Headline Potpourri #100

If in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth, why can’t a congregation occasionally hold an outdoor service seated in lawn chairs? Apparently some pastors know more than Acts 7:48 conveying that the Most High does not dwell in temples made by hands.

Even if one believes it is an impropriety for there to be female preachers, that does not mean that the message they are attempting to convey should not be considered preaching without an analysis of the content.

So if it is wrong for a congregation to hold an outdoor service with lawn chairs, does that mean we should also condemn the likes of Great Awakening revivalists such as George Whitefield or John Wesley who preached outside?

Khan Noonien Singh might be featured in a Star Trek miniseries set between the time he was kicked off the Enterprise and what is considered by many the greatest of the Star Trek movies. Frankly, I think one about the rise of Khan during the Eugenics Wars would be more enlightening. However, that would probably step on too many Transhumanist and New World Order toes.

The governor of West Virginia announced at a Trump Nuremberg-style rally that he was becoming a Republican because there was nothing more he could do for the state as a Democrat. That means that, since Senator Byrd croaked, the government handouts must have really dried up.

If the Google engineer had composed a memo perceived as denigrating men rather than WOMMMMENNN, would he have still been fired?

If Airbnb can deny services to those believed to be attending a White nationalist rally, why are Christian bakers obligated to prepare cakes for gay weddings?

In a homily posted on SermonAudio, it was admonished that spiritual gifts and ecclesiastical offices are not to be sought but are instead to be bestowed by the Lord. As such, shouldn’t that pastors that believe similar hold their critical tongues if no one volunteers? After all, those not stepping forward might simply not feel so led by the Holy Spirit.

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor insisted that Christians in America have nothing to complain about in comparison to what transpires in other countries. Perhaps someone should shout that back to the pastor when he gripes about diminishing attendance numbers and offering contributions.

Technically, as wretched as many of the rampaging AltRight activists are and it is a tragic loss of life, unless the police helicopter was brought down by a rocket launcher, the White nationalist rally is not responsible for the crash. Would someone growing marijuana deep in the woods be at fault had the aircraft crashed during interdiction efforts employing an ultraviolet scanner?

In coverage of the Charlottesville disturbances, Fox News correspondent Julie Banderas, who markets herself as an objective journalist rather than one of the network’s opinion analysts, categorized David Duke a “crazy”. Does she have an official diagnosis from an actual mental health functionary? Just as important, over the course of her broadcast career, has she been as explicitly blunt in similarly labeling Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, or Louis Farrakhan? She went on to add that the perpetrators ought to be arrested and the other protesters should go home. She is quite correct. Was she as explicit in her call for the dispersal of Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street upheavals?

If the upheaval in Charlottesville is actually the direct result of AltRight militants rather than instigated by counter protesters in the name of acceptance and inclusion unable to control their propensity towards violent outbursts, does Russell Moore and milksops in the Southern Baptist Convention intend to urge Americans to withhold their judgment and instead call upon us to understand the frustrations of out alienated “White brothers and sisters”? If not, why not? After all, that has often been the response of the mentioned to the property destruction of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In contemplation of the violent disturbances in Charlottesville, it is fascinating how this “hate” we are ordered to reflexively condemn is seldom defined. For in certain leftist circles, “hate” is construed to consist of little more that questioning the philosophical propriety of preferences for minorities, for insisting that there is only one valid religion that will actually deliver a soul into a beatific afterlife, and that the God of such has determined which sorts of human relationships are wholesome and which are an abomination.

If Fox News is going to insist that David Duke should be held directly responsible for the Charlottesville disturbances, couldn’t Fox News be held responsible for stirring people up?

Apparently David Duke is supposed to be discredited simply because he has “been under investigation by the FBI for decades” with those making such a claim not proceeding to go into an elaboration of exactly what. If that alone is to be enough to social anathematize an individual, wouldn’t the message of Martin Luther King also without additional reflection?

In his condemnation of the disturbances in Charlottesville, President Trump rightfully insisted that no child in American should be afraid to play outside. However, this is not the late 1800’s. Deadbeats in white robes riding horses are not the ones wreaking havoc in Black neighborhoods.

Apparently Senator Rubio wants to point out President Trump’s failure to condemn White supremacists for the disturbances in Charlottesville. As such, should as much be made about Rubio’s failure to condemn the violent Antifa there on the ground also throwing punches and probably projectiles?

In response to the Charlottesville disturbances, Governor Terry McAuliffe admonished that Americans should rally around true patriots such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So which is it going to be? Any other times we are obligated to renounce that particular duo of Virginians because they did not embrace twenty-first century leftwing perspectives regarding race. Furthermore, the underlying political and social philosophies of Washington and Jefferson would not have been appreciably different than those of Robert E. Lee whose statue and the proposed removal of such led to these outbursts in the first place. So if McAuliffe supports the removal of Confederate memorials throughout the Charlottesville area, why doesn’t he articulate true political courage and call for the demolition of nearby Monticello as well. For graduates of the contemporary public schools, that was Jefferson’s home.

