thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

the falsest of dichotomies

Every now and again, I'll read something that at least seems to hint at some kind of divide between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

To my experience, it's rarely plainly stated in such terms. The language is usually more weaselly. It might, for example, involve statement about how Jesus is the true revelation of God, and how we have to interpret the Bible, especially the Old Testament, through Jesus.

Of course, that does make sense. But then, the Jesus they try to set up turns out to be not much like the Jesus found in the New Testament.

For example, I've come on a few who try to question the existence of Hell using such an argument. Apparent, the fact the Jesus spoke of Hell as a very real place doesn't factor into their interpretations.

This kind of thing is often used by those who are theologically liberal.

For example, they will attempt to put a kind of separation between the God of the Old Testament, who often told people to go to war and told Israel to conquer to the Promised Land, and Jesus in the New Testament, who told people to love their enemies, bless those who curse you, and so on. They try to portray Jesus as being in favor of their pet forms of nonviolent resistance.

But the truth is this--Jesus never disapproved of anything the Father said or did in the Old Testament, and the Father never disapproved of anything the Son said or did in the New Testament. As Jesus Himself plainly stated, "I an the Father are One", and "Before Abraham was, I am". To put it another way, the God who told Yeshua (Joshua) to cross the Jordon and conquer the Promised Land is the same Yeshua (Jesus) who told us to love our enemies. There are not cross-purposes, there is no split between the two, there is not disagreement in the Godhead. Jesus did not attempts some kind Occupy Heaven stunt.

The same Jesus who spoke about loving enemies also told his disciples to sell a cloak to buy a sword. The same Jesus who spoke about loving enemies was the one who called His enemies hypocrites, blind guides, and said their father was the devil. Start getting your mind around these apparent (though not real) contradictions before trying to make the Godhead a family squabble.

a bit of kibitzing

I haven't done anything like this for a while, and I'm actually anticipating it a little. So, onward and upward!

“Weeping Jeremiahs” is a blog that's been brought to my attention, for good or ill, mostly ill. I don't know anything about whomever write it, or even if “Jeremiahs” is telling us there's more than one person contributing bad poetry to the site. Anyway, this one example is certainly interesting.

The Values of the Lamb

Ah, the language of values. Not morals, not ethics, but values. But, let's be glad that this person knows so much about what Jesus values, right?

“I do not share your values, America:

Well, all right-y, then. Let's give Weepy Jerry credit for coming on strong, bringing the heat.

Now, first, let's note a few things. First, tie this in with the title of this poem, The Values of the Lamb, and note that this person puts these words in quotes, and writes in the first person, I. In other words, Weepy Jerry is claiming that Jesus is the one saying these words.

Wow, that's quite the claim. Take a look at this passage. “Deuteronomy 18: 18– 20: 18 “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.””

First, HT to Michael Beasley and his book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism, an excellent resource for the biblical view of prophecy, such as the verses above, which were in his book.

So, claiming to be speaking for God is not a trite thing. Saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”, even if one doesn't use that phrase, was a matter of life or death in the Old Testament. True, we may be glad that in this New Covenant we wouldn't kill a false prophet, but we shouldn't pretend that false prophecy is not a serious issue. And in claiming that the words of this poem are the words of Jesus, Weepy Jerry is putting him/her/themselves in the place of a prophet.

So, noting that, let's go on.

I value love more

than I value independence

Well, that's interesting. Are love and independence mutually exclusive? Are they bitter enemies, such that we cannot have one if we have the other? Personally, I don't see the conflict, and more than that, I think there are many ways in which love and independence go hand in hand. Even if we look at things on a national level, which country sounds more loving—the independence people have in the US, or the micro-control people suffer in North Korea? I think I'll take the independence we have in the US, thanks.

I value charity more

than I value profit.

So, when did charity and profit become mutually exclusive? You know, you work day in and day out, and when payday comes you get the wages you've worked for, and what is wrong with that? How that is anti-charity? In fact, how are any of us suppose to do much of anything charitable without earning anything?

Is work wrong? Is it wrong to want to earn the money you need to pay your bills, get groceries, and maybe afford a few extras? I guess we can assume that Weepy Jerry has at least one computer, or all the Weepy Jerries have their own computers, so it seems like they have some means. How were they able to afford to get computers? And wireless access? And a home?

Charitable giving is fine and dandy, if it is done wisely. I'm quite fine with charity, but I don't see how charity is suppose to be opposed to making a profit.

I value the native people

you uprooted and oppressed.

Ah, now it's cheap guilt trip time. Yeah, America, you ain't been perfect.

True, God does love native people, whatever that might mean, wherever that might be. He also loves the people that replaced them, and the people who replaced those people. After all, how many square inches of this world can really be said to be in the ownership of whatever people first claimed them?

I assume that at least one of the Weepy Jerries is white, because this person obviously relishes wallowing in his/her white guilt. As a white man myself, I think I'll pass. I know very well that the US has a lot of really ugly things in our past, something true of any nation, something true even of those native people.

How do I know that? Simple. Those native people were like us—fallen, sinful, corrupt, and even their attempts at works of righteousness were no better than filthy rags. They were just like me, because I was and am like that. I am a sinner, I am still fallen, even as I am forgiven and made clean in Christ. I think it is the Lutherans, and maybe the Reformed, who have a saying that we Christians are simultaneously just and sinner.

So, yes, God loves native people, God loves those who took their place, God loves all peoples. And He showed that love in this, that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.

I value your enemies

as much as I value you

No problem there, but what is this person really saying? I think this next verse may show this person's hand.

I value peacemaking

and nonviolence

Yep, typical leftie cowardice and self-righteousness, right there on full display.

Notice the lack of a contrast here—no “I value X over Y”, but “I value X and Y”. As you might expect, I think this is a bit of an either-or, more so than this person's other attempts at contrasts.

For example, why does peacemaking equal nonviolence? I've had some exposure to leftie rhetoric about these things, and, frankly, it's full of contradictions.

