An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand
The Salt of the Earth
Undresssing of America
65 Girls pregnant
Spirit of Whordom
Personal (Hospital again.)
Should the Christian Right Be an Auxiliary of the Republican Party?
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare
WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM
Essential Features of Dispensationalism
Pretrib Rapture Diehards. Dave MacPherson
Today's China Thanks to George Muller and Hudson Taylor
A Lesson from Jonah
Bush's Continued War Against America
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Can you read this
Harriet Miers is Loyal to Bush's Liberal Agenda
E mail extra: Miers, a CEO's dream justice. Forget Roe and the Framers. Let's Talk Business
A Simple Bible Lesson From Genesis 34
Genesis 31:13, Jacob-Israel had been told to return to Bethel. There he was to fulfill the vow he made to God when he saw the ladder. Genesis 28:10-22. Though he may have had good intentions to return to where God told him to go, he stopped in an appealing place called Shechem. There he pitched his tent very close to the city, and bought a parcel of land from the inhabitants. Though he had not arrived to the place God where God told him to go, he built an altar.
Being close to the city and short of God's will for his life led to many difficulties with his children, particularly with Dinah, Simeon and Levi. (Chapter 35:16-22. He left the place God told him to be, and again his children got into trouble.)
Genesis 34:1. Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land. It may be speculation, but not above reason Josephus tells us that Dinah wanted to see the world and how its women dressed, so she went to a pagan festival. It is not unnatural for Christian girls Dinah's age, 13 to 15, to want to know how the world dresses, acts and lives, and then to be as close to the world as possible. (And thanks to the government education system, both girls and boys can be as close to the world as they desire to be.) Did curiosity cause her to "sneak" out, so she could be with other young people, or did she go with her parents approval? (Church youth groups!) Apparently, she had no one with her. ("The Jewish doctors of a later period fix the marriageable age of a female at twelve years and a day. It is probable that Dinah was in her thirteenth year when she went out to visit the daughters of the land." Barnes' Notes, by James G. Murphy.)
We need to realize that this desire to see and be like the pagans is alive in the fallen nature of every person, no matter what the age. What can we, as parents, do to control that strong desire?
Jewish writers say that Shechem had observed her living among Israel's tents. In order to lure her out, he brought damsels out of his city dancing and playing on timbrels. Dinah went out to see them. (Gill) Dinah's desire to see the damsels led her out of the safety of her home from under her father and mother; she wanted to see their fashions and novelties for herself. (Trapp) One wonders if Dinah dressed as much as she could like the pagan damsels she saw dancing and playing. Though coming from Israel's tents, she thus identifies herself as one of the pagan girls. Her gadding about put her in a place where the adulterer could look and lust after her. Then Shechem took her, and lay with her.
The world's message, parroted by far too many Christian parents and pastors, is that one cannot have a successful life unless the young lady gets out and away from the safety of her home. Daughters are told that they need to go to college, so they can at least be exposed to the pagan fashions and novelties of life, or so they can find a suitable spouse. They go to schools where they will be exposed, and, yes, influenced, by the pagan fashions and activities. (I understand that the Amish (or Mennonite) allow their children total freedom starting at the age of 16, so they can decide for themselves if they want to remain in the Amish community. Christians seem to have the same mentality, as they allow their children to mingle freely with the world's children at the "public" schools and colleges, even Christian colleges.)
In the pagan education institutions, daughters will be under a strong influence to believe that they are sufficient of themselves. (I speak from experience.) They will see and maybe even experience the pagan dancing and playing, designed to persuade them to let the "young princes" lay with them. We fathers find it distressing that paganism is so common even at "Christian College." Sadly, many church youth groups are patterned along the same pagan line, making it as convenient as possible for some young stud to impress and lay with the girl of his choice.
Young women must be taught to be keepers at home. (Titus 2:5.) When they go out, they must be properly clothed, and in their right mind; that is, not lusting after the dress and manner of the pagan women of the world around them. "And this not only in winter, that they take no cold; but in the summer, that others take no heat from them, which may rather burn them, than warm them, as Shechem here did." (Trapp)
For the better understanding of what follows it is well to know that Dinah was "the daughter that Leah had borne to Jacob." It would hardly seem that her act of going out would be referred to as "going out to see the women of the country," if Dinah had been wont to go out thus many times before. It is useless to speculate whether mere idle curiosity prompted her, or whether she went without consulting her parents, or whether she even went forth contrary to their wishes. We are unable to determine to what extent she was at fault, if at all. In any case, it seems she should have known that Egyptians and Canaanites (#Ge 12:15; 20:2; 26:7) regarded unmarried women abroad in the land as legitimate prey and should not have gone about unattended. Shechem happens to find her. The fact that he is the son of Hamor, a Hivite prince, seems to make him feel that he especially has privileges in reference to unattended girls. We are not told whether she was pleased with and encouraged his first approaches. At least, the young prince was bent upon seduction. This his object was accomplished, whether she resisted or not. If #Ge 48:22 informs us that the inhabitants of Sechem were Amorites, the apparent contradiction seems to be solved by the fact that the general name for the Canaanite tribes was Amorites. (Leupold. From Online Bible"#" means that one could click on that verse, and the verse would come up. Online Bible, $35 from us.)