During Terry McAuliffe’s press conference regarding the Charlottesville, it was articulated that heated political rhetoric and division must come to an end. But doesn’t he owe much of his public notoriety to being a Clinton propagandist and lackey known for his aptitude to badmouth Republicans and Conservatives?

Self-professed Communist Van Jones is jacked out of shape that a number of Charlottesville marauders carried their own makeshift shields. But isn’t that implement more defensive in nature than the Molotov cocktails, fecal bombs, and outright stones preferred to be hurled by the sorts of rampagers favored by this CNN propagandist?

What likely brings together both White nationalist and Antifa scumbags that clashed in Charlottesville: probably the government handouts they receive each month.

The vehicular incident in Charlottesville was likely a deliberate attack. However, of protesters black traffic, they should not be dumbfounded if they are run over. After all, one of the first lessons you are taught as a child upon learning that there is a world beyond one’s own home is not to play in the street.

One is morally obligated to respect others in terms of leaving them be. However, contrary to the sentiment articulated by Donald Trump, you cannot be compelled to feel or demonstrate affection for others. This used to be assumed in the classic parental advice told to every child that did not have any friends or to teens rejected by the members of the opposite sex that they pined for. It is also pretty much a summation of the legal reasoning behind an assortment of laws regarding stalking. That is of course the truism you can’t make someone like you.

There were still probably fewer lives lost this past weekend in Charlottesville as a result of violence than in Chicago.

Fascinating how all these elected officials get on their high horses about how much they despise Nazism say nary a word about protesters in Seattle proudly waving Soviet flags.

So regarding the AltRight activist assaulted during a press conference. Does Ted Cruz intend to call for a Justice Department to investigate that abridgment of civil rights? For as the ACLU reminds us any other time, liberties are not dependent upon whether or not we approve of the individual invoking Constitutional protections.

Fascinating how those insisting that there is no place in America for “White nationalism” are the same ones insisting that there is room in the United States for Islamic extremism when they come out in opposition to President Trump’s proposals to curtail and scrutinize the flow of migrants from regimes where jihadist ideology is pervasive.

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor said that failure to condemn the White supremacy disturbances in Charlottesville is the moral equivalent of inciting violence. Given that the pastor did not also reference Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or the Occupy Movement in his analysis of how generalized societal unbelief leads to violence, by the standard he advocates, isn’t he suggesting that he supports destructive leftwing revolutionary protests?

It was remarked in a sermon attempting to link President Trump with the Charlottesville disturbances that the torches carried by protesters were characteristic of the proud look that God despises. So are we supposed to conclude that the Molotov cocktails and fecal bombs hurled by Occupy Movement types and offshoots were laved in a spirit of shamefacedness and reverence?

A number of CEO’s have resigned from the White House council of manufacturing because Trump wasn’t swift enough to differentiate the violence committed in the name of White nationalism (which is bad) from that which advances internationalist statism so long as it is the property of everybody else but the planetary elites being redistributed (which is good). Apparently what Trump did is so much worse than the deeds perpetrated by the Red Chinese that these tycoons seem to prefer to do business with such as organ harvesting, the persecution of religious dissidents, and compulsory child labor.

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, it was said that, because Heaven is multicultural, there should be a longing for Heaven on the part of every sincere believer for that very reason. So apparently now you are out of line if you initially primarily want to go there to evade hellfire and to see departed family members again. Heaven might indeed be multicultural in terms of those that dwell there. However, I doubt the drunks next door will be blasting mariachi music well past midnight.

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

Our World ~ Your World ~ Where has Humanity Gone?

Brought to you by the CCGPC, because we care and we hope you do too.

State Department Refuses to Call Violence Against Rohingya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

BY: 

Half a million Rohingya have fled Myanmar amid burned villages, mass executions.

The U.S. State Department on Thursday refused several times to designate the systemic atrocities against the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar as “ethnic cleansing.”

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Patrick Murphy steered clear of the term when pressed repeatedly by members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to corroborate the United Nations’ assessment that Myanmar’s treatment of its Rohingya minority represents a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”

More than 500,000 people have fled to Bangladesh over the past month, with tens of thousands more trapped on the border, amid reports of the Burmese military burning entire villages and methodically killing Rohingya civilians.

Murphy said security forces bear responsibility for a “disproportionate response” to a Rohingya insurgent attack on more than two dozen security sites that killed 12 people on Aug. 25, but he hedged on whether the military reaction constituted ethnic cleansing. Murphy instead described the crisis as a “human tragedy.”

Murphy’s response drew criticism from lawmakers, including committee chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.) and ranking member Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.).

“Just for the record, myself and Mr. Engel, this committee, we identify this as full-fledged ethnic cleansing,” Royce said.

Engel said satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts show Myanmar’s military and security forces “have been carrying out an intentional, systematic policy to drive Rohingya from their homes in Burma and to burn their villages to the ground.”

