Murder as Political Gain

Sunday of this week, 3 people were murdered in broad daylight in a nearby city. The victims were killed entering a local Jewish community-center, and a Jewish nursing-home. They were murdered by a lifelong anti-Semite and white-power activist.

The grandfather and grandson shot at the Jewish Community Center were going to a singing contest in which the grandson was competing. The woman shot at the nursing-home, a wife and mother, was there to visit her own elderly mother. None of the victims were Jewish.

For the past few weeks, our church has suspended Sunday School classes to watch a video series by Adam Hamilton about Jesus' last days. Hamilton is a pastor in a local city, whose solidly-biblical teachings have made his congregation the largest in our Methodist district. He is much-admired in our congregation. (Hamilton was the speaker at a Presidential prayer-breakfast a couple years ago: the same year a video of a violently anti-Obama sermon was filmed in front of a Presidential seal, and circulated by "conservatives" who falsely claimed it was given at that year's prayer-breakfast.)

The grandfather and grandson murdered on Sunday were members of Adam Hamilton's congregation.

The murderer was well-known to state and federal law-enforcement. He'd been discharged from the U.S. Army Special Forces for distributing racist propaganda. He founded The White Patriot Party in North Carolina soon after. He'd run for state and national elective offices, in North Carolina and in Missouri, on anti-Semitic and white-power platforms. His political party was put under court-injunction when it was found to be plotting the assassination of an anti-hate group leader. He'd done time in federal prison when he and 3 like-minded men were subsequently arrested in possession of large quantities of military-level weaponry. He's said to be an Odinist.

On our church' e-mail list, we regularly receive prayer requests: for upcoming church activities, members of the congregation who are ill, the families of local folks who have passed away, etc. There are also prayer requests for victims of various natural disasters and violence, national and international.

We received a request in December 2012, for example, that we pray for the families of the 28 people killed at Sandy Hook, Connecticut. I remember that time vividly, because of the great evil done to children; and because one of our church-members responded to the prayer-request with a forwarded defence of gun-rights by the father of a Columbine High School shooting-victim. He argued that mass-murders happen because of evil in human hearts; so "...you who would point your finger at the NRA...examine your own heart before casting the first stone !"

I was aghast, and rather angry, that the friend who sent that politically-inspired response could be so warped by the N.R.A.'s relentless propaganda that she thought it important for Christians, in the face of Sandy Hook's horror, to not lose sight of the inviolability of gun-rights. I wrote that friend, and cc:ed the mailing-list:

"What spiritual problem of a fallen
society is remedied by having more guns,
and more unrestricted access to guns ?

Romans 13 is clear. One of human
government's mandates from God is to
restrain evil. Murder is evil."


This week so far, the church' e-mail list had had no prayer-request for the families of the folks killed on Sunday: even though two of them were part of a local congregation known to, and admired by, our church' people. I trust there's not a political motive behind that omission: for example, that mention of those murders might seem to favor gun-control.

I sent a prayer-request to the church' list this morning: for the victims' families, and for the murderer and his family. No mention of "gun-rights" one way or the other. There is NO place in our spiritual warfare for grinding any political ax.

Amen.

David Barton

I think I became aware of David Barton when a local pastor I knew slightly wrote a piece for our newspaper's 4th of July edition, about the founding fathers' fervent Christianity. His piece was full of factual errors, much less erroneous interpretation, so I wrote him privately. After all, his piece had been presented to this university town as representing the local Christian community: and there were academic historians reading it, knowing even better than I do that most of his assertions about American history were false.

He was kind enough to write me back, defending what he'd said as true, and citing his source: David Barton's "Wallbuilders" website. I'm a longtime student of American history, so I looked at "Wallbuilders" to see if it had some worthwhile information I'd missed. Quite the contrary: the site's "information" was simply untrue, to an obviously-dishonest purpose. Such stuff has to offend anyone who values accurate history: but there's little that can be done to counter it. There are always people who will buy into fringe beliefs like the Atlantean age, or British Israelites. Honest history never seems to dissuade people who want to believe lies.

