David Barton: Another Level of Deception

I only read two Christian blogs regularly. One is Rick Frueh's Spiritually-perceptive "Following Judah's Lion" (http://judahslion.blogspot.com/).

One of Rick's recent posts was "The Intoxicating Effect of Condemnation," about how we LOVE to condemn the world and its celebrities for (as we perceive it) their "...declining moral culture." That attitude is probably pervasive among Christians.

Rick's question that struck to my heart was simply, "...how can something decline when it is completely fallen to begin with?"

I've written several times here about David Barton, a leading minister of deceit to the American Church. I've written about Barton's gross falsification of history. That was my first gripe with Barton: how is telling a stream of lies in any way "Christian," or even honest history ?

In addition to lying about America, Barton lies about himself. He has no training as a historian, which he claims to be. And he studiously avoids, in his Who's Who entry and on his own "Wallbuilders" website, any mention that he is a professional political operative: co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas 8 times, and an official of the national 2004 and 2012 Republican Presidential campaigns. Barton's reticence, or rather deceit, about his political involvement is clearly because his politics reveal his agenda in falsifying American history.

Rick's question points up for me Barton's deepest deceit. Like most "conservatives," Barton wants to believe: and in his (mis-) teaching, wants us to believe: there was a better, wiser and more moral, human past. It's an unexamined belief even...rather, ESPECIALLY...among people who never consciously think about history: which may be one reason most unthinking people tend to latch onto "conservatism" as an agreeable philosophy.

Christianity is love of "the Truth," Who Jesus IS. History is a study that seeks truth about the past. By both measures, Barton reaches a new and deeper level of deceit.

His teaching that America's moral decline was caused by "liberal" courts, "liberal" social changes, and "liberal" laws of the past few decades clearly serves his Republican agenda. But framing as "moral decline" the very real changes America has undergone in our recent past makes that history subject to a Christian, not a Republican, interpretation.

So, Christian...when was Americans' society not completely fallen ? When were the hearts of men (American or any other nationality) not desperately wicked ? When was mankind not entirely in the grip of sin, and when did all men NOT fall short of the glory of God ?

Honoring a Righteous Politician

Honoring political courage that led to Nelson Mandela’s release from prison in 1990:

We forget that South Africa’s apartheid government was a divisive political issue in the U.S. Many nations had ceased doing business with South Africa after the U.N. urged sanctions against the racist regime in 1962. But America's conservative politicians and business-interests thwarted attempts to get tough against apartheid, and kept South Africa’s economy afloat.

In 1985 an anti-apartheid bill was killed by a Republican filibuster. But the bill was re-introduced the next year, and unexpectedly passed the House. A revised version passed the Senate as well, and was sent to President Reagan for his signature. He vetoed it.

Congress set a vote on over-riding the President’s veto. Reagan fought back. He asked the country on T.V. to support his position: and even enlisted South Africa’s Foreign Minister in lobbying members of Congress. But the anti-apartheid law was overwhelmingly passed over Reagan’s veto: the first time in the Twentieth Century a President’s foreign-policy veto was overridden.

Cut off by its major supporter and trade-partner, the government of South Africa was forced to dismantle apartheid in the next few years...and release apartheid's most famous prisoner, Nelson Mandela.

Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas was the key person in getting the anti-apartheid law past Reagan’s veto. Sen. Kassebaum bucked her party and its popular President because she believed America should “be on the right side of history.” And she was able to sway other Republicans to join in her moral stance.

The chief aide of her party’s Senate leader at the time said, “Her voice carries a lot more weight than those blow-hards out on the floor.” Another inside-observer said Kassebaum was able to change Republicans' minds because they recognized that “…she had done her homework, she had no political agenda, [and] she just thought it was the right thing to do for both countries.”

In this week of well-deserved tributes to Nelson Mandela, it’s worth remembering that his release from unjust imprisonment was due to an American politician who put doing the right thing above party politics.

see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=249652844

The Superstar Preacher Bible

I had to buy a new Bible this week. The one I've relied on for over 40 years had been re-bound once, and had again reached the state where it needed re-binding. Pages and sections were falling out when I turned the page as I read. But binderies seem to be few, and distant: and those I contacted quoted charges in the hundreds of dollars.

As much as I hate to lose the availability of the notes, underlined passages, and highlighted sections that represent my entire walk with Christ, I had to buy a new Bible.