He said medical professionals in the region have reported hundreds of Rohingya Muslims being treated for gunshot wounds exacted by security forces as people attempted to flee.

The strongest criticism of Murphy came from Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.), who asked the State official if his refusal to characterize the situation as ethnic cleansing was in fear of offending the Burmese military.

“Mr. Murphy, I guess I don’t understand your reluctance to call this what it is: Ethnic cleansing,” Connolly said. “You’ve used code, ‘disproportionate response by the military, other sources of violence, a cauldron of complexities.’ At least Nikki Haley admitted it appears to be ethnic cleansing.”

“When 800,000 people of a particular ethnic background are living in the neighboring country because they’ve been forcibly removed from their villages, I’d call that ethnic cleansing, pretty clear and simple. What is your reluctance to call it what it is?” he continued.

Murphy rejected Connolly’s characterization of his reluctance to use the term. He said the State Department is “deeply concerned by the human tragedy” and is focused on pursuing “action and to end the violence.”

When pressed again by Connolly to explain his refusal to call it ethnic cleansing, Murphy replied the situation in part “must be focused on the UN fact-finding mission,” which is expected to be complete in September 2018.

“So we’re waiting for the UN?” Connolly asked.

“No, that is a parallel process that we are strongly supporting,” Murphy replied.

“So we don’t care whether the UN find sit ethnic cleansing or not, we’re free to call it what we think it is,” Connolly said.

“Absolutely, a human tragedy,” Murphy replied.

“Then why don’t you call it ethnic cleansing?”

“It’s a human tragedy, congressman.”

Connolly acknowledged the United States must be careful with the labels it applies to humanitarian crises but said the tragedy in Myanmar must be described in clear terms.

Though Murphy declined to label the crisis as ethnic cleansing, he cited comments by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who last week accused Myanmar of carrying out a “brutal, sustained campaign to cleanse the country of an ethnic minority.”

The UN defines ethnic cleansing as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

In September, the top UN human rights official said the “brutal security operation” against the Rohingya “seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” and called upon the government to cease military action against the minority ethnic group.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-department-refuses-call-violence-rohingya-ethnic-cleansing

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

And Yet According to Refugees International – Boots on the Ground Reports

October 6, 2017

Refugees International Bears Witness to Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingya in Myanmar, Calls for Presidential Envoy and Sanctions on Myanmar’s Military

Refugees International released a new policy brief today detailing actions committed by Myanmar’s military that constitute a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya people. The brief, “Bearing Witness to Crimes Against Humanity,” is based on testimony from Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, detailing abuses by Myanmar’s military forces that constitute crimes against humanity.

During a fact-finding mission to the Bangladesh-Myanmar border in late September, Refugees International President Eric Schwartz and Senior Advocate for Human Rights Daniel Sullivan met with Rohingya refugees who recently fled the targeted attacks in Rakhine State. Rohingya men, women, and children who recently arrived in Bangladesh shared consistent accounts of Myanmar soldiers surrounding villages, burning homes to the ground, stabbing and shooting Rohingya villagers, and committing mass rapes.

The Rohingya people have faced decades of persecution and targeted violence in Myanmar, but the recent attacks and large-scale displacement that began just over a month ago is an entirely new scale and level of inhumanity. As a result, the number of Rohingya seeking refuge in neighboring Bangladesh now tops a half million and conditions in the make-shift refugee settlements are appalling. The humanitarian crisis has overwhelmed the Bangladesh government’s existing capabilities. To its credit, Bangladesh has generally welcomed the Rohingya refugees, but much more international assistance is needed to address the still-growing humanitarian crisis.

The RI brief concludes that the root causes of the humanitarian crisis have to be addressed and that can only be done by bringing pressure on the Myanmar government to end its policies of persecution and on the Myanmar military to end its egregious human rights abuses.

Measures by the U.S. Government and the international community should include:

Targeted sanctions on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior military officials and military-owned enterprises.

A multi-lateral arms embargo on Myanmar.

Appointment of a high-level U.S. Presidential envoy on Myanmar.

Further, Refugees International calls on the United Nations, United States, and the international community to demand a cessation of abuses against Rohingya civilians, access for a United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate human rights abuses, and unfettered access for humanitarian organizations in Rakhine State. In addition, there should be robust international support for humanitarian aid efforts in Bangladesh.

 

……….. Which the RI Report States as Follows………

BEARING WITNESS TO CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Following the violent expulsion of some 400,000 Rohingya in Myanmar in the course of three weeks (now more than 500,000), Refugees International (RI) President Eric Schwartz and Senior Advocate for Human Rights Daniel Sullivan traveled to Bangladesh to assess the situation and bear witness. This policy brief is based on that mission, which involved interviews with Rohingya refugees who recently arrived from Myanmar as well as with United Nations and Bangladesh government officials and international aid workers in Bangladesh. Schwartz and Sullivan visited a hospital in Cox’s Bazar which treats recently arrived Rohingya from Myanmar, four makeshift settlements for Rohingya (Kutupalong, Balukhali, Thaingkhali, and Unchiprang) as well as border crossing areas and a “no-man’s land” where many Rohingya have gathered between the borders of Myanmar and Bangladesh. This policy brief is largely adapted from testimony given by Refugees International’s Senior Advocate for Human Rights Daniel Sullivan before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on September 27, 2017.1

The Myanmar military has been executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya people of Myanmar, marked by abuses that constitute crimes against humanity.