I just wrote off David Barton's crack-pot history as undeserving of serious attention. Others didn't take that view. The Republican Party of Texas elected Barton its Chairman eight times. The Republican National Committee named Barton its "liaison to social conservatives" during the 2004 Bush presidential campaign. In 2005, Time magazine profiled Barton as one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." (Barton frequently refers to this honor on his "Wallbuilders" website and in his Who's Who entry, but without quoting Time's biography: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993261,00.html. More on that below.)

But unlike some of Time's "Influential Evangelicals," whom I respect as spiritual leaders (Billy Graham, Joyce Meyer, J. I. Packer, Chuck Colson, Rick Warren), Barton was singled out for his political influence on American Christians (see above). Barton's influence grows from his role as the founder of (in Time's words) "what might be called Christian counter-history," and its power to sway Christian voters. That influence continues: I understand that in 2012 Barton was chosen to help write the Republican platform...on which a Mormon priest ran for President.

But though his influence on Christians (and the country) is political, Barton studiously avoids mentioning politics. His high political achievements are the kinds of things anyone would ordinarily cite proudly in their Who's Who biography, or on their own website. Barton doesn't. Even his "Wallbuilder's" mention of Time's honor as an "influential Evangelical" links to that issue's cover: not to its biographical sketch detailing his work as a professional Republican operative. That reticence seems very curious, unless Barton wants to appear non-political...which he's emphatically not.

Barton's also been deceptive in claiming to be a "historian," and has only recently stopped referring to himself that way on his website. If his (self-written) Who's Who biography can be believed, he has a bachelor's degree in Christian Education. That in itself is not damning. Many amateur historians have done excellent and important work, despite having no formal training in history: Barbara Tuchman (with a degree in journalism) and David McCullough (English) come readily to mind. But Barton's version of America's "Christian heritage" fails AS history on that discipline's most basic standard, applicable to amateur and professional alike: factual accuracy, and honest interpretive methods.

More importantly, Barton's politically-skewed "history" doesn't meet Christians' most basic standard: love of the Truth/Jesus. Barton cites events which never happened, or didn't happen the way he portrays them, and quotes people as saying things they never said or wrote (his own website has a large section of "Disputed Quotations" where he attempts to defend the latter); and interprets it all in manifestly-biased ways that amount to "conservative" propaganda.

I used to pray that God would convict David Barton of his lies and his deceptive practices. But when a person's worldly success is based on untruth (Glenn Beck, for example, or Rush Limbaugh), it's particularly hard for them to repent: even if they are still able to recognize Truth. (And if I understand scripture correctly, men can so obstinately refuse to "receive the love of the Truth" that God sends on them "strong delusions," so that they can no longer recognize saving Truth. II Thessalonians 2:7-12)

All I know is that David Barton has taught, and continues to teach, lies. His lies are specifically intended to deceive Christians, for base political purposes. That much is manifest to any honest examination of the man and his teachings. But God examines the heart: He Alone is the sovereign Judge of David Barton's heart.

I can testify, however, that I no longer feel God leads me to pray for Barton to repent. Toward him, I feel led instead to pray that God will glorify Himself in destroying the enemies of Truth. That in His mercy, He will protect His people's hearts from the lies by which the enemy tries to lead us away from His Beloved Son ! That He will stir His people's love of Truth to intense flame ! I pray (as right now) that God will exalt His Name, putting to shame the father of lies and his evil-workers !

It's a prayer every Christian should pray. It's a prayer of protection for every one who loves our God and His Chosen; and of destruction on every enemy of Christ. It's a prayer pleasing to God. And He alone, the only righteous Judge of mens' hearts, determines who He is pleased to protect, and who He wills to destroy.

Whatever God determines toward David Barton, His judgements are righteous altogether, and are Glory to our King ! Praise Him !!

Amen !!

