’ are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that is distorted and false.”

Encase Pastor McLaren has not been off that spacious Burtonsville church compound of his surrounded by houses pushing a million dollars in prince, there’s quite a bit to be negative and angry about in the world today. Frankly, it’s that naive brand of Christianity with the sickening grin plastered across it’s face that is so emasculated that it doesn’t get upset at anything that is upholding something distorted and false.

The McLarenite beef with the Left Behind series is the way novels “twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end.” Mind you, I doubt he’s raving about a pre-tribulation rapture or the oddity of a believer chauffeuring the Anti-Christ around the globe. Rather, what McLaren is lamenting is Left Behind’s stern warning against global government and the amalgamation of world religions into a demonic mismash.

For you see, whether he wants to admit it or not, Rev. McLaren turns out to be something of a universalist deep down. For while he will no doubt dance around the matter with the obfuscation endemic to the Emergent Church movement, McLaren is out to undermine traditional belief in the afterlife, particularly the destinations of the soul popularly known as Heaven and Hell.

According to McLarenite doctrine, it doesn’t even matter if these metaphysical realms even exist and the belief in them are actually a holdover from a more primitive time, actually hindering continued spiritual progress by fostering what has become the new boogeyman constantly harangued from the twenty-first century pulpit and Sunday school classroom (namely individualism). McLaren comes close to insinuating that Jesus didn’t even believe in Hell but simply invoked the concept to best the Pharisees at their own game of verbal one-upmanship.

Instead of fearing the eternal torments of Hell and anticipating the unending happiness of Heaven, the truly spiritual person only concerns themselves about a this-wordly COMMUNITY. Frankly, if this is all there is to the Kingdom of God, I want a refund and being a Christian is a colossal waste of time.

The hyperpious might come down with a case of the vapors for me having said that, but whether they want to admit it or not, my opinion is essentially that of the Bible as I Corinthians 15:19 says that if in this life only we have hope, we of all men are most miserable.

Interesting how those in these revolutionary movements constantly counsel how we have so much to learn from foreign cultures when these alien dogmas undermine sound doctrine, traditional liberties, and private property yet so eagerly dismiss these concepts when a degree of congruity is shared with Christian belief. So what if Zoroastrians at that time had a more vivid understanding of the after life than their Jewish counterparts?

Does the idea’s origin somehow negate any of its truthfulness as apparently Jesus wasn’t the only Biblical source to endorse the notion of a punitive realm of the after life irrespective of where the idea might have gotten its initial start as the theme received its most elaborate treatment probably in the Book of Revelation. But if McLaren is going to get his knickers in a knot over Left Behind, he’s as sure as Sheol not going to like the Book of Revelation.

What good is the COMMUNITY going to do you on your deathbed as your existence is about to be snuffed out all together if Heaven and Hell really do not exist as destinations in eternity but merely as states of mind for the few brief years that each of us trod this earth? McLaren and his ilk often claim they have taken the tack they have in the name of bringing the young people back into the church. But if his message is going to be this life is all we have, why should they bother showing up Sunday morning at all because in the grim world McLaren posits (no matter how much Emergent types might try to put a smile on it with their scented candles, nose rings, and espresso bar, one is better off patterning one’s life after Hugh Hefner than Jesus Christ if tomorrow never comes.

By Frederick Meekins

What would Jesus do !


Folks I read an article called “More than 700 Christian women condemn Trumps misogyny in powerful letter”. As a Christian leader I’m disappointed in the attitude of my fellow Christian leaders mentioned in it. Though I do see how women and men, in general (regardless of political affiliation) find offensive what Mr. Trump has said in the past, we should all remember the following which as a Christian leader our Lord put into my heart to pass onto all people.

John Ch. 8, Verse. 7, works for all sinners. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”. If we seek forgiveness from our Savior, is that not enough. If we can not forgive our fellow man, how can we expect forgiveness. Ask and it shall be give unto you Christ states. We are all held accountable and will be judged.

Who are we to judge and question if Christ has forgive him. Who are you, not to forgive him and to say if he is truly sorry or not.

It is not for me as a man of God and a preacher to judge but, to teach Christ’s will and ways to the sinner and for them, to repent. Not to judge. Matthew Ch. 7, Verse 1. “Judge not, that ye be not judged”.

Yet it is for clergy and theologians to teach and live what is our Lord’s ways and will, which is to forgive and help others to see the error of their ways. Be it in general actions or thinking. Yet always with love, fighting and striving for our Lord’s righteousness to someday be unblemished when called before Him in judgment.

I do not condone the evil in mankind’s heart, I appall it. Bullying, harassing, belittling and degrading anyone because they are female or different or have an infirmity is wrong. It is not what Jesus would want of His children to rejoice in. For we are all created in the image of our God and Lord.

Yet we all make choices, some good and some bad. However, we all have to live with, and will have to answer for our personal choices on judgment day before God the Father and Creator of all mankind. Both men, women, young or old, no matter what one’s race, creed, color, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or politics.