More than 500,000 Rohingya have fled their homes in the course of a month, approaching half of the entire Rohingya population that had been living in Myanmar up to a month ago. Vast swaths of villages have been burned by the Myanmar security forces and Rakhine Buddhist mobs. Rohingya refugees who have arrived in Bangladesh share consistent accounts of Myanmar soldiers surrounding villages, burning homes to the ground, stabbing, shooting, and raping the inhabitants, leaving the survivors to flee for their lives.

The current crisis that began just over a month ago is an entirely new scale and level of inhumanity.

The Rohingya have faced decades of persecution, but the violence and large-scale displacement have intensified in recent years. The current crisis that began just over a month ago is of an entirely new scale and level of inhumanity. The current campaign began after attacks on 30 security posts in Rakhine State in western Myanmar and the killing of 12 Myanmar security officials by poorly armed Rohingya insurgents, but the military’s response to those attacks has been grossly disproportionate and has broadly targeted the Rohingya civilian population. Many people from other ethnic groups, including Rakhine Buddhists and Hindus have been displaced and killed as well, reportedly in attacks by Rohingya insurgents, but the attacks on other groups has been nowhere on the scale of the attacks on the Rohingya.

The outflow of half a million Rohingya has also created a humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh as existing capabilities have been overwhelmed. To its credit, the Bangladesh government has generally welcomed the Rohingya refugees, but much more international assistance is needed to address the still growing humanitarian crisis. Ultimately, the root causes of the crisis will have to be addressed by bringing pressure on the Myanmar government that has continued policies of persecution and on the Myanmar military that has carried out egregious human rights abuses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The UN Security Council should:

  • Demand a cessation of abuses against Rohingya civilians, access for a United Nations fact-finding mission that has been authorized by the UN Human Rights Council, and unfettered access for humanitarian organizations to Rakhine State.
  • Impose a multi-lateral arms embargo until these requirements are met and individuals involved in planning, aiding or carrying out such abuses against the Rohingya are held accountable.
  • Place targeted sanctions on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior military officials and military-owned enterprises.
  • Authorize evidence collection through the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission or another UN Security Council authorized fact-finding mission toward holding accountable those responsible for gross human rights abuses.
  • Support a referral to the International Criminal Court unless the Myanmar authorities take significant measures to address the human rights concerns and to hold accountable those responsible for gross human rights abuses.
  • Affirm support for the report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, which contains important recommendations relating to the Rohingya in Myanmar.

The U.S. government should:

  • Strongly support UN Security Council action as described above.
  • Prohibit military-to-military cooperation with Myanmar and place targeted sanctions against Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior military officials and military-owned enterprises until the Myanmar government ends abuses in Rakhine state, permits unfettered international humanitarian access, and holds accountable individuals involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the abuses against the Rohingya.
  • Support robust humanitarian aid efforts in Bangladesh in the near term, focusing, particularly, on adequate shelter, food, water, sanitation and hygiene, and medical care, including clinical management of rape and psychosocial support for survivors of gender-based violence (GBV).
  • Work toward the eventual safe and voluntary return of Rohingya to Myanmar.
  • Appoint a high-level Presidential envoy on Myanmar (who could be a “dual-hatted” official who is already serving in government), who would seek to work with like-minded governments to lead international efforts to end abuses, provide assistance to refugees and promote conditions that will permit the eventual safe and voluntary return of Rohingya to Myanmar.

Download the Policy Brief: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/s/Myanmar-Policy-Brief-October-2017-lmhg.pdf

1

Rohingya fleeing abuses in Myanmar seek refuge in “no-man’s land” between the borders of Myanmar and Bangladesh!

Southern Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd Congregation Burned Church Project

The Burned church project. Your financial support is needed to help them rebuild what was destroyed and lost in this destructive fire. Please, any amount you can contribute will go directly to Fr. Jason Crowder and the Southern Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd Congregation. Thank you and bless you for your love, prayers and support for our fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Sincerely IHS and yours,
H.E. +++Andrew M. B. Patrick

https://www.gofundme.com/burned-church-project

Coffee and the Good Book 07/19 by Christians Refuge Radio Network | Christianity Podcasts

Relax and start your day with a cup of Joe and inspiration for the Good Book of Holy Scripture with our, Patriarch +++Andrew Patrick as your host. Each week he will read a Scripture lead by the Holy Spirit and give you divine discernment to take away with you for your walk with Christ as a faithful follower of Lord’s flock. Enriching your life and bringing the Holy Word of God into practical use today. Just straight talk from the heart, for your eternal soul ‘IS’ your most precious commodity.