Regardless of why she went out and around, the question remains: Was she an unattended and unmarried girl, probably dressed as a pagan girl, giving the impression to the people of the land that she was available for the taking? What did Shechem say or do to seduce her? Was she willing? The pagan dress style is as a harlot, and when Christian females dress in similar fashion, they will be considered one also. (Bare midriffs, &c. Cf. Genesis 38:15.)
V. 5, Gill says Jacob heard from one of the maids who attended her to the city, but the question persists would a maid stand quietly by while her mistress was forcefully taken? (V. 2, implies she was forced.) The context of the account strongly implies that Dinah went out alone, or that she went willingly with Shechem. Regardless, she was where she should not have been.
No doubt Jacob was deeply distressed, but he could do little. In the case of a family containing plural wives (Jacob had 2 wives and two concubines that is wives with no dowry paid by the husband for them), the protection of the daughters fell upon the full brothers, Simeon and Levi. (At the most, these two were 20 & 19 years old. Barnes.) The two fathers would probably have reached a mutually agreeable arrangement in the affair, without the brothers. (JFB. V. 6.).
Jacob had other daughters at the time Joseph was sold, so he probably had more daughters than just Dinah here. Genesis 37:35.
As we follow the account, it seems that Shechem was the only honorable man as the results of his wicked deed works out. Hamor, the father of Shechem, wanted intermarriage for the benefit they would gain from Jacob's rich tribe. Jacob's boys wanted to murder everyone, both the guilty party, and the innocent. Shechem loved the girl, and wanted to pay the dowry, no matter how much it cost. At the very least, Shechem should have been allowed to pay the dowry of a virgin, with no marriage. (Exodus 22:17)
One final question: Why did Jacob stop here and pitch his tents so close to the city? He was close enough for Shechem to see what was going on, and close enough for his daughter to lust after the things she could see. Why do Christians have to live, act and dress so close to the world? Why must they place their children in locations that only feed the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and the pride of life, e.g., government schools and colleges?
Back in the 60s when cruising the drive-in restaurants was popular, it was not uncommon to see girls by themselves cruising the circuit between several drive-ins. It would not be long before the girls would be split up in different boys' cars. Thus, girls out and about without escorts were assumed to be looking for boys to pick them up.
Though I have lost contact with young teen girls, I well remember the 14 and 15 year old teen girls when I was an associate pastor in Louisiana. Those girls were totally taken by just about everything the world had to offer in its music and style of dress. I am sure it is worse today. It is that age group that is so easily influenced by whatever fad is prevalent at the time. All one needs to do is look around even in good Bible believing and teaching churches at how the teen girls dress. Shechem, the world, has set a trap for their seduction, and they flock to it.
Interesting note: We had a horrible infestation of Japanese beetles this year. I set out two traps, and on our hot, muggy days (90-100 with 60% + humidity), the traps had to be emptied every day. I emptied them into a plastic grocery bag, and it was not unusual for the bag to be maybe 1/3 full of beetles every day. The trap has a sex scent in it that draws the beetles from a very good distance. It seems that all they do is eat and mate, and the trap takes advantage of that sex urge. (They almost killed our grape vines and rose bushes.) These traps remind me of the social climate of our day; everything seems to revolve around sex, and the world uses that to trap even Christian young girls. The government education system is effectively doing just what it was designed to do, destroy the moral conscience of America. And Christians think they can recover it. (If we can only restore prayer back into the schools!! How foolish can Christians be?) The problem is that public education was designed to destroy Christianity.
How much more prevalent, 40 years later, is the assumption today that single girls out on their own are looking for boys? Christian girls who dress and act like the world will be assumed to be on the prowl, looking for boys to party with them. And we wonder why adultery, fornication and abortions are as prevalent among Christians as among the world.
Both Dinah's and Shechem's spirits live on in the church. The answer is not to kill Shechem and all the inhabitants of the city, and then spoil the city. The answer is to protect our children as much as possible from lusting after and following after the things of the world. The children God has given should be kept out of the environments that lead to the evils that Dinah and her brothers got involved in.
My experience now is that a proper, Biblical home education environment is the safest place for young people. "The proof is in the pudding." The proof is in the finished product. What price are we willing to pay to recover a generation from the clutches of the world, flesh and the devil?
By David Ethell
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5:13
My wife, Heather, and I were recently going about what I thought was a normal day. One of our neighbors was having a yard sale, and we took our four children over to see what she had for sale.