Maybe one would think about Jesus' words in what we call The Sermon on the Mount, where He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. All well and good, but does that mean pacifists? Does that mean nonviolence? I think that could be debated. First, by much of the Old Testament, where God often tells His people to go to war, and even seems to indicate that King David got into moral trouble with Bathsheba because he was not at war at a time when kings went to war. Warrior images are also often used for God. And there is no contrast between God the Father and Jesus. One isn't the thunder-god who just wants to do a lot of smiting while the other is the meek and quiet one who's pulled off an Occupy Heaven type of takeover. No, there is no conflict between the Father and the Son. Jesus completely approved of everything in the Old Testament, and the Father completely approved of everything Jesus said and did.

To put it another way, the same God who told Yeshua to lead the people of Israel into a conquest of The Promised Land is the same Yeshua who said that peacemakers are blessed, and He will be the same Yeshua who will return as a king and a conqueror, as Revelation tells us as do other prophet passages.

Proverbs, an Old Testament book, often speaks against violent people. Of course, these violent people were not like King David, or Joshua, or Moses, or Gideon, or any of David's mighty men. Rather, these violent men were murderers, bandits, robbers, ambushers, people who shed the blood of the innocent.

In a human sense, the policeman who stops a murderer or a robber is a peacemaker, even if he uses his weapon and even does so lethally. A soldier fight his country's enemies is a peacemaker. Of course, there are complications—it could be seriously questioned how much of a peacemaker a soldier in Nazi Germany was, and an ISIS terrorist is obviously not a peacemaker at all. Hamas terrorists lobbying thousands of mortars and rockets into Israel are not peacemakers, no matter how much they try to disguise themselves in false concern for the Palestinian people. And there are corrupt police officers, sadly. But by and large, police officers and soldiers do far more peacemaking than leftist radical activists.

I value freedom from sin more

than I value political freedom

Oh, my, how hyper-spiritual. I guess that might work as a cover for leftist attempts to curtail political freedom.

I value your salvation more

than I value your nation.

Ok, so, who is this person now talking to? I thought this person was address the US as a whole, but now it's changed somewhat.

And, again, it's hyper-spiritual. It's a common ploy among those on the left, and sadly even those on the right.

Do not confuse your values with Mine!”

Oh, and now we have “Mine” capitalized, another sign that Weepy Jerry is claiming that these words are form Jesus. So, are we suppose to put this little poem into the Bible? Maybe make it part of the Psalms, or at least a New Testament version of the Psalms?

Sorry, I can't do that.

One wonders if Weepy Jerry is actually taking his or her or their own advise? After all, they are claiming that their own values are the values of Jesus, but are they not then confusing their values for His? I think this little poem shows that they are, and pretty badly, too.

i don't believe in social justice

This is a re-post, with a few corrections.

Why aren't more Christians involved in social justice? Are we callous and uncaring? We don't think so. We can both learn and do

Ken and Deborah Loyd, in the book An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 272

First, there is the question "What is social justice?" That's probably one of the concepts emergents and others who use it aren't likely to define very well. If you look back a few months, you'll see where in Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", he relates how in one emergent church a woman was wearing a t-shirt saying she was a straight woman for gay rights because her Bible teaches social justice.

Journey doesn't have an "official statement" about homosexuality, but there's obviously enough freedom in the community for Courtney to wear her beliefs on her shirt.

Courtney's shirt.
Straight Chrisitians for Gay Rights
(My Bible Teaches Social Justice)

Tony Jones, The New Christians, pp. 198, 197

Perhaps we aren't involved in social justice, because we can see through the rhetoric of social justice, and know what it is--a thin veil behind which leftist policies and politics are pushed.

Social justice seems to be about the legalizing of sexual immorality. It's also seems to be about the enforced silence of those who teach the Bible's stand on such immorality.

Social justice seems to be about punishing some crimes more than others because of perceived "hate" involved, even when unproven (one may almost say 'especially when unproven').

Social justice seems to be about the redistribution of wealth through socialistic economical policies.

Social justice seems to be about scaring people into being "green", despite the evidence against any such thing as global warming.

Social justice seems to be about going into histrionics over deaths in war, while either downplaying over even supporting the many more who die in abortion.

I do not believe in social justice. I do, however, believe in justice. And I believe in compassion.

I do not believe that practicing theft through socialism will solve the plight of the poor. To borrow a quote I read in a comic book, "Communism is the equal distribution of poverty". To try to equalize the field (except for a handful of elites at the top who will find reasons to give themselves special privileges, which is one thing that happened in Soviet Russia), will only result in all being poor, and none being really helped. And there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred.

I do not believe that justice demands that we recognize and legitimize sexual immorality. If anything, justice and compassion demands that we call these things the sins they are.

I do not believe that justice demands that we cave in to environmental fearmongers, especially when truth of their claims is being questioned, and when there is such an obvious political agenda behind it.

In regards to how we are to care for the poor, there are things taught in the Bible that should be of help in how to properly do so.

It may be strange that Paul tells the Thessalonians to NOT help some among them who had stopped working and were only idling their time waiting for Jesus to return. He says they should get back to their work.

It may seem strange that Paul tells another church to be wary of what widows they should help and support.

It may seem strange that one can see things in Proverbs that don't seem very kind about some kinds of poor people.

It may seem strange that it's in the Bible that we find the phrase "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat".

It may seem strange that we aren't told that the Samaritan who found the guy left for dead didn't return home, find a few likeminded people, and start wandering the highways and byways looking for people left along the road, robbed or otherwise in ill fortune. He helped one man who was on his way, as he was about his own business.

I know that there are things said about helping the needy, I'm saying the issue is more complex than many emergents seem to want to accept.

They also seem to think that because Christians don't do things their way, then they aren't doing them. They likely don't recognize that there are Christians who give when they have the opportunities, whose generosity takes many forms, who do things quietly and with their eyes open

movie review--The Dark Knight Returns, part 2

I have a bit of a memory of when The Dark Knight Returns comics came out, way back when. I didn't read them until later, though. And now, a bit later still, I've been watching the second part of the recent animated movies based on the comics.

Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.

When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.

That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.

Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.

The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.

Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.

This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.

The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.

It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.

Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.

I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.

Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.

book review--New Monasticism:what it has to say to today's church

We are the New Borg

First, I'd like to propose an idea. I think that the church needs to ban itself from using the word "radical", except in it's most formal senses, such as the mathematical. For the church, it has become at best an empty cliche, and in less good circumstances it is used in self-praising, self-congratulatory ways.