Today’s reading and discernment comes from the book of

John Chapter 14, Verses 1 – 21

Topic; To Believe or Not To Believe ?

Source: Coffee and the Good Book 07/19 by Christians Refuge Radio Network | Christianity Podcasts

The Cultural Impact Of Worldview & Apologetics, Part 3

It could be argued that the primary perspective allowing so many of the other outlooks to take hold that would have seemed downright silly, bizarre, and even inimical to human liberty to previous generations of mainstream Americans is none other than Postmodernism. Modernism held that man — through observational science and objective reasoning — could on his own without reliance on God’s revelation derive truths roughly equivalent to those once deduced from religion and even improve upon those areas in which credentialed experts had concluded ecclesiastical authorities had fallen short. Postmodernism holds, in the words of J.P. Moreland, that “…there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason, and so forth. All of these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices, and, as such, are relative not to individuals but to social groups that share a narrative (208).”

The average person may not be aware of the obtuse and technical debates that go on in academia regarding the nature of history or whether or not there is a definitive interpretation to a classic work of literature or even if there are works of literature worthy of distinction as such. However, on some level just about everyone (with the exception of those in a persistent vegetative state whose lives are actually endangered as a result of the amoralism Postmodernism advocates) is familiar with the perspective of ethical relativism.

Francis Beckwith defines moral relativism as, “the view that when it comes to questions of morality, there is no absolute objective right and wrong; moral rules are merely personal preferences and/or the result of one’s cultural, sexual or ethnic orientation (211).” This sounds quite enlightened philosophically, but as Beckwith points out, in such a system the belief that unjustified killing is wrong is reduced to the level of individual predilection such as one might have for one variety of ice cream over another.

The relativism upon which Postmodernism rests is undermined by its own assumptions and is ultimately held in place only by the sheer power of those that profess it. The unfortunate thing is it is through this mindset that such elites tend to propagate themselves and to marginalize those failing to embrace a form of diversity where everyone is compelled to espouse the same set of principles.

Inherent to Postmodern relativism is the assumption that no objective standard exists. Beckwith observes, “If the mere fact of disagreement were sufficient to conclude that objective norms do not exist, then we would have to believe that there is no objectively correct position on such issues as slavery, genocide, and child molestation; for the slave owner, genocidal maniac, and pedophile have an opinion that differs from the one held by those of us who condemn their actions (215).”

Yet especially in regards to the issue of child molestation, unless one has been severely traumatized oneself or deliberately decided to wallow in humanity’s basest perversities, one recoils in horror at the prospect of there being no higher justification protecting the innocent from such horrors. Beckwith assures, however, the fact that objections can be raised regarding such practices itself lends credence to moral standards existing above the fray of human affairs. For to insist that there are no absolutes is itself to invoke an absolute.

The human tendency to formulate moral codes, even when those cultures and individuals deriving these fall short of the aspired ideal, is a powerful tool in the hands of the apologist to point the seeker towards the existence of God. If nothing exists beyond the physical realm, man is the highest authority with the state being the highest of his institutions. In such an environment, “what is” becomes “what ought” with the nation possessing either the largest army or the nation most willing to use force in extending its policy objectives both within and beyond its borders determining this for the greatest percentage of the world’s population.

Thus for standards to exist against horrors such as slavery and genocide beyond human preference and circumstance, they must be rooted in a source existing above, beyond, and yet accessible to human beings and their institutions for the purposes of reflection and implementation. Paul Copan writes, “The existence of a good personal God, who created humans in his image, offers a simpler and less-contrived connection, a more plausible context to affirm human value and rights as well as moral obligations (87).” Since human beings posses conscious personhood, the source of the standards we are to live by must also possess this quality.

Sexual debauchery and drunken carousing might provide a shallow satisfaction for a short while; however, after awhile the typical soul longs for something it perceives as having a more solid foundation. Indoctrinated now since nearly the first day of school as to the shortcomings of Western civilization, many young skulls full of mush as Rush Limbaugh once categorized naive students are turning to what are described as Eastern religions or systems of belief in their pursuit of purpose and meaning.

By Frederick Meekins

Leftist Theologue’s Animus Towards America Extends To Nation’s Very Name

Sometimes a notion or a concept can seem insightful upon its initial articulation, but after additional consideration it seems rather vapid or out of touch with reality. For example, published in the December 2016 edition of “Christianity Today” is a column titled “Christianity Without An Adjective”.

On the surface, such a goal seems laudable as it is a reminder not to sublimate Christ to any particular ideology or social philosophy. However, such an admonition fails to take into consideration why many today feel the need to articulate a modifier when describing their particular brand of Christianity and how this admonition to avoid doing so just as easily plays into the hands of the adversary.