Drawing the Line II

Ted Williams was the last man in major-league baseball to bat over .400. He credited his hitting ability to his visual acuity, which tested at 20/10 when he entered the Navy in 1942. Williams claimed that he could see the spin of the ball's stitches from the moment it left the pitcher's hand, which told him the ball's future motion and placement when it reached home-plate.

An interviewer asked Williams about his legendary batting skills. It was simple, Williams said: he didn't swing at any ball except those which touched the strike-zone.

"But with your eyesight," said the interviewer, "surely you could have hit pitches that were only a sixteenth of an inch outside, or an eighth of an inch. Couldn't you have gotten even more hits that way ?"

"NO !" Williams said. "If I did that, where would I draw the line ?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cited this anecdote in a previous blog-post, that American Christians also need to draw the line: in our case, against the creeping worldliness that has led us far astray. It came back to mind today in a different connection: who draws the line ?

Ted Williams understood the strike-zone was built into the rules of the game. He simply determined to observe those rules.

So who draws the line ?

When I started work for the Post Office in the late '70s, they were still talking about a recent employee who'd been convicted of murdering her boyfriend. The testimony was that she'd shot and killed him after an argument one hot afternoon. Her defense ?: "I told him not to move that fan."

If "every man does what is right in his own eyes," who can say I'm wrong to kill anyone who displeases me ? I draw my own line, for my own reasons: and don't you dare move that fan.

Or if the armed anarchistic autonomy some clamor for today is not to our taste, are the brawling tribes of the earth better able to draw the line ? Don't we have the example of all history, that they will do as they have always done in their national moral autonomy, and find it laudable to murder in defence of "national interests" ?

We who believe that God Alone Fathers life, Creates "the game" and its rules: is He not Alone the Only righteous Judge fit to rule when the life He has given should be forfeit ?

No Light in America

My wife and I got a chance to actually talk this morning. It doesn't happen often. We're both on the verge of formal "retirement," with all that entails: and raising a 3-year old and 2 teenagers. We seldom get a chance to really talk to each other.

We have some different ways of viewing things, but mostly the same way as regards the faith. And we have many of the same disappointments regards our nation, and state, and church. The welcome opportunity to talk clarified again the simple outlines of that disappointment.

In broadest terms, disappointment that so many in our country are looking to politics for their truth: for the personal attitudes, deeply-held beliefs, and talking-points they choose to embrace ! Politics can be many things, and not all of them are evil: but looking to politics for truth is so profoundly foolish it must qualify as true insanity.

More grievous is that Christians look to politics for truth !! And infinitely more grievous, that Christians trust in politics...the world's method...to put the world's evils right.

If seeking truth from politics is insanity, trusting politics for spiritual and moral wellbeing is the most profound deception and unbelief. And both are the operative ways of most "evangelical" American Christians !

May God send His Spirit of DEEP REPENTANCE on His deluded people !! Amen !!

Reality Check

I've looked at the Church' danger in hundreds of different ways God reveals. He's awakened me to hundreds of deceits the enemy works to destroy Christ' Body and Christ' witness in us.

It still all comes down to this: Jesus IS the Truth. If we follow lies, we are not following Jesus.

Amen.

Cursing your ruler

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people." (Exodus 22:28)

Just another of the miscellaneous laws Moses laid out for the Israelites in the wilderness. How seriously are we supposed to take that ? Isn't cursing our rulers just par for the human course ?

But God obviously considers cursing a ruler a very great sin: He links it with cursing Himself. He doesn't specify the punishment: but we know He ordered a half-Egyptian Israelite stoned to death for cursing His Name. (Leviticus 24:10-16) Job's wife also understood death to be God's judgement for cursing Him, advising her husband to "Curse God and die." (Job 2:9)

Paul obviously took the law against cursing a ruler seriously. When he was brought before the Jews' ruling council in Jerusalem, Ananias, the High Priest, ordered someone to punch Paul in the mouth. Paul "reviled" his persecutor as a "whitewashed wall," until he was told Ananias was "God's High Priest." He backed down immediately, pleading ignorance of Ananias' office, "...for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " (Acts 23:5)

We know at least part of how Paul understood God's command to not curse (or, per Acts, "revile," or "speak evil of") a ruler. Romans 13 makes clear the Church' understanding that Christians should "be subject to" human rulers (even, in the book of Romans' time, the legendarily evil ruler Nero), because they rule by God's sovereign choice, and in His authority. And those who "resist authority" (no doubt including cursing the ruler) opposes God's law, and will suffer the consequences.