When the author of this book says "And almost everywhere I go these days, people agree that something is wrong in American Christianity." (Kindle Location 19), I may well have some agreement with him. What I disagree with is that what he calls "New Monasticism" is any kind of a solution; if anything, it is at best simply a symptom and a further continuing of the problem.

In the 11 May 2012 episode of his "Fighting For the Faith" program, Chris Rosebrough gives the recording of a lecture he had given, called "Resistance is Futile: You Will Be Assimilated Into The Community". Although he focuses most on things in the seeker mega-churches, it strikes me that what he talks about seems more than a little similar to what this author says about The New Monasticism.

Rosebrough refers to Peter Drucker's project of creating a non-economic society, and gives some ways in which Drucker's ideas have influence some church leaders. He gives two ways in which this is showing up in churches, and I contend that much the same things show up in this book.

1. A Society That DOES NOT recognize the inherent rights of the Individual. Individuals do not exist in time only the Community exists - a global community at that.

Essentially, the individual is swallowed up into the community. The community becomes the main focus, the good of the community becomes the main thing. The community is the thing most valued. The community becomes god.

This kind of de-valuing of the individual, with the power of providing and even decision-making being given to the community, is openly proclaimed and even celebrated in this book. "Some communities practice what's called a strict common purse. They read Acts where it says, "No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common" (4:32), and they decided to put all their money into one bank account (like couples do when they get married). Out of that account, most common purse communities pay for everyone's living expenses and then use the rest to bless others or support the work of God's people." (Kindle Locations 984-987). Never minding that the Bible does not command such a thing, or even that the church mentioned in Acts 4 did not command it, these communities impose it on their people. The author refers to another community giving their people a "raise", "A couple of years ago, they decided to increase each person's living allowance from ten to fifteen dollars a week." (Kindle Locations 994-995).

He writes this in regards to another such community, "In San Francisco (which is a pretty expensive city), they agreed to each live on $275 of discretionary money per month. Of course you don't have to spend that much. But the community has agreed that no one will spend more than that. Whatever money people make above their living expenses and discretionary allotment they put in an account to give away." (Kindle Locations 1001-1003).

Notice how much power these communities exercise over their people. The community decides what each person can spend. The community decides to give the people a basically meaningless raise in living allowance. The community provides the individuals with all they need, or at least all that they think they need. The community decides how much money each individual person can spend in a month. Ed Young Jr. wanted the people in his church to give his church their bank account and routing numbers, but even he wasn't this ambitious.

But this economic power is not the only power this author wants communities or churches to have over the person. "Churches will also have to call people into higher-commitment membership. We have to find ways to get people to stick around. Maybe the only way to do that is to ask people to pledge their allegiance to the church...But if pledging our allegiance is a way of saying who we are and where we're going, then Christians have to pledge ourselves to the people of God. If our home is in God's kingdom, we cannot pledge our ultimate allegiance to America. If God is our Father, the nuclear family cannot be our god. Instead, we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church. But for those words to have any real meaning, churches will have to get serious about membership. We need to name our commitments to each other and develop a process to determine whether God is calling an individual to leave our community or whether the forces of the economy are simply tearing us apart." (Kindle Locations 745-752). Look at this language, "...we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church". Country and even family are given at best secondary place. If "the nuclear family cannot be our god", then in saying "...our primary commitment is to the church", does not the church then become our god, or at least our primary mediator between God and the powerless individual?

And don't think that is an idle or rhetorical question. Early in the book, the author speaks favorably of a group that calls itself the Bruderhof. Perhaps they started out fine, more or less, but as time has gone by, they have become something else entirely. Look up the Keep In Touch (KIT) Newsletters, which provide many examples of the Bruderhof breaking up families and throwing people out of their community. There are news articles about the Bruderhof moving children out of the country to keep the courts from having their fathers, former Brudehof members exiled from the community, have any contact with the children.
Perhaps the author would not condone such actions by the Bruderhof, I'd give him that. But given how much power he wants the church or community to have over the person, then what keeps any other church or community from going so far, over even further?

2. Anti-rational (anti-doctrinal “pastoral” churches). Immanent not transcendent.

"Unity across dividing lines was what distinguished the early church-so much so that they required a new name. Christianity was a new identity, neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28). That's pretty incredible to think about, especially in a church fractured by schisms and creeds, denominational divides and ethnic identities." (Kindle Locations 34-36). Yet in speaking about this unity, he fails to note that the early church was also setting itself apart. One need only read Paul's epistles to see that he was not a big-tent type of person. This author refers to the epistle to the Galatians, but if one reads it, one can see that Paul is very firmly against people who were trying to make the Galatian believers return to trying to earn salvation and righteousness by keeping the Law, particularly in regards to circumcision.

So, look at some of those things that he contends are fracturing the church--schisms, creeds, denominations. Basically, things like beliefs and doctrines. And he throws in "ethnic identities", as if adhering to a creed is no better than being a racist.

"Often we can't even agree that we're all Christian." (Kindle Location 25). That's true, because if the name "Christian" has any particular meaning, then it may well be possible that some who call themselves Christian may not be. Even in the New Testament, we have examples of people who claimed to be in the Church, but whose beliefs and teachings were contrary to the Apostle's teachings. And in this day, when a John Shelby Spong can basically deny everything taught in the Bible and call himself a Christian, it is as important to be discerning.

At the end of chapter 2, he gives what these New Monastics have called "12 Marks of a New Monasticism" (Kindle Location 369). All of these 12 marks are immanent and about practice, none are doctrinal. Only one has any kind of scriptural reference, the 7th. None are about the proclaiming of the Gospel, none are about people needing to repent of sins and believe in Christ.

"Sometimes when I talk with evangelical friends about the grassroots ecumenism of new monastic communities, they tell me I'm not taking doctrine seriously enough. I worry about this myself (especially when I think someone I'm living with is wrong). I worry not so much because I want to be right; I worry because I don't want to see people I love destroyed by lies. (I'm a writer and a preacher-a wielder of words, you might say-because I'm convinced that what we think and believe is a life-and-death issue.)" (Kindle Locations 1397-1400). If that is so, then may we have an actual doctrinal statement for these New Monastics? May we know what it is that all of you actually believe? If you can formulate 12 Marks, then why not an actual statement of what you mean when you call yourselves Christians?