“Christianity Today” began in the second half of the twentieth century in order to defend sound Biblical Theology in an intellectually respectable and rigorous manner before a public whose institutions of thought had already turned markedly hostile towards religiously orthodox ideas and perspectives.

In particular, “Christianity Today” was intended to stand as an alternative to more leftist publications such as “Christian Century”, “Commonweal”, and “Sojourners Magazine”. These publications often tended to promote a more liberal outlook on a variety of social, cultural, and theological issues to the point where the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith were denied but the Christian terminology retained as a way to understand reality even if these definitions were reconceptualized in compliance with the radical fads of any given moment of the lengthy print runs of these respective publications. Coming briefly to mind was an article published a few years ago suggesting in violation of Hebrews 9:22 that the shedding of blood really wasn’t all the necessary for the remission of sins after all.

Those holding to a more traditionalist understanding of the faith once delivered unto the saints were not the ones that attempted to alter the rules in the middle of the game or the very game itself. As such, why are we obligated to be the ones verbalizing a flagellating remorse in order to differentiate ourselves from those that deny essential doctrines such as the Incarnation of Christ, His Resurrection, and heterosexual marriage as the only valid form of carnal relations between human beings?

From the article, the discerning reader also comes away with the impression that this crusade against descriptive modifiers is also a front through which to ensnare Evangelical Christianity in the leftist fads of White privilege and racial guilt.

K.A. Ellis writes, “A Christianity qualified by any adjective now feels restrictive for good reason.” That means that, .by tying Christianity to any one particular understanding, one ends up feeling guilty when making common cause with universalists, moral subversives, and any number of garden variety unbelievers.

The author continues, “…As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why some are calling themselves ‘Christian Americans’ rather than ‘American Christians’.” In other words, the truly pious or devout (those truly “sold out to Jesus” as they used to say hoping to manipulate prospects into “surrendering” to full time missionary work) have severed all meaningful ties with an identity other than their Christian one.

Yet while this is praised with one hand, the author turns around and ignores this ideal with another. What the writer probably intended to convey was that this condemnation of Christians identifying themselves in part by their particular nationality is only to be applied to those that invoke the term to signify a sort of benevolent sternness that, while desiring to advocate as much goodwill as possible to the external world, when the time comes is not going to be passively kicked around by the advocates of malevolence and tyranny.

For example, K.A. Ellis referred to Stanley Hauerwas as an “American theologian” and not as a “theologian from America”. It should be pointed out that Hauerwas is noted for markedly leftwing views.

Those that like to pat themselves on the back by playing word games in the attempt to trip people up but in the process expose just how devoid of actual wisdom and commonsense those whose primary purpose in life is to put on display just how broadminded they think themselves to be will no doubt make a fuss that in this particular instance the word “American” was paired with the word “theologian”. As such, this new standard being advocated does not apply.

However, this was not the only instance it was violated in this particular article. Ellis writes, “…we are more in concert with the orthodoxy of the two-thirds world Christians, especially those in the underground church.”

Shouldn’t Ellis have formulated the phraseology as “Christians in the two-thirds world”? So if we are to so despise America that we get jacked out of shape upon hearing the linguistic combination “American Christians” why ought those living elsewhere get an easy pass?

Worthy of note is the admonition to be “in concert with the orthodoxy of two-thirds-world Christians, especially those in the underground church.” Just what exactly does that consist of?

Does Ellis mean the strong stance against homosexuality and similar carnal lifestyles that have prompted a number of ecclesiastical functionaries to take a bold position against the wanton licentiousness allowed to fester in certain branches of the Anglican Communion by seeking their apostolic oversight under a select number of African bishops rather than traditional Western prelates? Or instead, is this sentiment articulated more in solidarity with the tendency of some in these less developed lands to prefer a less than free market and more communal distribution of resources where profit does not so much accrue to those that earned it but rather to those that shout their grievances the loudest or are perhaps the most proficient at acts of violence?

It is imperative that Christianity be articulated in such a way as to grab the attention of those that are spiritually adrift. However, their eventually comes a point where those attempting to reach the lost by adopting much of the way that the lost view the world around them become virtually indistinguishable from the lost and end up losing much of their way as well.

By Frederick Meekins

Those Denying God’s Existence Should Forsake His Cash As Well

An article titled “Christian School Teacher Fired After Deciding To Live 2014 As An Atheist” attempts to place the onus for such a state of occupational limbo on organized religion. But isn’t it even more the fault of the educator in question for attempting to turn his crisis of faith into some kind of theological publicity stunt?

According to the article, Ryan Bell was a Seventh Day Adventist minister and adjunct professor whose leftwing support of gay marriage and variance with his denomination’s eschatology resulted in his resignation from the Hollywood congregation he pastored. He was forced from his teaching positions from Fuller Seminary and Azusa Pacific University when Bell publicly announced his intentions to live as an atheist for a year to see if that particular worldview more accurately reflected his spiritual state where disillusionment caused him to question a number of his most deeply held beliefs.