It turns out she was collaborating on the yard sale with three of her friends, so there was ample opportunity to find knick-knacks and chat with our neighbor and her friends. While we were there one of the ladies offered to give some stuffed animals to our two girls. For some reason, our younger daughter, Grace, just did not want this animal. She had come fully expecting to spend her own money and getting something for free just didn't seem right to her (go figure!). Her attitude was a bit sour to the lady, so Heather took her aside and gently explained to her how nice it was that this woman was serving her.
Grace never really understood, and we thought that to be the end of the matter. We were a bit embarrassed by our daughters display of whining and fussing, and wondered if we should have stayed home rather than bring our children out into the world to be such poor "salt." How wrong we were.
A few days later our neighbor was talking to Heather and she remarked that our family made such a huge impression on her friends. Heather asked what she meant and our neighbor said that after the confrontation over the stuffed animal, the woman came back to our neighbor and asked, "What did she mean by serving' her?" This woman was taken aback at the mere notion of serving one another and just the language my wife used got her thinking. Not only that, but they wondered if the husband (me) required his wife and daughters to "dress that way." "What way?" our friend asked. "In dresses." Apparently seeing femininity was as foreign as hearing about serving one another.
My neighbor and her friends proceeded to converse for several minutes about our family and how well-behaved our children were and how peaceful we all seemed. Our neighbor said Heather and the girls seemed very content to dress that way and not forced at all.
How little we see sometimes! Here I had thought we had once again blown the mandate of Matthew 5:13 when in reality we had been the very salt Christ wants. I had thought we were the salt without savour, but through the experiences of encouraging Grace, the discussion of serving and I suppose just our family being our family, we showed the impact of Jesus on a family in a more profound way than I could have planned.
I have believed a misconception of what it means to be "salt." I have thought our family must present a "perfect" front to the world and that they need to see our children as little cherubs who never whine or complain. Granted, we don't want whining and complaining, but I have missed the notion that the world also needs to see Christian parents working with their children and loving their children as Christ loves us.
Christ certainly desires our perfection and yet like the loving Mediator that He us, He takes us aside and works with us, often right in front of the eyes of others. He loves us and that day at the yard sale these women saw a mother loving her daughter through gentle, godly correction.
Not only that, but before we even had the confrontation over the stuffed animal, they were already watching intently just because we looked different. Could it be that our modern, evangelical church is so caught up trying to look like the world so that the world will not be scared away, so that we can be "relevant" to "where they are," that we have lost the ability to share the truths of the gospel just by being savory salt?
We could debate the merits of various forms of dress, but I believe had our family looked like any other modern American family, with all of us looking like boys or men, these curious ladies would not have taken much notice. Instead, they wondered who these different people were and that set the stage for them to hear and see the gospel in the simple action of a mother loving her daughter enough to correct her and set her feet on the right path.
May I never forget that, rather than waiting to go out into the world until my children are perfectly behaved, we can proclaim the truth by showing that "whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth," Proverbs 3:12. And may I also never forget that the simple act of looking, talking and walking differently than the world truly can proclaim the truth, even without words.
Our world is hungry for truth and it needs to see real, humble Christianity. I don't mean a formula of dresses and "church-speak," but honest, simple living, warts and all. It certainly wasn't us that made the impact that day at the yard sale, but the Holy Spirit, working all things for His glory.
The following is an e mail from Doug Phillips of Vision Forum
Henry Van Til once observed that "culture is religion externalized." By this he meant that the culture of a nation reflects the true faith of that people. The way a people live their lives, the way they communicate, their philosophy of work, and their approach to aesthetics all reflect the standards and priorities of the people, and those priorities are dictated by their true faith.
This is why we must recognize that even dress is "religion externalized." Cultures that worship nature and treasure sensuality tend to dress immodestly. Those which make an idolatry out of material possessions often fall prey to the foppish enslavement of high fashion. On the other hand, cultures which embrace true Christian piety will seek to make personal holiness the driving standard for their dress code. They will develop clothing which emphasizes biblical principles like distinction, functionality, and modesty. In short, dress is not neutral.
Furthermore, dress standards and dress codes are inescapable and inevitable. Whether you realize it or not, you and everyone else have a dress code. You will either have a dress code by design (meaning that you have thought through the moral and philosophical implications of your dress code), or you will have a dress code by default (because you have let others do the thinking for you and have de facto accepted their conclusions) but you will have a dress code.
Until the twentieth century, most Christians understood that dress standards were inescapable. But with the rise of antinomianism (the rejection of God as lawgiver), the resurgence of Gnosticism (the belief that God is not concerned with physical things), and the widespread acceptance of the neutrality postulate (the notion that the Lordship of Christ over human action only extends to "spiritual" matters), many twentieth century Christians have simply allowed themselves to be swept away by cultural trends, rather than following the biblical admonition to take every thought and action captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ.