It will not even matter if you think you were right and another was wrong. What will only matter is what God will think and if you will be worthy or not.

As for me, I am a poor sinner. I have regrets. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve asked Christ for forgiveness and I know in my heart, I am forgiven. Does that mean I will not sin again or fall short of the glory of God? By no means. Do not fool yourself or think yourself so holy that you are above reproach yourself. For in that case, you will have fallen into the trap and will be doomed.

For we are all given another day to strive to do as the Savior commanded us and that was to first, as is written in Mark Ch. 12, Verse 30 “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And secondly, Verse 31, which states, “love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these”.

To me one of the first act’s of love is forgiveness. For that was the example our Lord Jesus showed us and taught us as His final gift to the world from the Cross at Calvary. That is when he said in; Luke Ch. 23, verse 34 “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”.

I do however, seek the kingdom of God first and His will and ways. I teach that and encourage others to do the same. I would only suggest that religious leaders, preachers, theologians and the such remember these words before casting judgment or anyone takes offense of what anyone has done in the past and what they are trying to do in the present. However, if one is judging, then judge righteously according to the will and discernment of God in your heart.

So don’t put down what God may have forgive and chosen to rebuild. For you maybe condemning yourself and justly so. That would bring a tear to our Lord’s eye. And that, I would not want for any man, woman or child, under the SON that stands with one nation under God and who Trust in Him to have to endure!

Sincerely IHS and yours, and with malice towards none,
Patriarch +++Andrew M. B. Patrick
Celtic Cross Ministry Inc.


Headline Potpourri #91

Too bad the liberal media doesn’t get as worked up over Hillary’s call for open borders and the coddling of terrorists which actually endanger more American lives than Trump’s misconstrued remarks regarding the Second Amendment.

A Muslim flight attendant is suing for being suspended for refusing to serve alcoholic beverages because doing so would violate her religion. Why shouldn’t she be punished similarly to the Christian bakers refusing to prepare cakes for gay weddings? Will Hooters be required to alter its uniform policies to accommodate Muslim waitresses refusing to adorn themselves with the eatery’s questionable apparel?

Do those jacked out of shape about Trump’s Second Amendment remarks get as upset regarding the shocking number of Clinton associates and critics that have actually met unexpected and mysterious ends? Its probably why Obama selected Joe Biden as Vice President rather than Hillary.

The DEA has ruled against medical marijuna. So apparently terminal cancer patients will be denied access to that to which the Obama children apparently have at their fingertips.

Is Trump saying Obama created ISIS any worse than blaming the USA for Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden?

On Fox News, Geraldo insisted that Trump does not do saracasm well. But isn’t it more that the contemporary liberalism is wound so tight in pursuit of revolutionary societal transformation that adherents of this ideology have lost whatever sense of human they might have initially possessed.

In a New York Times interview in which presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church Micheal Curry spent an inordinate amount of time reminding readers that he is Black, he said of the pending presidential election, “Love, at least as Jesus articulated it, has to do with seeking the good and the welfare of others before one’s own enlightened self-interest. Our politicians must reflect that.” It must be from that renunciation of self-interest why the Episcopal Church drags congregations into court that have come to the conclusion that their own spiritual well being might be more fully met in another denomination such as the Anglican Church of North America. For nothing says loves like forcing someone to stay in a relationship against their will.

In January 2014, a marine biologist was convicted of a misdemeanor for feeding whales in a protected federal sanctuary. The prosecutor assured that the punishment wasn’t an example of excessive punitive overreach. A strong message needed to be sent because, when these animals are fed by humans, they lose their instincts by becoming dependent and eroding their innate sense or wariness. Such a situation endangers both human beings and cetaceans. The science policy advanced by both academia and government contends that human beings are actually nothing more than animals ourselves. If that is the case, then wouldn’t extensive ongoing handouts provided by the government also interfere with and alter the inherent instincts of the able-bodied that would otherwise be compelled to make at least a good faith effort to provide for themselves?

In the attempt to prevent Islamist immigration, Donald Trump has suggested that those seeking entrance into the United States need to be scrutinized to determine if these applicants harbor antisemitism or hatred towards gays and women. But dependent upon how these are defined, what guarantees will be put in place to prevent these ideological tests from being applied against Christians by the social engineers infesting numerous governmental bureaucracies? For in certain circles, antisemitism is defined as believing that Jesus is the only valid path towards God. Being anti-gay is increasingly defined as believing that a legitimate marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman. And hatred towards women is defined as little as failing to put the toilet seat down.

So long as someone is not out constantly awhoring, is it really the business of a church if someone is single? In a podcast posted at SermonAudio, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church bragged that they were all married in their early 20’s. That means there wives were likely as young. So under what obligation are we second tier folks nobody wanted in the early round picks obligated to settle for other apparently less than desirables where no one is going to be happy and are for the most part settling out of a sense of socio-religious obligation imposed by these kinds of hardline religionists?