So, I'm less than impressed with these New Monastics, and would not recommend that anyone tie themselves to them. When doctrinal issues are downplayed, and one is basically told to give control of one's life to the community, well, my reply is, "No, thanks, I want none of it".

not sure who to bark at today?

Because, apparently, one must use e-cards every now and again to make a valid point...



Meaning, quite simply, that if you're letting the culture decide what's right and wrong, well, cultures change. More than that, if you think that fallen, sinful humanity is going to come up with an acceptable moral code, you really should dig up a history book.

Moral relativism is a farce, though not often a funny one. Those it makes use of today, it may well turn on tomorrow. The one that makes his or her own morality is also free to change that morality, and who can say they cannot?

Well, someone will. Because the farce behind moral relativism is that people will be allowed to choose their own moral code. They won't. Those who support the voices of opposition when they are at the bottom, will be less welcoming to them when they are in the position of power.

Either man will submit to God, or man will create gods. History shows us how that works out.

sojo promotes immorality

U.K. Innkeepers Fined for Turning Away Gay Couple

On the surface, this seems almost like a regular news story. I think, though, that Sojo lets their biases out in the caption with the photo.

No Room at the Inn. Image via Wylio, http://bit.ly/ADRtVi.

If your familiar with the account of Christ's birth, you know what "no romm at the inn" means--it refers to Mary having to give birth in a stable because the inn was filled.

So, in putting "No Room at the Inn" to this caption, Sojo is linking the birth of Christ, and there being no room at the inn where Joseph and Mary were at, to the fact that the Christian owners of this guesthouse did not permit a homosexual couple to stay in their rooms and so practice their immorality.

England is making the guesthouse owners pay a fine, which is rather bad in itself, but the topic is Sojo.

Look at what they are doing--taking the birth of the sinless Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world, and using it to promote sinful and immoral sexual behavior.

If that isn't blasphemy, I'm not sure what is.

wallis attacks fox with bad theology

Continuing the tirades against Rick Perry's statements about the War of Christmas, head Sojrone himself Jim Wallis weighs in with a hit piece.

The Real War on Christmas ... by Fox News

Fox News’ “war” is designed to criticize the “secularization” of our culture wrought by atheists, agnostics, liberals, leftists, progressives, and separation of church and state zealots— i.e. Democrats. This irreligious coalition force is allegedly waging a strategic offensive on Christmas, trying to banish the sacred symbols of the season, denying our religious heritage, and even undermining the spiritual rubrics upon which our great nation is built.

Well, at least Wallis has the list of usual suspects correct. But, in typical liberal fashion, it's the perpetrators who are the actualy victims, while the people crying foul about it are the ungodly oppressors.

But, on to the bad theology.

What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.

Now, as you man know, the most convincing lies contain a bit of truth in them. Some parts of the first part of that paragraph are fine, as far as they go. Christmas is the celebration of God becoming flesh, of the birth of Christ. After that, well...

I'm trying to remember where in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ it is said the Mary was a teenage girl. I know the popular depictions--young, pretty, and all that. And maybe they're right. But I can't remember it being said, that way or this. At the risk of sounding like McLaren, what if Mary was actually in her twenties or thirties, and rather on the homely side? Would that add or take away anything from the account?

Now, concerning the economic status of Joseph and Mary. From the account Matthew 1, where we are told that after the dream Joseph took Mary as his wife, are to we assume that they were a homeless couple? It seems to hint rather that he had a place for his wife and family. They may not have been very wealthy, as some have hinted at concerning the sacrifice in Luke 2, but they were not homeless, as Wallis wants us to think.

When Wallis starts going about Jesus being "...a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country...", we can see his own politics coming in. It's a true enough statement, Israel was under Roman rule and occupation, and that seems to be almost a non-issue in much of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels. It does seem that the people were expecting the Messiah to come and liberate them from people like the Romans, but Jesus had a much more serious thing to liberate them from--their sins.

This is important. Jesus was not leading some kind of Occupy Jerusalem nonsense. He was not interested in trying to throw down Herod. When asked about paying taxes, He said that they should pay to Casear was is due to him. Some at Sojo try to read a dismissive or sarcastic tone into Jesus' statement here, but that is not hinted at in the text.

And, finally, Herod did indeed kill many children in trying to kill Jesus. Later, the Israelites were the ones wanting to kill the adult Christ. Roman and Jerusalem, Jews and Gentiles, all stand condemned for the unspeakable crime of rejecting the Messiah.

It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.

Wallis is not the first person I've heard make a big thing about Jesus not being born in a palace, or being born in a rural area, or whatever. I remember a few years ago watching a church's Christmas play, where a character depicting the innkeeper mad a speech about the gift he was giving the Christ child was indifference. I don't know it that innkeeper was indifferent, busy, or what have you what not. Angels appeared to the shepherds, though I would guess none came to the innkeeper to tell him who was to be born that night near to him.

Later in life, Jesus did claim the prophecy in Isaiah to Himself, saying it was fulfille that day in their midst. The sick were to be healed, and the poor were to have the Gospel preached to them. We would be wrong, though, to say that this was some statement of class warfare on His part. Many people of means and power, like Nicodemus and Zacchaeus and Lazarus and the rich young ruler and the Roman centurion, seem to have heard His message and found it at least interesting, even if at least one went away saddened by His demands for him. It seemed the materially well-off had the Gospel preached to them, too, along with the poor. Because, ultimately, all of us are paupers in spirit, dead in sins, helpless to help ourselves, and in need of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.

And, finally, Wallis tries to throw in the social gospel--that "the least of these" are somehow all the poor or prisoners or whomever is suppose to be, in the eyes of ones like Wallis, that least. It's always funny how context is never brought in here, for example that Jesus' statement was "the least of these my brothers". If any are brothers of Christ, it is those who believe in Him. Many Christians are in hard situations, persecuted for their faith in Christ while living in cultures that are actively against those beliefs, in prisons, denied jobs and forced into poverty, sick for various reasons. In one of the epistles, we are told to do good to everyone, but especially to those of the household of faith. The Church is to look after it's own first, while not neglecting the needs of those outside.