It must be clearly understood that every time you hear someone rant or rail that it is inherently "unfair" or "legalistic" to have rules pertaining to clothing, that such individuals are directly and unequivocally attacking the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Whether they realize it or not, they are in effect saying: "My dress standard is a neutral zone. Jesus does not speak to this issue."
Of course, it is entirely possible to be legalistic. The legalist is one who creates laws and rules foreign to Scripture by which he hopes to bind the consciences of men. Alternatively, he is that individual who teaches that one's entrance to Heaven is predicated on submission to a code of conduct. These teachings of the legalist are contrary to Scripture.
The real choice in the debate over standards of dress is not between legalism and license, but between God as lawgiver or man as lawgiver. Once that debate is settled and the Lordship of Christ is freely and boldly proclaimed over our dress standards, we can get about the business of studying the Scripture to discern how we can wisely apply the many diverse and relevant principles revealed in Scripture to the issue at hand.
Because the Bible teaches a doctrine the Reformers called "the sufficiency of Scripture" (namely, that God has given us in Scripture all that we need for our faith and practice), we can be absolutely confident that the Bible is sufficient for us to know how we are to dress in a Christ-honoring manner relative to our culture, our gender, and our station in life.
Implicit to this notion is the idea that there may be an infinite number of God-honoring approaches to dress, relative to a specific culture, as well as an infinite number of Christ-dishonoring approaches to dress. The critical issue will be applying the unchanging principles, precepts, and normative patterns of Scripture to the ever changing facts of our cultural circumstances.
One of the most important of these issues to be addressed is the question of modesty and nakedness. The Bible has much to say on this issue. In fact, the Bible begins in Genesis 3 with the revelation that fallen man is to be covered and that public nakedness is a sin. In past centuries, Christian peoples were often noted for their modesty and heathen peoples for their immodesty. Today, the line between the professing Christian and the savage tribesman has become increasingly blurred, as more and more "Christian" people resort not only to the pagan practices of scarification, tattoos, and body mutilation, but have thrown off the "restraints" of modest dress in favor of the trendy and the physically revealing. The result is that modern America has been publicly undressed. What is worse, Americans have come to think of nakedness as normal and acceptable, even preferable.
End of e mail from Doug Philips
We, The Biblical Examiner, are offering one postpaid copy of Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America, by Jeff Pollard.
"The author, Jeff Pollard, is a brave man. He has dared to tackle one of the great sacred cows of modern Christianity, and in so doing he has risked censure, disapproval, and subjecting himself to the inevitable cries of legalism.' To this I reply: Thanks be to God for raising up men who will speak the truth in love, which is exactly what Jeff does.
With winsome gentleness but uncompromising boldness, Jeff Pollard helps modern Christians to understand the historic origins of our modern trend towards nakedness, and the implications of these trends on the people of America. This is a critical book for any parent who hopes to raise sons and daughters who will remain morally pure in a culture that worships the flesh." (Doug Philips.)
The following are excerpts from Jeff Pollard's excellent book, Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America.
It is available from us or from Mt. Zion Publications, 850 438 6666.
We will send it to you free of charge, though would ask for you to include a little for postage, though not required. This is an excellent book on how the ladies underwear industry convinced American women to wear their underwear on the outside in clear view of the world. They colored it, and told women that this was the style. I have not included the documentation in the following, but Mr. Pollard documents every thing he says. His primary sources are documents from the undergarment industry itself.
Every woman (AND HUSBAND) should read this, and those with daughters still at home should especially read it, and have their girls read it also. The following is from the book, unless stated otherwise. I have not put the reference page numbers, because the statements will be easily found if you read the book. Nor have I reproduced his research footnotes concerning word meanings, &c. It is an easy to read, 45 page booklet.
Quoting Mr. Pollard:
Therefore, since modesty has several definitions, we will draw ours from the Biblical material: Christian modesty is the inner self-government, rooted in a proper understanding of one's self before God, which outwardly displays itself in humility and purity from a genuine love for Jesus Christ, rather than in self-glorification or self-advertisement. Christian modesty then will not publicly expose itself in sinful nakedness. ...
God used this literal event to teach us a spiritual truth. He replaced Adam and Eve's loincloths with "tunics of skin." Although Adam covered his loins, God covered him from his neck to his knees. This is not insignificant: the work of Adam's hands was not acceptable to God either spiritually (his works righteousness) or physically (his nakedness); only the covering that God Himself provided was sufficient for both. While Adam covered his privates, the Lord covered Adam's body. Alsop observed that "our first parents, in that hasty provision which they made against their shame, took care only for aprons: but God who had adequate conceptions of their wants, and what was necessary to supply them; of the rule of decency, and what would fully answer it provided for them coats; that so the whole body . . . might be covered, and concealed."
Though we have no "snapshots" of Adam and Eve's apparel, the word coats is consistently used throughout the O.T. to mean a tunic-like garment. Coats in Gen 3:21 is kuttonet from an unused root meaning to cover. ...