In a pastoral roundtable of Berean Baptist Church posted at SermonAudio, it was insinuated that children should be allowed to wander about pretty much unsupervised as they pleased. Will this church pick up the tab for the legal bill when the parents heeding this advise are slapped with accusations of neglect by child protective services? Will the church pay for the medical and even longterm care expenses when children are injured or even mangled in accidents? But that might divert funds from missionaries of the variety that do not so much love the souls they minister to as they do the opportunity to badmouth the American way of life from foreign shores.

There is no winning with most pastors. In sermons, a common complaint is that most parishioners after church briefly chat amongst themselves about mundane matters such as what they’ve watched on TV lately or what they will be doing once they get home. But it was handed down in a homiletical pronouncement that a church cannot tolerate those in attendance standing around on the property following the proceedings criticizing where the pastor might have fallen short in either doctrine or delivery. So the moral of the story is not to articulate amongst fellow believers what might be on your mind but rather that which will ingratiate yourself to the ecclesiastical authority structure.

In a Berean Baptist pastoral round table posted at SermonAudio griping about the state of American youth, the practice of giving at least a small token to each child that participates in organized athletics was condemned. The practice may have gotten out of hand. However, you are going to have to do something to keep the children that might not excel at athletics coming back or otherwise your league is going to collapse. Even the players on the NFL teams that consistently lose get handsome salaries even if they aren’t given a Super Bowl ring. There are only so many Bible verses that can be stretched out of context to coerce compliance from the standpoint of old fashioned Fundamentalst guilt before that sort of manipulation no longer works.

President Obama played a round of golf with comedian Larry David. Given that David urinated on a picture of the Virgin Mary as part of a routine, isn’t this a great outrage than if Obama invited Paula Deen to cater a White House State dinner?

In a sermon, an article was referenced lamenting that, each year, five percent of missionaries leave the field. How do we not know God is not leading them to another endeavor? For often is it really so much God that is leading people into this variety of ministry or rather overly zealous religious functionaries and administrators?

In a sermon addressing the Biblical text admonishing women to be keepers at home, a pastor remarked that his wife often babysat for women that worked outside of the home. But if women working outside of the home is sinful as the homily seemed to suggest, isn’t providing babysitting services for such women akin to running a motel that charges rates by the hour for the purposes of facilitating adulterous liaisons?

A number of schools are implementing policies where biological males identifying as transgendered will be allowed to slumber (and possibly even horizontally frolic) with the females on overnight academic excursions. Does this require a track record of ongoing psychosis despising the reproductive pleasure anatomy with which God endowed you or can it be the result of a sudden pre-trip epiphany based largely upon whom you’d rather be snuggled up against and entwined with in the middle of the night?

In a Washington Post interview, the president of the leftwing think tank Demos Heather McGhee insisted that, out of a sense of patriotism, Americans must be willing to admit how profoundly prejudice they are and renounce economic policies that are the result of such. That translates as higher taxation imposed upon those that work to lavish additional handouts upon those unwilling to do so. Don’t expect much to be said to discourage the destruction of private property in response to unpopular judicial rulings or police actions.

Regarding the so-called “burkini”, so long as a woman is clothed at the beach, on what grounds do you penalize someone for wearing one? For is the garment that markedly different in appearance from a scuba wetsuit?

A knife-wielding demoniac murdered at least 19 at a facility for the disabled. Will there now be a call for knife control legislation? After all, we really don’t need knives. Food can be precut before purchase or officials can be placed on standby to be called when we mere subjects of the realm are faced with a situation requiring cutlery. For if you can wait around for police to take their sweet time in a life or death situation as they traverse the distance from the doughnut shop to your location, surely there is no inconvenience in waiting for someone to cut up the steaks environmentalists and meddlesome health officials insist we shouldn’t be eating in the first place.

On a children’s wildlife program, it was said EVERY living thing in an ecosystem is essential for its ongoing sustainability. Does that include plague causing microorganisms?

Of a review of “Orthodoxy” I posted at a Christian social network it was said, “For those that do not know, Chesterton was a Roman Catholic. He was a fine writer, and I’ve enjoyed his fiction, but couldn’t recommend his books to believers.” So because Chesterton was Roman Catholic, that invalidates every last thing the man ever said even in those areas where Roman Catholics and conservative Evangelicals are in agreement? Whatever happened to the idea of selectively embracing the ideas of an author? And by holding to this prohibition, aren’t you saying of your fellow believers that they are too stupid to sift the truthful from the questionable? Isn’t this the kind of attitude that might nudge your coreligionists in the direction of the Vatican? Perhaps it might be more productive to turn this criticism for suggesting a book by Chesterton into an examination as to why Protestants are not as appreciative of those that can articulate basic Christian teaching and doctrine outside the formalized ecclesiastical authority structure when that brand of the faith claims not to be as dependent upon a centralized organization.