The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.

There may be a good bit of truth in Wallis first couple of sentences there, except that I wonder about what he means by some of the words he's using. But Christ came to "show us what it means to be truly human"? What does that mean? Rather, as Paul said, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners".

Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.

Well, let's go here, shall we? What, for example, is Sojourners' budget? How much do they spend on, for example, their magazine? How much during the year do people donate to them? How much to they pay their staff? How about the head Sojrone himself? He doesn't look like he's struggling, and he's had a few books that have sold big. How much have people like Soros donated to Sojo? Maybe Sojo can release their books, and Wallis his own, so that we can stand and be amazed by their amazing generosity as they condemn Americans of spending to give gifts during Christmas?

Whether Americans, or anyone else for the matter, are as generous as they could or should be, is an interest question, and perhaps one impossible to answer. But it does seem that, whenever a disaster happens in the world, Americans by and large are generous in trying to help--donating to send aid to those places, sending the aid themselves, even going their themselves to work. No doubt people from other nations do the same things, I've no wish to hint otherwise, but Wallis' claim that Americans are somehow unspeakably greedy among all the peoples of the world seems to fall flat.

I am not judged by Wallis' standards and shoddy interpretations. Before God, I am condemned as a sinner, but in Christ I have forgiveness of sins.

verbal gaffe bias

Well, the bias is in how, when one person makes such a gaffe, it's big news and used against him, while when another person makes the kinds of gaffes, it's pretty much ignored.

For example...

Perry's gaffes continue to add up

Ok, Perry has made some gaffes. Acknowledged. And so what? Given that he has proven himself a capable governor, not perfect but capable, I'm willing to overlook a few slips like that.

If the press wants to make a big deal out of Perry's gaffes, all well and good. But, then, there is another person in power out there (probably more than one, but let's focus on only one for right now) who has proven himself equally inept, if not more so. Particularly when away from his trusted teleprompter.

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

Even President Obama makes verbal gaffes

So, if you find any media person out there at a place like MSNBC saying that this person's gaffe show he is not qualified for his current position of power, please let me know. But if his, usually more serious gaffes aren't disqualifiers, then neither are Perry's.

making a mockery of the Hallelujah Chorus

Let it be known that the decadence of Sojourners and those they support no know bounds.

Hit the Hallelujah Button: Sing it, Mr. Sister!

Each day leading until Christmas we will post a different video rendition of the "Hallelujah Chorus" for your holiday enjoyment and edification.

Today's installment comes from an unlikely gaggle of nuns — in full habits. They are members of the Turtle Creek Chorale, an all-men's chorus from Dallas, Texas. The Chorale has traveled to Europe, performing sold out concerts in Barcelona, Berlin and Prague; as well as two appearances a Carnegie Hall.

So, men dressed as nuns singing the Hallelujah Chorus is a rendition worthy of Sojo approving and displaying.

Now, who is this Turtle Creek Chorale? From their website's mission statement.

Celebrating a positive image of the gay community and partnering with artists and organizations that share our values and mission.

Although the website itself has little information about them, it does mention a smaller group that is a part of them, the Strangerettes. Basically, a group of men who dress up like show cowgirls and perform in, perhaps among other things, gay pride events. Look them up, if you're curious.

So, basically, TCC is a bunch of people living in open sexual sin, encouraging others to accept them in their open sexual sinfulness, and thus mocking the message of the music like the Hallelujah Chorus by dressing in religious drag while singing it.

No wonder Sojo approves.

This is why I always wonder why some people insist on playing nice with people like the head Sojrone, Jim Wallis. For example, in a recent debate between him and Albert Mohler, a man for whom I have great respect, while I thought Dr. Mohler made great points against many of the things Wallis tries to teach, in the end there was still a sense that they were playing nice. It was mentioned a few times that before the debate they prayed together.

Why? What makes anyone think that Wallis prays to the God of the Bible? His entire "God's Politics" thing engages in open mockery of the Bible, Sojourners' Sojrones can't dig deep or far enough to find things that are contrary to biblical teachings and morality, and hold those things up as things to accept and celebrate. A while ago, they held up for approval a calendar of Unitarian churchmen who posed in the nude. They approved the bloody movie "Red State", while of course coming out against such movies as "Courageous". They have lent unquestioning support to the rabble and lawbreakers of Occupy Wherever, encouraging them in their disruptions.

The impression I get from the early church is that they were not so nice when it came to those who taught things contrary to the Scriptures. When, for example, a man in Corinth engaged in sexual immorality, Paul told them to cast him out (later, that man repented, and Paul said they were to accept him back). Paul's words were unsparing when he addressed the Galatians about those who were trying to say that they needed works as well as faith in order to have salvation.

This Sojrone's promotion of this Chorale's mockery of Handel's work is an attempt on this Sojrone's part to support this Chorale's agenda. If Wallis is truly a Bible-believing Christian as he claimed in his debate with Dr. Mohler, let him start policing his blog more vigorously, so that sin and immorality are not encouraged.

(yeah, like that's gonna happen)

because it means you're too independent?

Sojo seems to have it in for Black Friday this year.

Politics BlogBlack Friday: The Anti-Thanksgiving

Yet, even if Black Friday were not so terrible for working families, and even if it did not threaten to steamroll Thanksgiving under the weight of Christmas-season merchandising, I would still be opposed to it. Black Friday is the Anti-Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally a time to gather with family and friends and practice gratitude for our blessings. It is a time to cultivate awareness of all the ways in which God provides for us, and to pay special attention to providing hospitality to others who are hurting. Black Friday, on the other hand, is a celebration of greed, unbridled consumerism and disregard for others.

Now, I have to admit, I haven't been one of those who gets up early in the morning the day after Thanksgiving to be among the first in any store's doors. Just not a great interest of mine. On the other hand, I have done some similar types of things, like stay in line all day to get into the first practice for the nearby college basketball team.

So, I'm don't have anything against people who do the early-morning Black Friday thing. I think of it as being kind of like those who, for example, insist on camping out in order to get in early when the Star Wars movies were released--it's rather silly, it's not necessary, but, hey, there is a certain amount of camaraderie and fun to it, and so long as they behave themselves, then no big deal.