Here lay the heart of the challenge [to the garment industry, ed.]: with men and women freely swimming and playing together in the water, there had to be a garment that would liberate the body for movement. Yet woven into the fabric of our society were the vestiges of a Biblically-influenced modesty. The Christian perspective emanated from the Scriptural account that God gave garments to cover the body, but the demand for greater body movement required this new garment to uncover the body. Fashion designers understood that this seaworthy apparel would have to conceal, yet they well knew that to give its wearers liberty of movement, it would by its very nature reveal. "This amphibious costume would have to be something of a sartorial paradox, a form of undress that functioned as a symbol of dress." Once men and women were no longer segregated in their seaside activities, an inevitable aquatic striptease began. The remaining attempts to retain some trace of modesty and yet liberate the arms and legs explains why early swimwear had the awkward and bulky appearance that our culture presently finds so amusing. Nevertheless, we must not miss this point: these early, funny looking swimsuits were, at least for a time, an attempt to continue the time honored, Christian ideal of covering the body. ...
Fashion designers did not view swimwear as simply functional garments with a specific use like overalls. They envisioned their creations as highly fashionable garments, and therefore designed them both to reveal and arouse. What they clearly understood is that this new aquatic garment was merely a symbol of dress. This is why swimwear ultimately evolved into a form of nakedness thinly disguised as dress. Moreover, they were aware that they were undressing the American public and constantly challenged the legal limits of public nakedness. I challenge you, dear reader: read the books penned by the fashion industry; read their histories of the trade; you will discover that fashion's guiding perspective is often sexual attraction, not the Word of God. And this is an underlying theme in this article: instead of being guided by God's Word, the voice from heaven, American culture is driven by Fashion, the voice of fallen men. ...
Though the Word of God commands, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God," the American fashion industry began to ape European fashion.
Swimwear manufacturers knew exactly the course they planned to follow, and it wasn't the Word of God: ". . . in part thanks to the influence of the more daringly cut French swimsuits, the American bathing costume underwent a revolution. Until that time, bathing attire had been modeled on streetwear . . . by the 1890s, however, underwear began a relentless if slow migration outward that would come to a full, triumphal exposure in the bikini of the 1960s" It should be no surprise then for us to learn that "what the conceivers of the suit strove to suppress was the natural association between underwear and swimwear, a cogent and undeniable comparison. It was also true that the women's swimwear industry in its early stages was closely affiliated with the bra and girdle industry, just as men's wear for swimming was intimately, as it were, connected with the underwear business."
The reasons for this "suppression" should be obvious: undergarments have a blatantly erotic appeal. And American culture, with its "decency" theory of clothing, was not prepared in those days for such a flagrant display of sensuality. Clearly the purpose underlying swimwear design was exposing human anatomy in a more sensual package. This could not be successfully achieved on the streets of the city. But in the name of recreation and especially sports, an amazing dichotomy of thought began to permeate our society. At the turn of the century, what was naked and lewd in the city was suddenly perfectly justifiable and permissible at the beach.
This should make the child of God think. This shift from streetwear to underwear as a model certainly can't be defended as a move toward modesty. Moreover, in the name of sports, recreation, and following suit with European fashion, Americans began legitimizing public nakedness.
As one account aptly puts it: "The history of the American swimsuit is the square- inch-by-square-inch story of how skin went public in modern times."
During the 30s "the upper torso became the new focus of concern, and male swimmers who bared their chests in public not only forfeited respectability but faced the penalty of arrest as well . . . . the `nude look' in swimsuits made a mockery of the laws. Apparel Arts in 1932 reported that `many of the bathers of this year . . . swam shirtless, wearing only a pair of Trunks."' Swimwear designers "fashionably" pressured men to go topless and offered them two-piece swimwear. This "Depression Suit," as it was called, had a removable shirt which could be tucked in, buttoned, or attached to the trunks with a zipper. This was no small contest in the long civil war for modesty: "For nearly three decades, a battle of decency, decision, and decree were fought at the water's edge. In the fourth decade, women's bathing attire changed little in terms of decency, but men's chests became the new field of skirmish . . . Hollywood's men went topless in the 1930s (though airbrushed into the 1950s to avoid the brutality of body hair), and the nation-wide trend, expressing physique while suggesting sensuality, followed with alacrity." In other words, when swimwear designers and their Hollywood connections pressured men into the strip show, they eagerly cast off their tops along with their manhood. Why? Because they followed their hearts instead of God's Word. It's what they wanted.
Guilt for this decaying and debauched state must not be laid entirely at the feet of women, as it often is. The problem lies squarely with the men in the pulpits and homes of this nation. With the near dissolution of Christian manhood in this century, American males have become feminized sex-worshipers who do not lead, but are led. They have followed their silver-screen icons into nudity, and not the purity of Jesus Christ. Had they followed the God of holiness and governed their hearts and eyes as instructed by God's Word, the present lascivious culture simply would not and could not exist. Nevertheless, any who dare to speak against public nakedness are quickly decried as legalists, Pharisees, and worst of all -fundamentalists. How pathetic that so many pulpits and youth groups today are governed by the desires of the women and children of the congregation and not the Word of God. As the Prophet Isaiah said of his day, "This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits" (30:9,10). ...