I prefer a translation as close to the original languages as possible, and nicely readable in English. The New American Standard (as 40 years ago) best suits my criteria for serious study, and that's what I bought.

I'm not a Bible snob. Anything on which I have a question, I go first to the Greek or Hebrew, and research the original word(s) in Strong's and other sources. Sometimes I look at other English translations to see how they've translated a word or passage: and occasionally I find another version may be closer to the sense of the original language, or read more felicitously. On the latter consideration, the King James version (perhaps simply because we were all raised with its diction as the standard of "Biblical") often appeals.

One of the old ladies in Sunday School uses a paraphrased version. When she reads from it, sometimes it's helpful in capturing the sense of a passage. But often it's SO paraphrased that I can't recognize the passage in my NASB to follow her reading ! Either way, a "paraphrase" is obviously not suited to serious study.

I glanced at some of the other versions when I was shopping; but quickly decided the NASB was the best version for my next 40 years of study. But there was a great variety of editions of NASB to choose from. Many contained maps, an introductory paragraph with the historical context of each book, or a short section of concordance. One even contained an abbreviated version of Strong's in the back. I could see the use of all those additions.

What appalled me was the "Superstar Preacher" versions. The NASB translation, for example, could be purchased in the Charles Stanley and the John MacArthur versions, with those preachers' running interpretation of what scripture said, printed on the same page as the scripture !

I was amazed at the gross HUBRIS of anyone (superstar preacher or not) who would consider his interpretation of scripture merited the appearance of equality with scripture ! They surely realize that Christians who study scripture superficially (who are the vast majority) will tend to take their word as somehow equivalent to God's.

Especially should preachers who proudly boast their biblicism, as Stanley and MacArthur do, be utterly horrified at such a thing. Why are they not ?

Looking at "their" editions of the Bible, one answer was clear. Their interpretations of scripture...handily printed on the same page as the scripture...reflected exactly their own theologies. Surprise, surprise. Most notably, MacArthur's notes on I Corinthians 12-14 flatly stated that the gifts that passage teaches about are no longer valid.

Clearly MacArthur's self-vaunted biblicism is less love for scripture's truth, than love for his own interpretation of scripture. Were he to "consider it possible, in the bowels of Christ, that [he] might be wrong" (Oliver Cromwell's wonderful phrase), I doubt he would dare think so. But MacArthur clearly considers his interpretation the only true one.

The first parallel that comes to mind is the pope's alleged infallibility on matters of faith. Perhaps (in MacArthur's mind, and among his followers) there's some of that. But there's also a sort of Muslim sensibility to his acts: that "there is no Bible but the Bible, and MacArthur is its interpreter."

Is the Church led by such people...or misled ?

May the Church, and especially its leaders, REPENT !

Letter to Larry Page, Head of Google

Dear Larry:

I'm really concerned that Google is involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Here in Kansas, we've long ago figured out what ALEC and the Koch Brothers are up to. And in Kansas, we're already suffering from their success in pocketing our state's governorship and legislature.

I'd hope Google would not find its social conscience perverted by a false idea of what it means to be even-handed. Perhaps an "honest broker" should contribute to both Democrats and Republicans, as your public policy folks do. But choices between political parties or candidates very rarely involve a straight and clear moral choice.

"Public policy" choices do: and by definition, those moral choices are predicated on what's GOOD for "the public," human beings and society. That's a trickier matter than distinguishing between clearly-labeled politicians.

But clearly groups which advance private business agendas, or the interests of the super-rich becoming richer and more powerful in society, are contrary to the GOOD of all the rest of us, the majority. ALEC's intents in that regard: against worker's rights, against middle-class financial stability, and against environmental commonsense: are notorious.

Please understand that supporting public policy intended to do GOOD, and an equal number of ill-intentioned policies, does not produce even-handedness. It instead makes us morally-compromised. "Doing the right thing" is an exclusive orientation.

Please re-consider your involvement with ALEC and other groups promoting "public policies" which work to the harm of people's lives and societies.

Sincerely, Steve Hicks

Deceived

It's sobering to see, or hear, the boasts of past deceivers. And listening to the rants of Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, Hitler, Rev. Moon, or others of their ilk, it's striking that sometimes, carried away in their own oratory, such men will reveal the frightening truth to their followers.