Thanksgiving is, at its best, a fleeting incarnation of the peaceable kingdom, where we can all come together in peace and mutual respect. Black Friday, on the other hand, is an intensification of the hyper-capitalist, corporate order that already dominates most of our lives. Rather than gratitude, it promotes greed; instead of cooperation, competition. While Thanksgiving fosters brotherhood and peace, Black Friday is a celebration of self-centeredness and bickering.

Wow, one would think that the people at Black Friday were as bad as those of Generation Brats who make up OWS.

If you need evidence of this, examine the fruits of the Black Friday rush for the latest consumer items. There was gunfire in a shopping mall. And at a Los Angeles Wal-Mart, the "competitive shopping strategy" of one woman involved the pepper-spraying fellow customers. Amazingly - though perhaps not surprising - the Wal-Mart remained open through the entire incident, and the woman was allowed to buy her merchandise and leave the store. Nothing, not even outright violence, was allowed to stop the flow of consumption.

Considering how many millions of people were out and about that time all over the country, I have to admit if there were only these few incidents, people were rather well-behaved. At the least, compared to those of Occupy Wherever, they were rather civilized.

To begin with - and, I confess, it is a modest beginning - I commit myself to resisting Black Friday. I will not participate in this anti-holiday.

And when the businesses you don't support go out of business, they should send you a thank-you card. But...wait on it...

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Yes, that's right, Sojo has a donate button. So, while you're evil for shopping on Black Friday, just make sure you give (that's right, give) money to Sojo, so they can continue to cause your businesses to fail.

don't let inconsistency stop a bad argument

Remember a few days ago when I linked to an article at Sojo about how evil Thanksgiving is, and how we shouldn't celebrate it?

But, apparently, that doesn't mean people Thanksgiving can't be used to stop people from doing productive things, like, you know, working.

In Solidarity with Target Workers on Thanksgiving

Some people who work for Target, a major national retailer that plans to open its doors for Black Friday starting at midnight following Thanksgiving, have circulated a petition in protest. They are right to say enough. I stand in solidarity with them.

However, the idea that this society is willing to allow our materialism to go unchecked to the point that we want to force people to lose a significant portion of a day dedicated to giving thanks because some business does not want to lose a “competitive edge,” is shameful. It is a sad commentary on our values. People have been trampled to death in a rush to get into this or that store for the sake of the bargains. This is tragic. It is time to say enough. Let Thanksgiving Day remain sacred, set apart. We can stop the madness if we do not shop before sunrise on Friday morning. Stand in solidarity with the Target workers.

I remember a time I had to be at work at 12:00 AM the day after Thanksgiving. Of course, I had to be there a bit before midnight, in order to actually start on time. How evil of the I worked for. In fact, this year, I was actually at work for a few minutes Thanksgiving morning. What wickedness on the part of the people who pay me to work for them!!! I should return the money I earned from them!!

Well...no, I won't. Because as bothersome as it was, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

I'm not the biggest fan of Target, but if the people who are so honked off about this don't want to start work at midnight, well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be quite happy to take their places.

misadventure in badly missing the point

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.
Rollins, Peter, Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1934-1941)

If one were to actually read the Gospels, how would one find any of that?

It could be pointed out that those who would likely have been considered on the outside, sick people and lepers and blind and Romans and Gentiles, did find Jesus usually welcoming. But then, it wasn't an exclusive thing. Jesus was welcoming to an 'insider' in the person of the Pharisee Nicodemus. He cared deeply for the young man who was rich and a ruler. He was very complimentary of the faith of the Roman centurion who wanted Him to heal his servant. Some of his closest friends seem to have been Lazarus and his sisters, people who had their own home and likely had some means and influence.

As well, we do not find any hint that Jesus was some kind of rebel. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Pharisees or other religious leaders, He did not try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, He tells the people to respect those in the seat of Moses, to do what they said, but to not live as they lived, for they were hypocrites. Jesus' problem, we can see, is not with religious authorities, but rather with those who have such authority and do not use it wisely and justly.

In the epistles, this respect for human authority continues. Peter tells us to obey the rulers. Another epistle explains that the rulers are ministers of God. The only time that the Apostles stood against the rulers was when they were told to not preach and teach in the name of Jesus, that in such a case they had the explicit command to Christ to take the Gospel to everyone, so they obeyed God rather than men.

Does Christianity stand against power? Where is that in the Bible?

Behind the convoluted nature of Rollins' words, his thinking is far too simplistic. Christianity is not an eternal game of being against whomever is in power, like some kind of perpetural counter-culture no matter what the culture is; rather, it's about right and wrong, righteousness and sin.

Rollins points to certain parables of Jesus', ones that are about someone seeking something of value. He wants to make this about outsiders, as if it's only about being counter-cultural or whatever. But what did Jesus Himself say? "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save those that are lost".

Because here is the truth--when it comes to God, we are all outsiders, we are all poor and miserable, we are all sinners. We can preach the Gospel in the poorest ghetto and the richest mansion, because the most abject addict and most successful billionaire are alike in their poverty before God. Peter can heal a lame beggar at the Temple one day, then later preach in the house of a Roman Centurion, because the Gospel he preached both times was applicable to the people present on both occasions.

Rollins wants to make this about human politics, which is asinine. It's not about such shallow and worldly things, but rather about Christ having been born of the virgin Mary, living a sinless perfect life, laying down His own life as a sacrifice for our sins and to appease the wrath of the Father, rising from the dead and ascending to Glory. It's about us through repentence of our sins and belief in Christ being made right with God.

It's not about works at all. We can do no work that will make we who are sinners in any way right with God; rather, God says that all of our works of righteousness are as putrid rags. He is not impressed with our works at all.

never have a sojrone over for the holiday

Unless it may be something like the day the Bolshies took over Russia, or Castro's conquest of Cuba, or some such leftist day of celebration. May want to pass on the day the Berlin Wall fell, though.

Rewriting History: Thanksgiving or Genocide?

Well, we have the word 'genocide'. Guess we know where this is going.