A pastor on SermonAudio asked why, in a church full of converted people, do Christians have to be begged to teach. Probably because many churches impose a litany of rules and regulations not necessarily clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture. A congregation can administer its affairs as the assembly sees fit. Just don’t get upset when many decline to participate beyond a minimal level.

Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio oration condemned online ministry because of the tendency of those engaged in such to easily denounce those with whom they disagree as heretics. And how is that markedly different than the sort of Baptist church that practices radical blanket separationism rather than a discernment of degree based upon the issue under consideration?

Berating a depressed individual by yelling at them that they need to get their eyes off themselves and onto God isn’t necessarily going to lift a person out of their funk. It’s just going to cause a number to wonder what kind of self-absorption does God suffer from that He can’t take a moment or two out of His schedule upon hearing that someone has the blahs.

In the attempt to spread fear and panic about, well, fear and panic, Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio homily warned that depression and a downcast spirit can spread from one person to the next. As evidence, he relayed the case of such an incident that transpired during street preaching. Street preaching is where the unsuspecting are verbally ambushed on the street regarding their need for Jesus. The person prone towards discouragement should have probably not participated in this form of confrontational outreach. But there is often no other way to advance or even retain status among this variety of militant fundamentalism.

In a sermon condemnatory of Christians suffering from depression, Pastor Jason Cooley remarked that often unbelievers exhibit more outward joy than many Christians. Maybe that’s because they are not regularly harangued from the pulpit regarding a number of matters that are one’s person opinion and not something clearly elaborated in the Word of God.

In a sermon critical of depression, it was asserted that most health issues are mental issues and that you cannot feel sorry for yourself. But is this kind of sentiment articulated out of concern for the suffering or rather because those purveying such advice don’t want to be bothered hearing about other people’s problems?

In condemnation of Internet ministry, Pastor Jason Cooley remarked that the primary failing of online critics is that they do not discuss the matter that they are addressing face to face. But if they are preemptively categorized as “Jezebel’s” or as “women laden with sin” by this kind of pastor, what is the point in doing so? For isn’t this pastor exhibiting a similarly unteachable spirit as well?

In reaction to a John MacArthur meme, a Calvinist theologian posted, “Exactly! We need to be judging and assessing the salvation of others. Churches and filled with undisciplined pagans professing to be Christian.” And what is the point of doing so if God has already through deliberative aforethought selected those who are bound for Heaven and whom He will allow to slip into Hell? Maybe there would be fewer of these crypto-pagans that nothing can allegedly been done for in church if we weren’t constantly beaten over the head about being in church every time the door is open and the suggestion propagated by certain varieties of Calvinism that a number of opportunities should be denied to those that are not formalized members ranging from the recognition of one’s marriage and the resultant children as legitimate in the eyes of organized religion to voting in civil elections and holding public office.

In the March 21, 2016 issue of Businessweek is a piece about a men’s retailer that sells one pair of shorts for $75, another pair for $55, and a shirt for $98. Unless these also double as a working invisibility cloak, apparently some people have more money than common sense. $5 for a pair of brightly colored socks or a novelty tie is pushing it.

In a podcast, it was admonished that Christians are obligated to make their gardens more beautiful for Christ. If there is going to be that much stress in connection with something that is for the most part a leisure activity, why bother planting one in the first place?

Hillary Clinton has promised a new mental health program. If implemented, perhaps she will be the first to avail herself of these services.

Now that her own bosom is probably sagging and whithered beyond the uplifting hope of reconstructive repair, former Baywatch Bimbo Pamela Anderson is urging men not to gaze upon pornography.

Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine has condemned Donald Trump’s audience with the Mexican President as a “diplomatic embarrassment”. But wasn’t this meeting where both figures agreed to the importance of mutually respecting each other’s nation’s borders more productive than Obama’s own preelection preening here he sauntered to locations such as Berlin where he attempted to hoodwink the assembled throngs into believing he was the Messiah or some such equivalent?

Russell Moore now laments Evangelicals deriving much of their identity from politics. What he probably means is that he is upset many Evangelicals disagree with his preferred politics. From his public pronouncements, it would seem Moore would need to be among the first to repent. For did not Moore rank the foremost calling into question the validity of the profession of faith those Christians expressing electoral support for Donald Trump? Does not Moore himself sit on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, a group dedicated to the advancement of a particular groups interests at the expense of another based primarily on skin color and related physical characteristics? If Moore believes that the primary concern of the Christian ought to be the evangelistic or doctrinal, why did he leave his original position as a seminary professor to head the Ethics and Public Policy Commission which is essentially the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention?

A Marvel Comic about a Black superhero that in part confronts gentrification has been canceled. The fact that it proudly focused on gentrification pretty much tells you why it was canceled.

More time has elapsed between the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation and now than between the premieres of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. So shouldn’t the upcoming online series be Star Trek: The Next Next Generation rather than rehashed prequel material of everywhere we have already been before? Are producers that bereft of creativity? If nothing else, couldn’t they focus on the Time Wars hinted at in Star Trek: Enterprise or a time ship like the one featured on an episode of Voyager?