We live in a pornographic society. Nevertheless, the children of God are called to purity and holiness. Perhaps because they are drowning in the ecstasy of a sexually debauched culture, some preachers gaze upon its endless parade of sensuality and conclude that swimsuits, short skirts, and other immodest clothing aren't so bad after all. Accordingly, some pastors and youth leaders urge young women to wear "modest, one piece" swimsuits before they lead them to the beach. However, I hope by now it is clear that such a thing is fiction. "People are more body-conscious these days," explained Peggy Gay, a beachwear buyer for Saks Fifth Avenue during the summer of 1977, "and there is a certain sleek sexiness in a one-piece that doesn't exist in a two-piece." This is undeniable. Modern one piece suits are true masterpieces of sensual camouflage, because most women's bodies simply cannot slake the public's thirst for the perfect figure. A one-piece is designed to make the best of "what a woman has." If you doubt that, read your local department store advertisements:
OUR SWIM SHOP IS NOW OPEN
See the difference the right fit can make!
Our Fit Specialists are specially trained and ready to help you determine your correct swimsuit size. They know how to select a suit that really fits through the hips, waist, and bust. And we have a specialist in every store. *******'s takes the guessing out of selecting swimwear. We know that when you are choosing the bare minimum, you want a fit that plays up your assets, not one that calls attention to those less-than-perfect areas . . . on every hang tag, you'll find one or more colored dots to help you find the suit that best flatters your figure."
Bare minimum? Best flatters your figure? What "assets" are you "playing up," ladies? Does this sound like a garment that promotes inner self-government which outwardly displays itself in humility and purity from a genuine love for Jesus Christ? Or is this the very essence of self-glorification and self-advertisement? ...
End of my quotes from Mr. Pollard.
I have only given you about 6 random pages out of this 45 page book. Husbands should read this, and then see that their wives and daughters do not parade around in their underwear.
In my 30 years in the ministry, I have encountered more than a few "Christian" husbands who want their wives to wear revealing clothing. Please explain to me why a man would want his wife and daughter(s) to appear in public in the nude.
Even harder to understand is the permission granted from pastors and youth leaders to let their young ladies wear their colored underwear in public, just because there is water present.
Let me urge you to order the book.
The Biblical Examiner, PO Box 81, Bentonville VA 22610
A little boy was attending his first wedding. After the service, his cousin asked him, "How many women can a man marry?"
"Sixteen," the boy responded.
His cousin was amazed that he had an answer so quickly. "How do you know that?"
"Easy," the little boy said. "All you have to do is add it up, like the Bishop said: 4 better, 4 worse, 4 richer, 4 poorer."
School To Unveil Three-Prong Program
CANTON, Ohio There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant, according to a recent report in the Canton Repository.
The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.
School officials are not sure what has caused so many pregnancies, but in response to them, the school is launching a three-prong educational program to address pregnancy, prevention and parenting.
The newspaper also reported that students will face mounting tensions created by unplanned child-rearing responsibilities, causing students to quit school and plan for a GED. This will make it difficult for the Canton City School District to shake its academic watch designation by the state.
According to the Canton Health Department, statistics through July show that 104 of the 586 babies born to Canton residents in Aultman Hospital and Mercy Medical Center had mothers between 11 and 19.
The newspaper reports that the non-Canton rate was 7 percent. Canton was 15 percent.
NewsNet5.com POSTED: 12:30 pm EDT August 23, 2005
It is indeed strange that "School officials" do not know what causes pregnancies. When girls dress and act like harlots, what else can be expected of them?
11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart. 12 ¶ My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God. 13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery. (Hosea 4.)
The spirit of whoredom cause people to err. The spirit of whoredom is used in both a literal sense and in the spiritual sensethat is, serving gods after one's own heart and literal adulteries and fornication. Our nation is given over to the spirit of whoredom (& nakedness) as people pursue gods after their own desires, and they pursue one sexual conquest after another. The spirit of whoredom is very evident in the vast majority of entertainment, both TV and movies, and in the government schools. Control by sexual desire and the desire to drink both take away the heart. Let us not think for a moment that the enemy does not know these Scriptural facts. A people given over to immorality and drink is a nation blind to the truth.
Until there is a return to the true Biblical faith, our churches and nation will continue in blindness on their roads to errors and destruction.
After a church service on Sunday morning, a young boy suddenly announced to his mother, "Mom, I've decided to become a minister When I grow up."
"That's okay with us, but what made you decide that?"
"Well," said the little boy, "I have to go to church on Sunday anyway, and I figure it will be more fun to stand and yell, than to sit and listen."