Whether or not Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was a Christian, and a leader of the Church: it's inconceivable that he would have rejected that teaching. Indeed, his actions before the Jerusalem council show him practicing that teaching. Upon learning that Ananias...who had personally played a key role in condemning Jesus to death...was "God's High Priest," Paul immediately, publicly, repented of his "reviling" words against him.

God puts His command to "...not...curse a ruler of your people" on some kind of equality with not cursing Himself. The writer of Romans gives us further insight into why God views that as sin. The Church taught that this was God's commandment, and that Christians should obey it even when the ruler de jour was Nero. Paul acted in obedience to that commandment.

And what do you say about the ruler of your people, American Christian ? That America's President in any regard tries to obey God's mandate that human rulers be "a minister of God to you for good" ? Or does mention of the name "Obama" raise in your spirit a stream of the vilest hatred and slander ?

Do the words that flow from Christians' mouths, e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs show what spirit is in them ?

If so, may America's Church learn what God means when He commands "You shall not...curse a ruler of your people;" and deeply repent.

A Praise

Very creation sings His Presence: His ravishing beauty, His power.

Does anything He's graced, not ?

He Fathers Life; and all life lives giving and receiving, expends as He IS, Love, in Love.

Man, His creation, beautified in Him, lives graced by Love for Love.

He IS, in all, His Presence His Love, His Praise, Life.

All, sing love praise live HIM.

Amen, Amen.

The Problem With Democracy

During World War I, the U.S. Secretary of War decided that prostitution was a danger to the health and moral fiber of soldiers and sailors. Red-light districts near military bases were ordered shut down. Martin Behrman, political boss and mayor of New Orleans, reluctantly complied by shutting down the city's legendary Storyville district: famously remarking, "You can make prostitution illegal in New Orleans, but you can't make it unpopular."

The problem with democracy is a moral problem: sin is popular. Government of, by, and for the people will be as people are: and people are sinners.

Today we're seeing majority popular opinion becoming more accepting of abortion and gay marriage: so we increasingly have laws protecting those evils as "rights." Public opinion is being professionally manipulated to view gun "rights" as sacred: so legislators (politicians who keep their jobs by giving people what they want) rush to make it so in law.

But the deeper problem of democracy is that "people rule" (as "democracy" means) is the exact opposite of the government God desires, intends, warrants, decrees, empowers, pledges, and guarantees among men: His Own Kingdom.

In this choice, this head-to-head confrontation of governments, Jesus cries to followers of democracy the first word He cried to this fallen world, and cries today and always,

REPENT !!

I'm Not Sure

I'm re-reading James 1. Had recommended that as a starting-place for a new believer who's never really read the Bible before, and I wanted to hear it again myself before talking about what he got from it.

One of my favorite verses is in that chapter: "If any man lack wisdom..." I certainly know that's me. But I can still remember when the full import...the operative reality...of that verse hit me 10 or 15 years ago: and I did what James said.

One time when our men's group was studying James, I asked the guys if they'd ever asked God for wisdom. They all said they had, of course. But as we talked about it, it became clear they meant they'd asked God for wisdom in some particular circumstance. It struck me at the time that that was true and good, as far as it went: but that my understanding of the verse was somewhat different.

I put it aside to think about, like other somewhat-differences I note between my own thinking and other believers'.

Maybe I have a handle on it now...maybe not. But I understand James to mean we can ask God for wisdom as a lifestyle (an over-worked word, but the right one here). That's not to say prayer for circumstantial wisdom is at all inapplicable, or any kind of error. It's also not to say that it's either/or: even those who pray for a life of wisdom doubtless have circumstances arise which require particular prayer.