The press account puts the blame for the hardship Bell would have to endure on these respective institutions of higher education. After all, Bell pointed out in the article, he has utility bills to pay and children to feed.

But shouldn’t these employers be applauded for assisting Bell in taking his experiment in atheism to its logical conclusion? For Bell is not a minister in the Unitarian or Episcopal Churches so wishy washy in their core doctrines and beliefs that they are at times willing to keep outright unbelievers on their respective payrolls.

According to the article, Fuller Seminary and Azusa Pacific University both require faculty to adhere to a statement of faith seemingly quite broad in terms of Christian specifics if these institutions of higher education claiming to be Evangelical openly embrace Seventh Day Adventism. What Dr. Bell has said is that, at the time this all came to a head in 2014, he no longer believes the bare bones required by these schools.

As such, if Bell for the time being no longer believes that there is an all powerful being sustaining the universe and providing a means whereby fallen men might be brought back into fellowship with Him, why shouldn’t Bell also forfeit the salary provided by those that do believe in such in a context that already doesn’t sound all that picky or particular regarding what are commonly referred to as secondary theological matters? After all, when the unbelievers are holding the administrative reigns and catch a whiff of doctrinal content they aren’t particularly fond of they aren’t exactly all that magnanimous either.

For example, in “Reason In The Balance”, popularizer of Intelligent Design Phillip Johnson chronicled the case of a Biology Professor that suggested that the complexity of even the simplest lifeforms pointed in the direction of a designer. Whom or what that might be was left up for the student to decide as the professor made no suggestions as to whether that designer was God in yonder Heaven or little green men zooming about the cosmos in a flying saucer. For engaging in the free exchange of ideas in an environment supposedly priding itself on such intellectual dynamism, this professor was booted out the door.

Adherents of Intelligent Design have faired little better in other settings. For example, a scientist lost his job at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for simply expressing an interest in Intelligent Design.

Yet that very same facility explicitly stated in its public propaganda how its administrators supposedly appreciate innovative perspectives. Apparently believing that a Higher Power is behind the grandeur of the universe has little to do with building better rockets with the exception, of course, of boosting the esteem of Muslims in regards to that civilization’s developments in mathematics from nearly a millennium ago. President Obama was quite explicit in making that an aeronautical agency funding priority despite their being barely a cent available for manned extra-atmospheric travel in the form of a space shuttle or lunar expeditions.

Did the atheists that got all worked up on behalf of Ryan Bell rush to meet the material needs of the occupationally displaced adherents of Intelligent Design or flagellate themselves in shamefacedness over the way the establishment media expects Christians to upon hearing of the hardships caused by the failure to at first compromise and then ultimately set aside these minimal standards derived from a set of very rudimentary beliefs one would think nearly anyone even wanting to be employed in a Christian setting would agree to? After all, it is not like Fuller Seminary these days enforces a no movies under any circumstances rule.

Proponents of the decision to impose penalties upon the bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings insist that we ought to be willing to accept such punishments with little comment as the price for standing for convictions at variance with established social norms. In the case of those professing some manner of public unbelief such as itinerant academic Ryan Bell, this is to be yet another of the expanding network of exceptions and double standards.

by Frederick Meekins

The Cultural Impact Of Worldview & Apologetics, Part 1

Here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Apologetics as an evangelistic endeavor and intellectual theological outreach finds itself in something of a paradox. When the West thought of itself in terms of resting on broadly Judeo-Christian assumptions, the discipline was not as desperately needed while most within the church at least knew of the field’s existence as a subject. At the time, the less practically inclined among the membership dabbled in the subject by contemplating abstract questions and topics. However, as society moves away from Biblical assumptions and the church finds itself in desperate need of the discipline to prevent both individuals and nations from sliding into the abyss, it seems very few even know what Apologetics is and those that do are often contemptuously dismissive of this kind of scholastic undertaking in favor of a more pietistic or even mystical approach to the Christian faith.

In the anthology “Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses On Christian Apologetics”, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig have assembled a number of essays rallying the faithful as to why Apologetics is necessary and tackling head on a number of the greatest challenges to the Christian faith prevalent in the world today.

Renowned futurist Alvin Toffler has remarked that the changes sweeping over society are akin to waves that can be so unsettling that they leave those they have rolled over in a state of shock while leaving those still riding the crests of previous conceptual epochs dumbfounded as to how to address the changing situations around them. Particularly hard hit has been the humanities, of which the areas of study such as philosophy, religion, and thus ultimately apologetics happen to be a part. Unlike previous eras of world history in which the average individual often dealt with a limi

ted space in terms of both mental and physical geography, today even the poorest resident of the twenty-first century West finds himself bombarded constantly with opposing worldviews. These come at us in the forms of an omnipresent media establishment, the swarms of people pouring over our borders from every conceivable corner of the globe, and the shocking number of our own countrymen willing to abandon the worldview this civilization was built upon in favor of any number of alternatives that turn out to be less than solid upon closer inspection.