So regarding a church that plans to hold a clothing swap but refuses to hold a flea market, garage sale, or craft fair from perspective that such activities are sinful, why is it acceptable to trade clothing on church property but wrong to sell it?

If someone says on 9/11 that the date is a commemoration of remembrance but that they refuse to fill their mind with such images, aren’t they filling their minds with such by simply mentioning it? Furthermore, isn’t this perspective not that much different than saying that one does not want to focus on the sufferings of Christ but rather concentrate on His moral teachings? Isn’t the Christian, especially if the individual presents themselves as a spiritual leader, supposed to approach reality as it actually exists?

If a pastor says that he’d rather do something he finds satisfying rather than be paid for in order to manipulate people into doing things for the congregation, shouldn’t he put his proverbial money where his mouth is by refusing any kind of financial reimbursement from the church? If we are supposed to only do things that satisfy rather than because they pay as counseled from a pulpit, who will end up funding a church and, perhaps more importantly, these numerous missionaries many of these churches like to finances often at the expense of the church’s own financial viability?

Pulling Titus 3:13 entirely out of its exegetical context, a pastor insisted that it was mentioned that Zenas was a lawyer as proof that Christians practicing secular professions are obligated to offer their skills on behalf of the church gratis. But does not Scripture teach that a workman is worthy of his hire? Where does it say in holy writ that this teaching applies only to professional religionists?

The question should be asked. Did the principal that urged parents to have their children exempted from standardized tests in order not to bring down the school’s average break any laws or regulations? If not, he cannot be made the scapegoat for utilizing a provision allowed by policy or procedure. It might not have been the politically correct thing to do, but he not only has to look out for his own position but he must also take into consideration jeopardized funding that would be denied to the more capable students at the school. Wouldn’t the ones to blame be rather the legislators or regulators that implemented such a system?

Regarding those such as celebrities threatening to leave America if Trump is elected president. That should upset us why? Such consequences would probably make America a better place. Therefore, good riddance.

While addressing the Colin Kaepernick fiasco, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church lamented in a discussion uploaded to SermonAudio the rise of “Fox News Christianity”. By that, the gaggle of theologians meant a variety of religious devotion that conflates patriotism with the Christian faith. Is it that the two have become dangerously intertwined or are these professional religionists jacked out of shape that some people might have interests and concerns beyond constant church attendance? Interestingly, in these remarks the conservative Christian is admonished that Kaepernick is within his Constitutional rights to be as disrespectful as he wants to be. However, when the conservative believer articulates their particular social vision, these same pastors bore them a new one how the Bible and the Constitution are not the same and how we really have no rights. Usually that sort of rhetoric is invoked to opposition to mistreatment or abuse taking place within a religious context.

If your cutoff shorts are cut so short that the pockets dangle lower than the cut off, it’s pretty safe to say that the shorts are now risque.

Hillary Clinton said her pneumonia is the first time Republican men have ever expressed concern regarding women’s health. This has got to be the first time the phrase “WOMENNNNNNN’s health” wasn’t employed as a euphemism for wanton fornication and infanticide. An infomercial is urging viewers to invest in a company developing the technology to hold 3D holographic events. In essence, you too can own a little piece of the Antichrist. The technology in itself is morally neutral. However, cannot help but have that verse come to mind about life being given to the image of the Beast.

Those wanting the name of Jefferson Davis Highway in Alexandria changed are probably carpetbaggers not even from Virginia.

Authorities are asking bystanders with possible recorded footage of the NYC dumpster bombers to come forward. When this video depicts perpetrators other than Whites of a conservative visage, will such vigilant citizens be harassed like those insisting that they saw a third Oklahoma City bomber?

The extent to which those in the ruling regime and their dutiful supplicants in the media are reluctant to categorize an act of violence as terrorism is evidence of the degree to which terrorists and allied subversives have eroded the American spirit.

Hillary’s pronouncement in light of the NYC dumpster bombing that it is better to delaying arriving at a conclusion about a matter until more information is available reveals the thinking of a woman having spent a lifetime denying what is staring her right in the face such as about what Bill was putting into Monica’s.

At the United Nation’s, Obama insisted that we are obligated to throw our borders open to Islamist refugees. Maybe a number can be relocated to reside alongside him in the family quarters at the White House and at his assorted properties when he leaves office.

In a sermon where the modern believer was condemned for having a Walmart nearby unlike the humble ancient agrarian who only had God to rely upon, it was fascinating to hear the pastor stumble when the Power Point froze. For is not the pastor relying on images to compensate for lackluster homiletical delivery unlike the prophets of old who were empowered by God’s spirit rather than Microsoft apparently?

In a sermon on singleness, it was decreed that singles not volunteering in the church are “not being accountable” (that nebulous catch all when professional religionists want to chew you out for something but really can’t clearly point out exactly what you are alleged to have done wrong). If the pastor is getting paid, you are not obligated to do anything on behalf of a religious organization unless you have contractually agreed to for a predetermined amount of pay.

