Tea Party: Definition

I often think Ambrose Bierce got the political factions right in his Devil's Dictionary:


"Conservative. (n.) A politician enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."


But we don't yet have a good definition of "Tea Party." Given that faction's prominence, we need one.

I provisionally offer the following.


"Tea Party. (n.) a heavily-armed irrational faction following lies; including that they are the best guardians of America's peace and safety."

You have the right....

I don't THINK I'm particularly acerbic in pointing out to friends when they are spreading some lie in their blog, or e-mail, or facebook posts. I hope not. My problem has always been rather being too deferential, and low-key.

That being so, I can only lay the rage that often follows, when a lie is challenged, to our human desire to always be RIGHT: or at least, to never have our own pronouncements questioned as if they could be wrong.

What God has brought me to over long years, is that questions of what's true are never personal: that is to say, they are not about me. They are however definitively PERSONal to Jesus, Who claimed to be, Himself, "the Truth" (John 14:6).

In that consideration, anyone who points out when we are following (or worse, spreading) some lie does us a great kindness, warning us that our walk is straying from following the One Who IS also Himself "the way" (ibid). That's "the way" God has brought me to see it (again, over some years): and I think and operate that way pretty consistently (entirely God's doing, over those same years).

Since every question about truth is about Jesus, I'm learning also that I don't need to defend myself against fire-back when people are offended. Knowing I'm human and fallible, I'll double-check what I witness is Truth. But if it checks out on re-checking, Truth is Truth: and He hardly needs me to defend Him.

Sometimes, as today, double-checking even turns up further evidence it is the truth. I shared that with my facebook "friend" who attacked my first witness to truth: and I'll leave the double-verified truth with him, take it or leave it. Those who don't want Truth can't be made to hear Him.

It may be a particularly American thing, but those who feel I'm attacking them (rather than the lies they choose to spread) often seem to fall back on some assertion of their "rights." I might paraphrase that attitude as "I can believe what I WANT to !!"

It effectively moves the question away from Truth...which is probably the intent. We know in our hearts a lie cannot stand, but don't want to admit it is a lie: so we change the subject away from the uncomfortable question "what is Truth ?"

But making it instead a question of "rights" seems such a very odd defense: as if challenging anything we WILL to believe somehow violates our freedom.

Perhaps so. But from my perspective: knowing on Jesus' testimony that He is "the truth," and that satan is "the father of lies:" leaving Truth out of the matter seems a guaranteed way to make disastrous choices. Or perhaps there are people who are always and absolutely "right"... ?

And that's our the problem. We know good and well there are no such infallible people. But when we demand our "right" to make choices without being challenged, we act as if we are such autonomous creatures: indeed, as if we are a god, and need answer to no one...even Truth Himself.

I'll formally affirm here my confession of Christ: every human being, in every human way, is ACCOUNTABLE to The One Who IS The Truth.

That accountability extends even to "Christians" writing lying blogs, lying e-mails, and posting lies on facebook.

Amen.

Taking Stock

The first blog of this new year seems a fitting place to re-affirm what is timeless.

God's absolute purpose is that He be glorified as King, now and forever. Glorified in mercy, in righteousness, in power...He alone.

The sad truth is that the spiritual state of the American Church continues in the image of the political faction it has CHOSEN to follow: rebellious, despiteful of the poor and sick, loving falsehood, turned to its own way.

As the teacher of righteousness Rick Frueh has said, "This kind of blasphemy should make us tremble with fear because God’s cup of wrath must almost be filled." (http://judahslion.blogspot.com/, "The Worship of Man").

I do tremble with fear. The Church and nation amongst whom I live have set their hearts like flint against God and His ways.

My faith is that God will work His purpose, in time and in eternity, and is even now doing so. Woe to all who oppose Him. DEEP WOE to those who blasphemously take His Name in their mouth when their hearts are filled with rebellion !!

May God in mercy strengthen all who love Him, all who mourn His Church' apostasy !

Template: response to "Wake Up America !" blogs

Just so I don't have to go over it again, and again, and again... Because unwary Christians keep posting "Wake Up America !!" blogs over, and over, and over again.

You know the type. Secret evil conspiracies against America, especially in the Middle East, especially by Muslims and/or communists. Dark plottings in our government to steal our "rights:" invariably by Muslim-loving socialists (read "Obama").

The first line is a (very typical) quote from one of these rants.

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

"When a nation is being taken over by such darkness and great DECEPTIONS..."