Thanksgiving — in its original intent — was to mark a good harvest in the plight of the early Pilgrims. While there are disputes about specific dates, most point to the first gathering to the Fall of 1621 where the Pilgrims and [some] local Indians gathered (fewer than 100) to celebrate a feast. Most are in agreement that the Indians were invited simply because the Pilgrims knew that they would have died had it not been for the help of the local Indians.

While it is true that we’re not entirely sure all the specific details, those that we would now categorize as “illegal aliens” not only came without invitation but they came to take over. In fact, beyond the first joint “Thanksgiving,” there were no further meals of mutual peace, dependence, and friendship.

Wow. So, the Pilgrims were "illegal aliens". Should that mean the Sojrones should condone anything they do? But they were white illegal aliens, so they should have stayed in Europe, one may suppose.

But I'm thinking that, really, this Sojrone is afraid of the real story of Thanksgiving, one that puts paid to the things Sojo holds dear.

The True Story of Thanksgiving

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself?" That's what he was saying. " The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians." They did sit down" and they did have free-range turkey and organic vegetables, "but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

So, the story of Thanksgiving is a cautionary tale of the failure of Socialism, which is what Sojo thinks is what is so good and great. No, that story of Thanksgiving must be silenced and not celebrated.

The Sojo article is aptly titled, if one keeps in mind that it is the Sojrone himself who is rewriting history.

generation brats gets special treatment

Occupier Outrages Omitted

MRC analysts reviewed the Big Three network evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning shows (Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today) for the month of October and found accounts of anti-Semitism and sexual assault arrests have been completely omitted from the Big Three broadcasts. And when confrontations erupted between the police and the protestors, the networks were much more likely to pin the blame on police for instigating the violence.

In fact, in the few stories of violence at the protests, like the one in Oakland, the Big Three networks took the side of the protestors against the police more often than not with 15 stories (54%) putting more blame on law enforcement officers. Only seven stories (25%) mostly faulted the protestors for acts of aggression. Six stories (6%) didn’t blame any particular side for the violence. Viewers of these stories were also far more likely to hear statements made by reporters or talking heads blaming law enforcement officials for the violence with 36 (71%) blaming officers to just 15 (29%) blaming the protestors.

Despite several charges of sexual assault and rape and instances of anti-Semitism the Big Three reporters have completely ignored these incidents. Not only did NBC’s Today show omit the ugly instances, but on their October 21 show, they actually preached that parents should use the OWS protest as a teachable moment for kids.

Not a single anchor or reporter brought up the anti-Semitic rants found at some of the rallies, like this one caught by MRC-TV cameras on October 21: “The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.... Whenever there’s a billion dollar fraud, there’s a Jew involved.”

So, while the Tea Party is given all kinds of bad labels without any evidential support, Generation Brats of Occupy (whatever) get their racism and violence covered over.

And who says the media isn't biased?

sojo does not approve!

Which is another good reason to support Samaritan's Purse.

Operation Christmas Child: Doing Good Isn’t Always Doing Best

Oh, why is giving a child a Christmas toy so horrible???

Exporting cheap consumerism, for instance. One of the reasons that Operation Christmas Child is so popular surely must be that we Americans (and Westerners, in general) love to shop. We associate Christmas with giving presents — lots of presents — to our children, so we fill those shoe boxes with lots of stuff, most of it purchased at big box, discount stores. That means it’s cheap stuff — cheaply made, but costly in countless hidden ways. Plastics won’t disintegrate for millenia; trinkets and kitch we wouldn’t give our own children that are, perhaps, even made by children working in unsafe conditions in the developing world.

Oh, dear, you mean we actually buy things that people have already made? Horrors!!! How dare you buy toys at "big box, discount stores"? Don't you know Satan shops at Wal-Mart?

Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham draws a full-time salary from the organization while also receiving a full-time salary from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Two full-time jobs? Leading two organizations with hundreds of employees and multi-million dollar budgets? (Graham’s reported SP salary in 2010 was upwards of $530,000 — a handsome “purse” indeed — and the organization has more than 1,700 paid employees.

Yes, but did his organizations receive support for those evil Koch brothers? If Soros had supported him, would Sojo be so up-in-arms?

Or, is this just convienent class-warfare rhetoric?

Questions also have been raised about the proselytizing impulse of Samaritan’s Purse. It is an “evangelism organization,” after all, but it’s also a tax-exempt non-profit under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

But here’s the theological question: Should the shoe boxes be a means for making Christian converts (as Graham pretty much says they are) or ought they be gifts-in-themselves, unattached to any other agenda?

Ahhh...I'm betting we're getting to one of the things that really offends the Sojrones (though not to deny the offense caused by economy-assisting buying)--Samaritan's Purse and OCC are about actually helping kids and families experience Christian charity in the hope that they will be open to learning about Christ and come to repentence and faith in Him.

How awful!!! How not-PC!!! How not-extreme-ecumenical!!! How dare you Christians try to tell a Muslim child that Islam is evil, that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ!!! How dare you care about the eternal soul of that little child while also giving him or her a toy that they can play with in the here and now, too, or clothes he or she needs, !!!

Makes me want to go out to Wal-Mart, buy some things kids would like or need, and pack them in a shoebox for them. Sounds a lot more charitable than engaging the Occupy Wherever shenanigans.

sojo supports filth

And not just any old Sojrone, either, but the Head Sojrone himself.

Statement from Jim Wallis on Friday’s “Cleaning” of NYC’s Zuccotti Park

Bloomberg’s office has said that this “cleaning” action, scheduled for Friday (10/14) morning, is not a shutdown of the protest and that Occupiers can return after the cleaning and if they agree to follow a set of rules. But these rules ban sleeping bags or tarps from the park and it is not clear if even laying down will still be allowed.

This is effectively a shutdown of the #OccupyWallStreet demonstration, which the Mayor Bloomberg promised just a few days ago not to do.

A group of clergy has decided to join that circle and is planning a press conference at 11 am at Judson Memorial Church to report on the morning’s events at the #OccupyWallStreet demonstrations in Zucotti Park, as well as to issue a multi-faith statement of support for the Occupiers.

Abuse of power should never be met with violence. We urge demonstrators to continue their principled and peaceful actions.

Sooooo...