There has been very little rain here. In fact, our 600 ft. well went dry. However, the other house on the property (that Bettie built for her parents) has a 1000 ft well, and she tied them together when the house was built. So we are running the two houses off that one well.
We no sooner got back from Peru in June when Bettie's sister and niece from Brazil came up to stay a month. Then on July 1-3, Bettie had a family reunion. There are five sisters in the family, and one brother (who lives in Brazil with his second wife). This is the first time in many years that all five sisters had gotten together, and they did it here at our house. We had 16 children and 23 adults camping out here for several days. (Bettie's youngest daughter from Ohio was not able to make it, nor could her oldest daughter. Matt Chancy, the oldest daughter's husband, had to go to the Sudan, so he took his family to Alabama to stay with his mother while he was gone.)
As soon as the family reunion was over, Merryrose Watson, who wrote "My Youth Group Experience" in the last Examiner, visited from Pasadena CA. Jennie introduced her to Christina as a pen pal. She had dreamed of and had saved toward going to Joel Salatin's "Polyface Days Conference" which was held about 2 hours south of us. We urged her to come visit, so she did for about 3 weeks.
I keep telling Bettie that I need to go back into the pastorate to have a set schedule, so I can get some things done that I want to do, such as write. (Bettie just says, "Don't be a workaholic eliminate some of the things you are doing so you will have time to write!")
We had considered selling the house where we now live, and moving further away from DC to the other side of the Shenandoah Valley. The housing and land prices are obscenely high in this area, and the taxes are rising with the land value. (Though it will not raise the quality of education a fraction of a point, they are building a new high school about 2 miles north of us, between our house and Front Royal. All it will do is raise our taxes even more. You would think we were in California.) We started to prepare to sell by downsizing, getting rid of 60 combined years of accumulated "stuff". However, after talking it over with the family, we plan to keep the property in the family. (Bettie designed and built this house in 1984.) We still hope to get rid of excess "stuff!"
Bettie's oldest daughter, Jennie (ladiesagainstfeminism.com) and her husband, Matt Chancy, every year host a reception for the staff of Vision Forum. Doug Phillips has a Witherspoon School of Law in Luray VA (about 20 miles south of us). After the meetings, Matt and Jennie have the staff and some of the speakers over to their place in Harrisonburg. We went over the Saturday night after the conference at the end of July.
We had the privilege of meeting Judge Parker, the new associate judge on the Alabama Supreme Court, as well as another judge who will be running for another associate seat on the court this next time. (Judge Moore, the Ten Commandments judge) is running for governor. Matt ran Judge Parkers campaign, and will run the other judge's and Mr. Moore's for next year's election.
A young couple who rented from us last year is now down in Montgomery AL. He is clerking for Judge Parker, and doing an excellent job.
Also at the reception was Doug and his father Howard Phillips. Howard is a very unique and extremely intelligent man, and his boys are also. Doug, the eldest, has Vision Forum and Brad, the next one down, has Persecution Project, a ministry into the Sudan where the Muhammadans are attempting to exterminate all Christians as well as all non Arab Muhammadans. (The US will not attempt to stop the genocide for fear of upsetting the government over oil, as it will not attempt to stop the Saudis.) Right now, Matt is heading up Brad's office staff at Persecution Project, so Brad can spend his time working in the Sudan.
Bro Sprinkle had Howard Phillips speak at his Revival in the Southern Armies conference. Bro. Phillips pointed out that it is foolish to think President Bush is anti-abortion, for his mother is pro-abortion, his wife is pro-abortion and his grandmother, Dorothy Walker with Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. His father, George Bush, pushed government funded distribution of contraceptives. Everyone of his nominees have said that Roe v. Wade is the established law of the land. The partial birth abortion bill affirms Roe v. Wade.
Evidently, because Christians want to believe that Bush is something special, they refuse to see the facts. How willfully blind can Christians be as they continue to support those who promote debt and death?
As I have mentioned, I had stents place in my heart in 1999. I had a "heart attack" when my first wife, Carol, was diagnosed with cancer, but the angiogram showed no change. Then in 2000, I had to go back to have the stents opened that had closed due to scar tissue. (The doctor did a "roto-rooter" process. The end of the "cutter" spins at 45,000 rpm in the area being opened. This procedure requires an open-heart specialist standing by in case something is cut that should not be.)
When the VA doctor learned that I had never had a stress test, I was scheduled for one. After the test a few months ago, the cardiologist wanted another angiogram to see if another stent was required. She sent me to the VA hospital in DC. They asked us when we wanted the procedure, and we said Monday morning so we could come in Sunday evening when the traffic would be light. And we needed it done so we would still be able to make the trip mentioned below.