With the retrospect of history, it's incredible to hear such men baldly proclaim their evil intent: that (for example, paraphrased) "Truth is the enemy when it contradicts our beliefs !" Or, "I am to you, in all ways, as your God !" Or, "The New Man must steel his heart against the weakness of pity and forgiveness !" Or, "If the nation fails to triumph, better that it be destroyed than survive !" Or, "If we find ourselves at the mercy of those who oppose us, we must all die together !"

More incredible is that when the deceivers reveal the evil truth to their followers, the adoring crowds shout their approval and clap enthusiastically, with joy on their faces ! They wildly cheer the announcement of their own destruction, with fanatic devotion to their destroyer !!

More even that Hitler, Jim Jones, Saddam Hussein or Rev. Moon, the flesh-and-blood AntiChrist will be attactive in every way, a winning personality, the height of human intelligence and attainment. Jesus Himself says that in the days of AntiChrist his spirit of deception over the entire world will be so strong that, "if it were possible," God's Own chosen ones would follow him (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22).

I don't consider we're in those days yet. But according to Jesus, they are coming. Should God decide to allow AntiChrist's run during our day, most Christians are in trouble.

A year ago, the vast majority of America's (white, anyway) Christians were easily persuaded, by mere human politics, to follow the priest of a false Christ. How then will undiscerning Christians be able to resist the full spiritual force of Satan's master-deceit ?

When God Himself gives over to "strong delusion" the hearts of all who "do not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved," how can those so sovereignly deluded avoid destruction ? Would they be dissuaded even by their beloved destroyer revealing the truth, announcing "I AM the Beast of Revelation !!", or "I AM come to destroy you all !!" ?

That day is not yet. God still holds out hope to the rebellious and the deceived. Whoever will, can lay hold of that hope. Christians, Repent.

Never Say Die ?

I posted a short comment today on Facebook (sewer of mindlessness that it is, I post there on occasion), that it was the 50th anniversary of C. S. Lewis' death.

It raised an interesting question: what terminology is correct for such a Christian's death ?

That he was ushered into God's Presence ? He lived in the Lord's Presence.

That He entered God's Kingdom ? He was already a citizen of God's Kingdom.

That he "died" ? He began to live fully.

I didn't find a good term for a saint's death.

God's Schedule

A republican Congressman who voted that public assistance-recipients be subject to drug-testing was arrested this week for possession of cocaine.

I don't feel outraged at his hypocrisy. Like "pro-life" Republican Congressmen who force their wives and mistresses to have abortions (as at least one is PUBLICLY-known to have), or others who take millions in government agricultural subsidies while cutting poor food-recipients off government aid, it only convinces me God's schedule is proceeding.

God hates hypocrites. He hates especially hypocrisy that victimizes the poor. He hates the vicious pride of hypocrites who characterize 47% of their fellow-citizens (some say a higher percentage) as worthless parasites. He hates the lying hypocrisy of those who pride themselves that their nation's every cent proclaims "In God We Trust," and spend billions of dollars on military "strength" to keep America safe.

God hates the proud, liars, those who trust in their own murderous strength, and hypocrites. He hates politicians who so vaunt themselves. How then does He regard those who parrot the politicians' attitudes as "Christian" ?

God's enemies even now war against the King of Glory with implacable fury. But His justice is even more implacable, and His mercy and His power are irresistible. He promises to deliver those who trust in HIM completely, and to destroy utterly those who hate Him.

It's God's comfort and encouragement to know that His schedule for the hypocrites and liars is inexorably proceeding: and "Lo, their doom is sure."

Praise You, Father ! Glorify Yourself in crushing underfoot all who take Your name blasphemously in their mouth to cover their evil deeds !!

Our Spiritual Warfare

Every day that I see "Christian" e-mails, Facebook posts, and blogs, I want to re-affirm the Spirit's leading.

Because we follow Jesus, we are subject to fierce and continual spiritual attacks by those who hate Him.

The lines of that warfare are simple and absolute. Jesus identifies Himself as "the Truth," and His enemy as "the father of lies."

When we choose to follow Jesus, we choose to follow Truth.

That choice determines our stance towards every "issue of life." Indeed, II Thessalonians seems to make our "receiv[ing] the love of the truth" the whole determinative between life ("salvation") and death ("perish[ing]").

Every day's flood of "Christian" e-mails, Facebook posts, and blogs shows many "good" people, Christian people, even friends and family, are working for the enemy, spreading his lies. It's very discouraging.

The Spirit's unvarying witness of encouragement is that Truth (Jesus) conquers and rules over all His enemies.