The notion that asking or even telling the protestors to leave the park for a while, so that it can be cleaned up of the filth they have scattered about, is an "abuse of power"? A threat to shut down the protests, even if they will be allowed to return after the cleaning?

This is one of the sickest examples of illogic I've ever seen. But, then again, things like liberalism and postmodernism are founded on irrational philosophy. They couldn't survive in a world where people actually tried to make sense, so they have to try to create a world of nonsense.

Well, for what it's worth, this protest against cleaning has succeeded. The protestors are free to lie in their own filth, even as they deny others the freedom to enjoy the park they are trashing, cause traffic problems for others, and basically make brats of themselves.

Here's an addendum to the battle cry for Generation Brats, "Don't you dare change our diapers!!!".

sojo idolators condemning supposed idolatry

#OccupyWallStreet: Playing with Fire and Corraling the Golden Calf

And the biblical allusions were clear, even to those who hadn’t attended the church service at Judson beforehand: Wall Street (with its massive, raging bronze bull) is the idol of the day, and people of faith stand in solidarity with those who have had enough of such idolatry.

In her sermon, Schaper, Judson’s senior minister, went a little deeper. The Golden Calf is not only Wall Street, she said, but also all of capitalism. And we, the people, have helped erect this massive false god with our own treasures — the best and most valuable parts of ourselves.

I'm not going to put more of the article here than I have to, so you'll have to go there to do some reading, sorry about that. But this Sojrone is going on about how during her church service, I suppose this past weekend, the church had some effigy of the Wall Street bull on display, and had some ominous music playing, like in a movie I suppose (here that march, boys and girls, that's Darth Vader's theme, and we don't like Darth Vader, do we).

I don't know the story behind the Wall Street bull. I do know that a market doing well is called a bull market, while one doing poorly is a bear market, though maybe that's a simplistic understanding.

But this is mostly about another form of simplistic understanding--equating the golden calf in Exodus to the Wall Street bull, and saying that somehow means that Wall Street and capitalism have become idols.

Now, this is especially hypocritical of Sojo, because it is becoming plain that they are themselves idolators--they worship socialism; they consider it to be the economic system most in line with their version of the kingdom of god; they are the ones who are continually crying for what they consider to be 'economic justice', which is basically take from the rich and give to those who haven't earned it; they are the ones who are replacing God with something that is against Scripture, a god made of ideas they themselves consider good, a god of their own creation.

Consider this, from the article.

Later that day, dozens of church members marched with the papier mache golden calf to Zuccotti Square where they participated in a prayer vigil with faith leaders and faithful (of various religious traditions) from around the city.

"Varios religious traditions". Would I be correct in thinking that this means non-Christian religions? Maybe Muslims, Hindus, those of the Jewish religion, not to meniton heretical 'christians' like Unitarians?

But I am glad that this Sojrone saw fit to give the reference for the passage her pastorix misused, because context is revealing.

1When the people saw that Moses(A) delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him,(B) "Up, make us gods who shall(C) go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." 2So Aaron said to them, "Take off the(D) rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 3So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4(E) And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden[a] calf. And they said,(F) "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" 5When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron(G) made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD." 6And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And(H) the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up(I) to play.

Odd, isn't it--Aaron responds to pressure from the people, like these OWS folks expect people to cave to their demands. Aaron takes the gold from the people, like OWS expects gold to be taken from others. The people made offerings to their false god, just like OWS expects people to make offerings to their false gods and ideas. And, finally, the people descended into debauchery, like OWS has and will continue to do.

Occupy Wall Street: Darker Side Emerges

An article in the New York Post takes Occupiers to task for drug use, strewing litter and copulating in the out of doors. "Zuccotti Park," says the paper, smells "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public. "

ABC News reports that a faction of the computer hacker group Anonymous has threatened, in a gesture of sympathy with Occupy, to launch a cyber attack against the NYSE. In a YouTube video posted last weekend, a computer-generated voice warns, "Many people refuse to accept that Operation Invade Wall Street is a reality."

There still are postings that talk about taxing the 1 percent more severely or even throwing them in jail. "But then," says Schiavone, "there's an increase in 'let's kill' them. We see 'eat the rich,' 'kill the wealthy.' There are images circulating of senior executives being decapitated, images of blood. Artists are releasing images of banks on fire."

Oh, and should I also mention violence?That article mentions some, and here is another example of these people engaging in violence.

generation brats being bratty

You ever been in a grocery store, and they may have a spot or two where they are giving out free samples of stuff, maybe chips or sausages? If you agree to have a sample, being considerate you likely limited yourself to, say, one piece of sausage, or one small cup of chips. And if someone were to try to take advantage of it, and either grab a handful of toothpicks with sausage pieces attached, or even take a couple of boxes of sausages that weren't prepared for the samples, you would likely consider such a person to be, at best, rude.

Consider that, then consider these antics by Generation Brats

D.C. Protesters: 'Freedom Plaza Is Now Ours, And We're Never Giving It Back'

When protesters refused to leave Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington on Monday after their permit expired, the U.S. Park Police extended that permit for another four months.

"Freedom Plaza is now ours, and we're never giving it back," said a protest organizer at the October2011 website: "We have not said that when the four months are over and the American Spring is here we will leave."

Why am I now hoping for a really serious winter? Something that would make parts of northern Siberia look tropical?

And why not? After all, it's not like these protestors are hurting.

We intend to make it possible for anyone to visit D.C. with free accommodations," says October2011l.org. "Just bring a sleeping bag and agree to work with us to pressure Congress, the White House, K Street, the Pentagon, and all the lobbyists and profiteers for peace and justice. We have free food, we have free drink, we have free trainings and seminars, we have tents, we have peace keepers, we have a big victory under out belts, and we welcome all peace makers for they shall inherit Freedom Plaza. We own it. It is ours. It shall remain ours world without end."

Oh, wow, what a liberal dream! All that free stuff, just for the taking!

Kinda makes you wonder who's really paying for it all. A bit of wisdom I heard some time ago said that nothing is really free. If they have food, how are they getting it? Are they breaking into grocery stores, and just taking what they want? I doubt it, though they do seem the types. If they aren't doing that, though, where is the food coming from?