In a SermonAudio homily, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church lamented that the suburbanite is not required to rely upon the provision of the Lord to the same degree as the agrarian. So why is he the pastor of a religious entertainment complex in fairly modernized Fayetteville rather than somewhere in the remote mountains of North Carolina?

It was suggested in a sermon that singles ought to volunteer to babysit the children of the married people in the church. Shouldn’t the children be taken care of by the parents that had the sex bringing the whelps into existence? And if these singles are obligated to babysit the married people’s kids, shouldn’t they be paid for this labor?

It was said in a sermon on singleness that viewing someone not married by the age of 25 as an old maid was from a certain perspective at one time rooted is supposedly Scriptural ideas. Nearly the same sort of thing used to be said about sending the Black folks to the back of the bus.

It was said in a sermon on marriage that most men enter into it selfishly. As if most wenches settle for ugly men with no bank account, automobile, property, or steady job.

So long as a “do good” initiative is voluntary, fine and dandy. Thing is, the contemporary dogooder is of the mind to force you to do good even if what they consider doing good is at variance with those eager to parade their virtue?

Fuss is being made that CIA director John Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate in 1976. Perhaps the more pressing concern ought to be that for the past several election cycles that the Communist Party simply endorses the Democratic candidate as its nominee?

If liberals can remove Confederate monuments and recognitions from public memory, perhaps conservatives should begin to lay the framework to eventually remove Obama’s name from buildings where he was bestowed this honor for simply having emerged from his mother’s birth canal half Black.

On the WRC 4 website regarding the story about proposed enhanced security measures at Arlington Cemetery, of all the military personnel buried there, the accompanying photo just happened to focus on the grave of a Muslim.

If one can’t be compelled to show a photo ID in order to vote, then why should one be compelled to show a photo ID to enter Arlington Cemetery as proposed by the military? If one is to be made to feel like a criminal for making the effort to visit these solemn grounds, what is to prevent the average American from no longer caring about such places if they become yet another venue in which the state can practice its conditioning techniques resulting in increased docility?

In the first 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton criticized Donald Trump for capitalizing upon and speaking favorably of the real estate crisis. How is what Trump did appreciably different than the actions of Clinton financier George Soros who deliberately conspires to collapse entire currencies and economies?

In the first 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton condemned the American people for their implicit prejudice that prompts them to think in ways not authorized by tolerancemongers and selected social engineers. Does she intend to speak as directly against those that help themselves without benefit of recognized economic transaction to the inventory of nearby merchants following an unpopular trial verdict or police action?

Apparently pink gloves denote breast cancer awareness. Don’t gloves prompt you to think more of prostate cancer?

USA Today has declared Donald Trump unfit to be President. Some have always insisted that USA Today isn’t fit to be considered a newspaper.

A NYC councilman insists he’s no less patriotic for refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Probably because he wasn’t very patriotic to begin with.

The U.S. Navy has announced that personnel will be addressed by rank rather than job classification in the attempt to avoid articulating the profanity “man”. Does the Russian or Chinese militaries sit around wringing their hands about such banalities?

In a homily posted on SermonAudio, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church condemned those not risking their lives for Christ in the same manner as the Apostles and early Church Fathers. Such exhortations might carry more weight if the pastor wasn’t sitting so comfortably as the head honcho of a sizable religious entertainment complex. If the pastor replies to mere pewfillers perceptive enough to raise these sorts of observations that he is exactly where God wants him to be, the retort to that ought to be is how does he know that the mere pewfiller isn’t exactly where God wants them to be?

According to Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church, the Christian ought to take risks for Christ with little consideration of the consequences. If they do and loose their jobs, will the church pick up the tab or do new vacation Bible school puppets every year take precedence in terms of the disbursement of the offering?

Some are building bunkers and emergency shelters fearing the prospects of a Trump election victory. See, he’s already stimulating the economy with many of these jobs no doubt going to migrant laborers.

Donald Trump has been condemned for wondering how Hillary would fair without an armed Secret Service detail. His son has been condemned for suggesting that those willing to allow entrance to poorly vetted refugees should be willing to eat a handful of Skittles from a bowl where only a few of the candies are poisoned. Apparently on the part of liberals there is an expectation that those subjected to their totalitarian brand of social engineering are to be forbidden from speaking out against the consequences or implications of misguided policies.

Hillary Clinton is urging millennials to participate in a day of service to give to something larger than themselves. How about urging them to look for jobs and to pay their own way in life?

Frau Obama condemned birther propaganda as undermining her husband’s regime. Did she ever speak out as forcefully against “that guy from their neighborhood” Bill Ayers whose subversive acts actually resulted in the destruction of government property? Does the First Lady condemn contemporary acts of subversion where businesses are vandalized and looted following unpopular police actions or trial verdicts not even involving these victimized merchants?