Is the danger to "a nation" (presumably America), or to the Church ? Which is the Body of Christ, and mandated by God to follow Jesus, its Head ? Which is God's own creation to glorify Himself ?

Which dangers should Christians wake up to: the machinations of Middle-Eastern politicians, or those of the evil political faction misleading the Church in our own nation ?

Isn't it the latter which has led American Christians to embrace rebellion ("Government is the problem." Ronald Reagan), lies (such as David Barton's "history" of America's "Christian" heritage), blasphemy (George W. Bush' claim that America is "the light of the world") ? Isn't it the latter which persuaded millions of Christians to profess, by their votes, that they want to be led by the priest of a demon who claims to be the REAL "Jesus" ?

When a nation's CHURCH follows the enemy and his ways, what hope is there for that nation ? What hope for a Church which so forsakes the King of Glory ?

The Hollow Days

A beloved former pastor gave a Christmas sermon one year on "the hollow days." (He credited a friend with that great phrase.)

He spoke about a real spiritual problem: the ennui and let-down many people experience at, and after, Christmas. He didn't exactly say the holiday itself was hollow. But he came as close to taking on that shibboleth as any pastor I've ever heard.

The "hollow"ness of Christmas that always stands out for me is its astounding lack of spiritual content. At least, in the Church. The world undoubtedly puts on a temporary spirit of "good will toward men:" much-needed, even if only superficial, short-lived, and merely-sentimental. But the Church is where we would expect that continuing message of God's good news to be most deeply manifest.

The opposite seems to be the case. In my experience, the Church' entire month of December, perhaps even a few weeks before and a few weeks after, is given over to the "Christmas" spirit. There is at least a month every year when my church puts on hold all of our Bible-studies, sermons, prayer-groups, worship services and all the other distinctives of a Christian church, to focus entirely on special "Christmas" festivities and presentations. It feels very much like a break from the Church' God-given work, when we can relax and join unbelievers in idolatry of the holiday.

There are of course the obligatory, usually formulaic, sermons...about the wonderfulness of Christmas. But Sunday School classes, Bible studies, prayer groups...the places where we hear God's thoughts and ways, where we approach Him and enjoy His Presence...are put on hold for Christmas activities: decorating the sanctuary, practicing the pageant, organizing, advertising, and driving forward all the Christmas events. There is never less awareness and sense of God's Real Presence in the Church than at the season we claim to celebrate His Presence among men.

I've written several times before about the false history of Christmas, its origin as an expedient for a half-pagan Church, its revival in modern times as a Christ-less sentimental narrative. A "holy-day" exactly of, and to, the world's tastes. But only the Church manifests the deep hollowness of Christmas. Only the Church can.

The spirit of facebook

Upfront, let me say I hate facebook. (The local newspaper made their sign-on your facebook ID, so I had to have one.) What need it serves, except superficial opinioneering, is hard to see. When I want to talk to friends, I send them an e-mail: when I want to express my thoughts, I write a blog-entry. But that's (evidently) just me.

Nonetheless, no work of man, including facebook, is spirit-free. Even facebook's superficial opinionating is sufficient to show what spirit it rises from.

Doubtless the content we experience on facebook depends largely on who our "friends" are. Most of mine are my long-time (real-world) friends and family, their wives and husbands and children. Most of my friends are like me: in their 60s or older, middle-class, middle-American Christians. Their posts are probably a fair reflection of the spiritual-temperature of that demographic.

It's disheartening. What I see there, endlessly repeated, is violent hatred for anyone my friends consider their flesh-and-blood enemies: Obama, "liberals," Muslims, Democrats. Contempt for the poor, sick (or anyone who dares think "Obamacare" might help the sick), aliens. Every day there are approving re-posts of belligerent anti-government opinion, belligerent assertions of our rights (especially gun-rights), fawning tributes to our military, historical lies a la David Barton, current-events lies a la Glenn Beck, mindless Americanism.

It's all leavened with "Christian" posts. Many are mere sentimentality: some are just nonsense, or worse ("I love Jesus: if your (sic) not ashamed of our Savior, re-post this to all your friends and you will receive a special blessing!!").

If my friends' facebook posts are any indication, the spirit of this time is rebelliousness, lies, violent hatred, nationalism...tricked out with a few pious bumper-stickers to present itself as "Christian." If lies and hate-mongering masquerading as Christ isn't the definition of the spirit of antiChrist, I don't know what is.

May God move our nation and our generation to deeply REPENT its evil spirit !!

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