It is said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The confusion characterizing the spiritual scene today would not have come about unless there had been a widespread abandonment of what Francis Schaeffer termed the “Christian consensus”, what C.S. Lewis referred to as “Mere Christianity”, and what those wanting to cast the most ecumenical net possible might characterize as the Judeo-Christian belief system. G.K. Chesterton is credited with observing that the problem that arises when we abandon orthodox theology is not that we won’t believe in anything but that we will believe in anything.

The pillar or keystone of Christianity setting it apart from all other religions and philosophies is that Jesus as the only Begotten Son of God and second person of the Trinity came to earth by being born of the Virgin Mary to live the sinless life no man could, to die on the Cross as payment for our sins and to rise from the dead so that all that believe in Him might spend eternity with God in Heaven. This is what is known as the Gospel message.

All excursions into error (no matter how seemingly ancient or modern) begin as either an outright denial of or failure to recognize these fundamental truths. This can be seen in terms of both popular and academic culture.

In terms of his own theory of Apologetics, Ravi Zacharias has postulated that there is a highest refined level of philosophy that eventually filters downward to the general population in the form of mass media and entertainment. This is true of other academic humanities as well and is not a phenomena confined solely to technical philosophy.

The first decade of the twenty-first century, renowned primarily for its advances in electronic entertainment, experienced a publishing phenomena that gripped the public imagination like few things else in the form of a novel titled “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown. Underlying the suspense of this thriller is the conjecture that Jesus was not divinity in human form but rather simply an outstanding human teacher no different than anyone else but elevated to godhood for political purposes at the Council of Nicea.

Provocative as those heresies might be, what really set the book off like wildfire was the assertion that among those otherwise mundane things Jesus did as an ordinary human being was to father a child by Mary Magdalene. It was through this lineage, rather than through any organizational church structure, that true Christian teaching was passed down through history through the intermarriage of Christ’s descendants with the royal houses of Europe, especially the Merovingian of France. Of these astounding claims and their alleged justifications, Charles Quarles writes in the essay “Revisionist Views About Jesus” in “Passionate Conviction”, “This fact coupled with the enormous popularity of the book and the film require thoughtful believers to respond intelligently to the claims of the Code (96).”

It seems odd that so many — both Christian and non-Christian alike — would allow a popular novel to either so shake their faith or to allow it to justify what they already believe. Quarles writes, “Those whose faith is shaken by Dan Brown’s claims lose their faith far too quickly. If they will take the time to investigate Brown’s claims, they will find that his statements about biblical and historical Christianity are a comedy of errors and lack historical evidence (108).” Thing of it is though, Christianity has been maligned and discredited for so long in the halls of higher learning that the average person thinks such radical skepticism is the default position of the open, educated mind.

By Frederick Meekins

Coffee and the Good Book 05/17 by Christians Refuge Radio Network | Christianity Podcasts

Relax and start your day with a cup of Joe and inspiration for the Good Book of Holy Scripture with our, Patriarch +++Andrew Patrick as your host. Each week he will read a Scripture lead by the Holy Spirit and give you divine discernment to take away with you for your walk with Christ as a faithful follower of Lord’s flock. Enriching your life and bring the Holy Word of God in to practical use today. Just straight talk from the heart, for your eternal soul ‘IS’ your most precious commodity. Today’s reading and discernment comes from the book of Matthew Chapter 6, Verses 19 – 34. Faith and Treasure !

Source: Coffee and the Good Book 05/17 by Christians Refuge Radio Network | Christianity Podcasts

Faulty Theology Leads To Faulty Conceptions Of God’s Will

Glenn Beck has been stricken with a crippling neurological disorder.

The prognosis given estimates that he might have between 5 to 10 years before he is disabled or incapacitated.

In the announcement of his ailment at The Blaze, Beck confided that his doctors informed him that, if he did not stop working, his condition would get worse.

However, Beck did not believe that God was necessarily telling him the same thing.

Beck is to be commended for doing all that he can with whatever time he might have left.

However, who is not to say that such illnesses are not God’s way of telling an individual that it might be time to slow down a bit or that their efforts are required in what to our mortal perceptions might seem to be less meaningful endeavors?

Then there is the truth so few are going to possess the courage to mention.

As a Mormon, Beck professes a belief in a seriously flawed understanding of the Gospel and divine revelation.

Not only that, but the power and knowledge possessed by the Mormon conception of God is not as complete or comprehensive as that postulated by more orthodox understandings of Christianity.

With these under consideration, how can Beck thus be assured that what he construes to be a divine urging for him to continue on at a breakneck pace really is an encouragement from the Heavenly Father?

And even if it is, what assurances does a Mormon possess that a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective God is even able to deliver for Beck the good that is intended irrespective of earthly outcome?

In such a situation, mustn’t the prudent inquire if the compulsion Beck believes is driving him forward might just as likely be a malevolent force or entity attempting to both end Beck’s work as well as imperil his immortal soul?

By Frederick Meekins