Isn’t it also an insult to accuse a campaign of being insult-driven?

Did those now accusing Trump of bigotry for at one point questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship condemn Obama of bigotry for insisting that those residing in rural Pennsylvania bitterly clung to their God and their guns?

Regarding the imperative of evacuating from the path of the oncoming hurricane, President Obama insisted that property can always be rebuilt. Those confronted with FEMA regulations and prohibitions following the destruction of a dwelling might legitimately argue otherwise.

A CNN propagandist reminded Fox News broadcasters that they don’t work for Donald Trump. Will he as deliberatively conscientious in directing a similar admonition to the moderator of the Vice Presidential debate that similarly she does not work for the Clinton campaign?

For purchasing advertising time on the Weather Channel ahead of the pending hurricane, the Clinton campaign is accused of attempting to benefit from fear and panic. When is this different than any other time? For without fear and panic, would politicians as an occupational class even exist. Will erectile dysfunction cures and feminine hygiene products be accused of attempting to grow their audience share during the crisis brought on by this natural calamity as well?

That’s quite revealing in regards to the historic Donald Trump/Rosie O’Donnell spat that the take away from that was how horrible it was that Trump dared ridicule a WOMANNN’s appearance (the term “woman” used loosely in regards to Rosie) rather than his suggestion free speech ought to be curtailed.

By Frederick Meekins

Cal Thomas Talks From Both Sides Regarding Trump

In a 7/22/2016 commentary transcript, Cal Thomas condemned Ted Cruz’s Republican convention remarks as self-serving.

In those, the Texas Senator, instead of endorsing Donald Trump explicitly, urged the American people to vote their consciences.

It has yet to be explained how that message differed from that articulated by Trump’s own daughter who revealed she votes individual rather than party.

If anyone knows self-serving, it is Cal Thomas.

In “Blinded By Might”, the mass communicator allegedly repented of his involvement with Moral Majority and that his fellow Christians ought to embrace a spirit of political pacificism in order to assuage his own conscience.

However, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump, Thomas certainly didn’t mind contributing in the name of Christian values to an issue of National Review seeking to derail the Trump candidacy.

But with Trump triumphant, Thomas now goes out of his way to badmouth any conservative or Republican failing to march in lockstep or even question the direction in which this movement might be taking America.

Thomas often likes to point out his tenuous familial connection to Calvin Coolidge.

However, it seems the figure from political history he has the most in common with might be none other than Talleyrand.

By Frederick Meekins

Loyalty To Family Ought To Trump Trump

According to a number of Facebook theologians, Ted Cruz’s refusal or failure to endorse Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee wasn’t simply bad manners at best or strategically imprudent at worst. Instead, such thinkers invoke this rhetorical incident to call into question the validity of the Senator’s profession of faith as a Christian.

It is claimed that, earlier in the presidential campaign season, Ted Cruz promised to endorse whomever it was that voters (or moneyed secret societies dependent upon your view as to how this process is determined in the end) selected as the Republican candidate. At the time, it was believed that Donald Trump would never be triumphant and that this rhetorical stunt might be enough to forestall a third party bid on the part of the real estate tycoon that would likely result in Hillary Clinton winning the White House.

At the time, it seemed that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz might have had a considerable degree of compatibility. Some pundits and strategists even speculated that Cruz might have even made a good vice president on a ticket headed by Donald Trump.

Given Trump’s New Yorker mentality, his preferred strategy consisted of repeatedly insulting his opponents into submission and compliance. By the time he got around to Cruz, it seems this verbal barrage could not be turned off.

A number of Trump’s most scathing retorts against Cruz were actually aimed at the physical appearance of Cruz’s wife Heidi and at Cruz’s father for supposedly being part of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. For unlike Trump, Cruz apparently takes serious the clause in the traditional wedding vows about marriage being until death and not until the first sign of crows feet.

Yet it would seem surprisingly to the most thoroughgoing and rigorous of Christians that PR stunts along the campaign trail are a far more serious matter than promises made before God at the marriage altar or loyalty to family.

Apart from a situation resulting in profound criminality such as treason, terrorism, or an act that would result in discernible quantifiable harm to an individual, one’s foremost loyalties ought to be to one’s family rather than the state necessarily. Even much less is owed to an individual that hasn’t even as of yet been elected to public office.

Ted Cruz might have promised to endorse whomever the Republican candidate was to be once the dust settled. However, that promise was made before Trump disparaged Cruz’s family in some of the most visceral ways imaginable.

Yet as of much concern to the spiritually inclined ought to be the elevation of this incident at the Republican convention to the level of a litmus test by which Senator Cruz’s profession of faith is judged valid or not.

There are a number of different interpretations as to the procedural mechanics by which an individual attains the state of salvation according to the various confessional traditions within the Christian faith. However, at the most fundamental, a Christian is someone that has professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for dieing upon the cross as payment for our sins and rising from the dead so that those that believe in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.