So where does the shade or increment of difference lie ? Prayer for circumstantial wisdom is as obedient to the scripture as prayer for a wise life: and I don't doubt, as fully honored by God. Yet there is something greater in God's pleasure with Solomon's asking for wisdom: and I understand Solomon was asking for wisdom in all that God had given him, more than to act wisely in a particular circumstance (I Chronicles 1:10-12).

I'm not sure: but perhaps God's greater pleasure is in Solomon's trusting Him for more: for all time, rather than one time. That seems to accord with James' words regards wisdom: that God gives generously to any who ask Him without doubting. It makes sense to me that His pleasure, and His generosity, is greater when we trust Him, act-in-belief toward Him, for all things. The latter is how I understand Jesus' Own walk, and His teaching...the Kingdom of God.

Repentance

In the first gospel, it was the first word Jesus spoke as He began His public ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17). It's the very first step by which the unrighteous and unholy (ourselves) must approach Him Who IS Righteousness and Holiness: and a continual requirement of a continuing relationship with Him. But how do we get there ?

Meditating on that question, there seem two requirements. I'm not sure of their order, or ranking: or if they should be ordered or ranked. Indeed, the two work so closely together I'm not sure they're separate things at all, except for convenience in talking about them. In themselves, they seem more like intertwined aspects of one reality.

Honesty with ourself, about our self, seems crucial: how else can we unrighteous and unholy ever perceive, much less admit, that's what we are ? But, apart from Sovereign grace, how can malefactors such as we are even conceive a measure perfect enough to gauge our own depravity ?

Yet we do. C. S. Lewis points out in opening Mere Christianity that we all behave as if we believe there's a universally-recognized moral standard: we appeal to it, as if certain everyone knows the rules, when we are wronged by someone flouting it. And more to the point, we go to elaborate lengths to justify our own shabby behavior in terms of that standard: arguing that we did not really transgress its rules because (insert excuse here).

Unrighteous and unholy as we are, we yet seem to believe there is a "right" and "wrong," which others (at least in their dealings with us) should adhere to. Our choice for honesty comes in how we personally relate to that moral standard we believe incumbent on all...do we believe it incumbent on ourself ? If we except our self from its authority, we lie to ourselves that we acknowledge its absolute force. Honesty with ourselves begins in acknowledging that we are limited beings: and limited first as subject to a standard of righteousness independent of our own desires and purposes.

If we are not thus honest with ourself about our self, how honest can we be with God ? The only possible honesty to God is acknowledging we are NOT God. If we hold ourselves only to a standard whose highest "good" is our self, how truly do we acknowledge One more righteous and holy than ourself: or how honestly desire His forgiveness, if we're satisfied with our own ? The dishonest heart's repentance and forgiveness are hollow; a lie; self-deceiving religious form; hypocrisy. Only fierce honesty can repent as God requires, in spirit and in truth.

Repentance also requires (in the wonderful title of Derek Prince' seminal teaching) agreeing with God. First, that HE IS GOD: that His rule and His law (present in attenuated form in Lewis' "universally-recognized moral code") are infinitely more righteous than our own. In the same honesty, our heart must agree with God's that we have transgressed against His righteousness, rule and law: no excuses. Repentance.

If we agree with God that He IS The King and The Authority, honesty must acknowledge Him as the One against Whom we transgress. If we agree, as He says, that He is the Judge, honesty must recognize His right to condemn and His power to punish. Unless we agree honestly with God that "I AM" is Sovereign- and True-Alone GOD as He says, our repentance is empty: and worse than empty, it is the stench of fleshly self in His nostrils.

With any honest heart which agrees in Him, God is pleased: His pleasure, the highest honor granted by The King. And to any who thus pleases Him, He is pleased to give more of HIMSELF: His mercy-to-forgive, His Fatherly care...even adoption as His sons. To honest hearts, He grants the greatest desire to which man can aspire: God's Own PRESENCE, now and forever.

All praise to HIM Who IS all in all. Amen.