AMEN, Lord Jesus !! Maranatha !!

Christian "Political Correctness"

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)


I've been hearing for 30 years...everyone in America has been hearing...the repeated incantation of "political correctness" as a criticism of...you name it. Criticism of anything in our national life that smacks of bending-over-backwards fairness or sensitivity to the feelings of others. The take-away is that "political correctness" is stupid because it sometimes goes to ridiculous extremes. That it is specifically liberal stupidity, because that faction makes the biggest show of its civic inclusiveness. And that "politically correct" treatment of "them" (here's the real sting) victimizes US and deprives us of our "rights."

Somebody else can hash out the relative value and the relative threat of "political correctness." That's not my concern, and indeed seems rather pointless.

What seems very much to the point is that Christians (who often squawk the loudest against anything they perceive as "p.c.") operate by their own politically-correct mindset. Doing so is, in fact, part of how we're expected to signal our membership in the "Christian" club.

Far from a comprehensive catalog, and in no particular order, the attitudes and thoughts of "politically correct Christianity" include:


that the world's "conservative" faction is our friend:

that Christianity is ITSELF, in fact, "conservative;"

that "liberals" and all their works are therefore evil;

that "liberals" are flesh-and-blood enemies of Christianity;

that "the media" is "liberal," and always lies (Fox "News" excepted);

that America's "activist courts" are "liberal" and anti-Christian;

that "conservative" political and legislative action can bring America back to God;

that God is served when we support "conservative" candidates and causes;

that our "liberal" enemies are out to take away our God-given "rights."


"Christian p.c." is a complex of many other pervasive attitudes. I could mention the "American Christian Heritage" historical lies of professional "conservative" operative David Barton and others; false patriotism, and adulation of the military; contempt for science as "anti-Christian;" and unthinking acceptance of unscriptural "conservative" positions on every other current "issue" (gun-control, global-warming, small government, etc., etc.). Those attitudes all have their political repercussions, of course, and may even (as with Barton's lying "history") be intended primarily for political ends. They are not, however, strictly political beliefs in themselves: so I don't regard them as core "Christian p.c."

Each above belief of "Christian political correctness" is quite simply false, and based on a lie. That in itself should give any thinking Christian pause, knowing who Jesus said is "the father of lies." I've written many times in this blog about most, if not all, of those lies. I hate lies, every denial of "The Truth," as must anyone who believes Jesus IS The Truth. But that's not my point here.

The fact is that "political correctness" is predicated on a righteous ideal: kindness to others. But as with all human-devised systems, its implementation becomes ineffectual, ridiculous...and ultimately destructive of the righteousness it intends. But that's not my point either.

The point is that Christians despise "political correctness," and those (whom they perceive as their "liberal" enemies) fostering it.

At the same time, Christians follow their own lock-step "political correctness" in the image of the world's "conservative" faction; and regard "Christian p.c." as a prerequisite for membership in their religious club.

The first (but only the first) problem there is that Christians accept in themselves what they condemn in others. Jesus rightly calls that hypocrisy. (Matthew 7:5)


May the American Church repent its gross hypocrisy !!

Two Kinds of People...

No human being is one-dimensional. Any single person, at any given moment, may be kind, judgmental, anxious, funny, assertive, clever, careless, vulnerable, out-going, suspicious, angry, reserved,... It's every individual's free-will choice. We can also choose to scale and combine any of our responses in any given circumstance, or in relation to any specific other individual(s).

But we like to believe other people are one-dimensional. That their responses are wholly pre-determined by our (OUR !!) perception of them as "one of those people." They always talk that way, think that way, and act that way because they are (take your choice, or add your own) Italian-American, "conservative," a druggie, Catholic, a union-member, white, a mother, an academic, an immigrant, wealthy, a hunter, a New Yorker, oriental, a veteran, an attorney... And because they are "one of those people," they will never be (like us) honest, well-intentioned, trustworthy, loving, right-thinking, decent people.

God...Himself the Creator of all human beings, all their diversity, and of free-will...has a different criteria. He looks among the billions of human hearts to find one which is completely His; who knows Him, loves Him, obeys Him.

"There are only two kinds of people." We have our human thoughts and ways of sorting them out. God has His. If it's not already completely obvious, He tells us straight-out that our thoughts and ways are not His at all (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Can two walk together unless they are agreed ? (Amos 3:3) They cannot. But God delights to walk with any who will agree in His thoughts and His ways.