Nowhere in the historic creeds held by any legitimate denomination does it say anything about your mansion in the beatific beyond being forfeited as a result of renigging on your promise to endorse a particular presidential candidate should your relationship with this aspiring leader turn sour. Pietistic sticklers might snipe that Scripture dictates by someone’s fruits that you will know a person and that faith without works is dead.

According to the concepts of the orders of creation and subsidiarity, for the smooth functioning of human society, God established certain spheres of authority to oversee the complexity of the world and that the authority closest to a particular concern ought to be the one to address the matter. As such, the loyalty that ought to be the strongest should be for immediate family such as one’s spouse, children, parents, and siblings. In a properly balanced system, the loyalty and deference due a distant aspiring leader and even the offices which such figures seek ought to be minimal or perhaps even tentative at its most intense.

By conscious volition in terms of the marriage vows before God and men, the first loyalty of Ted Cruz is to his wife. Coming in at a close second is that to his father given that, from all indication, it seems that the two have an intact familial relationship. If anything, Ted Cruz’s profession of faith should be called into question if he did not prioritize their honor by taking some kind of symbolic stand that realizes that, while there might not be any other electorally viable alternative to Hillary Clinton other than Donald Trump, in good conscience he cannot pledge fealty to the man.

The conspicuously devout that pride themselves on finding a Biblical text for nearly every life contingency will no doubt rush to the Old Testament and invoke the narrative of Jepthah as proof that the believer is obligated to abide by his promises no matter how outlandish. Jepthah in Judges 11:31 vowed that he would offer as a sacrifice the first thing he saw emerge from his domicile upon his return home if the Lord would grant him victory over the Ammonites.

It turned out that that would be his daughter. And to prove that he was a man of his word, Jepthah did kill her.

Religious enthusiasts will rejoice, “See! This is proof that Ted Cruz is obligated to fulfill his vow to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.” Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps those holding to this position ought to contemplate the implications of what they are advocating.

Jepthah made this vow to God. So are those critical of Cruz regarding this matter telling us that Trump is, in their view, God or deserving of the same unwavering loyalty that is owed to the Almighty?

Even in terms of the traditional wedding ceremony, the binding lifelong nature of that union is probably characterized as such more so because one swears this promise not so much to one’s intended spouse as one is making this promise to and before a righteous and holy God. Since Donald Trump has been married three times with an undisclosed additional number of women before, during, and after each of these marriages, it is pretty safe to say that he does not rise to the same level of perfection as the triune Godhead.

Those that continue to insist that Ted Cruz is likely not a Christian or at least not a very good one need to be quite careful. For does not Scripture say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

As such, does that not also include those leveling these kinds of accusations against Senator Cruz? If these critics continue to insist that they are without sin, does not I John 1:8 say of them that they are liars? If they are going to hold that the slightest shortcoming in the life of the professed believer is evidence of the likelihood that the individual is likely not a believer, might these types wallowing in self righteousness in regards to the Ted Cruz question be in danger of the hottest hellfire of all?

You aren’t going to get through life without a few mistakes which theologians would categorize as sin. On the Day of Judgment would you rather stand before God having failed to uphold the honor of your wife and father or having failed to placate a presidential candidate that by that point probably doesn’t even reside in the desired habitation of the Afterlife if he continues to insist that he has never done anything wrong in need of a Savior’s forgiveness in the first place.

By Frederick Meekins

The Pied Piper Of Apostasy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Trump Equated With Italian Tyrant

On the cover of the summer 2016 issue of New Politics is a caricature of Donald Trump dressed as Benito Mussolini with his arm outstretched in the infamous Fascist salute.

Interesting how these very same leftists feign contempt and outrage whenever conservative pundits invoke similar imagery from the time of the Second World War.

It is claimed that that period’s loss of life was so overwhelming that it ought to only be referred to in connection to itself and must not be cheapened by using such horrors as a basis for other historical or political comparisons.

Even more worthy of reference is the accompanying caption insisting that Donald Trump’s slogan is “Make America White Again”.

The candidate said nothing of the sort.

All Trump threatened to do is to enforce existing immigration laws and to implement a number of possible security measures to keep out those not coming here in compliance with established procedures and those intent upon harming the nation.

If the editors of New Politics construe the phrase “Make America Great Again” as “Make America White Again”, aren’t these intellectuals the ones insinuating that, without a White majority, America won’t likely be able to retain its preeminence in the world or standard of living.

Even if Trump did run on a platform of making America White again (which he is not), how is such an aspiration any worse than the desire of Ray Nagin to keep New Orleans as a “Chocolate City” as he enunciated during his tenure as that metropolis’ corrupt executive?

How is making America White again as a rallying point of a campaign anymore outrageous than activists that lament “gentrification”, a fancy way of saying its better off for inner cities to remain in a state of decay than for them to become inhabited by an infestation of White interlopers desiring to reside there for whatever reasons.

By Frederick Meekins