The hospital furnished a place for my wife, Christina and me to stay Sunday night, so we would not have to drive in Monday morning. (They provide quarters if one is over 2 hours away. On Monday morning, it would have required at least 3 hours to get there, because of the traffic. My 64th birthday was August 14, and I got to celebrate it in the VA hospital waiting room!)
After typical paperwork confusion (cardiology tried to tell the proper people we were coming in Sunday night, but there was no record. Getting a room for Sunday night took some doing, but we got it.)
I was the first one in for a heart catheterization Monday morning, after they got the paperwork straightened out. With this procedure, they insert a "sheath" in the groin area through the large artery going to the right leg. They then place a thin wire (or whatever they use) and thread it up to the heart, and watch the progress of the instrument through a monitor. The patient must be awake during this time, so he or she can move as required. There is some pain as they numb the incursion area, and a good bit of discomfort as they poke the sheath into the artery.
They inject a dye that can be easily traced with the monitor, which shows blockages and whatever "bypasses" around blockages the heart might have produced. Evidently, they also have the ability to capture visual images of where the instrument is in the blood system, for they can see blockages, and what is causing the blockages.
One of the stents I had placed in 1999 had a 50% blockage, but they did not feel the blood flow was restricted enough to place another stent there. They do not do the "roto-rooter" procedure at this VA. Rather, they send the patient out to some place like John Hopkins in Baltimore, where they specialize in that procedure.
Moreover, the pain (of which I never complained after I got used to it, and after many trips to the hospital emergency room and to the cardiologist) I described to them was not consistent with what is associated with heart problems.
Thus, there was not a stent placement, and they let us come home Monday afternoon.
The worst thing about the whole procedure is that after the removal of the sheath from the groin area, the patient MUST lie still for at least 5 hours while the artery clots sufficiently. (However, with a stent placement, they must thin the blood so much that it takes about 8 hours for the artery to clot.) It took a couple of days for my aching back gained from lying still for so long to get back to its normal aches. The doctor did tell me I could do whatever I feel like doing after about a week, giving the artery time to heal good.
The Lord was good, and we were able to get out of DC before the bad evening rush started. It took us less than 2 hours to get home, which is excellent considering where the hospital is located in DC. We had to come out through downtown past the Washington Monument and the White House. (Yes, we are much too close to DC, and we had hoped to sell our house and move one more mountain range away from DC. The price of lots and houses all along I-66 is obscene. One would think we were in LA. We are maybe 15 minutes from I-66, 8 miles east of where it intersects with I-81.)
My experience with the VA medical system has been good thus far. I have found their medical care as good as any care outside of the VA. However, my experience with their paperwork network has not been good. The VA hires "politically correct", so you can imagine what it was like in DC. The VA system also seems to have an unusually large number of female doctors, among other things.
I am reminded once again about how short our days are, and how quickly they can be ended. It looks like the Lord has given me a few more years to serve him.
Job 7:1 Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling? 14:5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Ecclesiastes 8:8 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.
Ephesians 5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
Our time is in the Lord's hands, and try as we might, we will not change his appointed time. We must use what time we have for his glory NOW!
The month of September was a terribly busy month. We had committed to have Christina in Indiana for a wedding of one of her good friends. She was planning to be there several days before the wedding, September 9-15. I told a pastor friend in Ft. Gibson OK, Pastor John Ashwood, that we needed to go to Indiana for a wedding, so he asked us to come on out there to speak for him September 4, and spend a few days with them, which we were more than happy to do. They are wonderful people, and asked us to come back to speak at a Bible conference in December. (If you live in the area, come on over to the meeting. The meeting is December 14-16, and you can call 918 478 2726 for more information. Also, if you live between VA and OK and would like for us to stop by, let us know. We go across I-40.)
One of Pastor Ashwood's sons, Sam Ashwood, writes a column for a supposedly conservative web site. Some time ago, he was invited to write for an online magazine with other Christian, homeschooled students, dealing mostly deal with politics, and would come from an entirely conservative angle. When the magazine began, considerable latitude was given to allow for the variance in degrees of conservatism that different members of the staff adhered to. This, however, has not lasted. A number of articles have been rejected for failing to agree with the personal standards of the technical staff. These members are what could be called "dyed-in-the-wool" Republicans. What is most likely to meet with their disapproval? In a short phrase: Any piece that criticizes the current president of the United States. Thus far, two articles have been rejected for this purpose, though one was published later, when the editor overrode their decision. Another piece, written by a friend of mine, criticizing Bush's foreign policy, and the war in Iraq, has been rejected by the technical staff, and will likely not be published. To Republicans like these, George W. Bush is immune from criticism, much like Adolf Hitler was in the National Socialist Party. No piece that dares suggest a flaw in the Republican Fuhrer will be allowed, and the writer, despite the fact that he directs his criticism from a Conservative angle, will be compared, as my friend was, to that most extreme of liberals, the movie director Michael Moore.
This editor cannot express his distress enough over the blindness of a vast majority of Christians. They are like sheep being led to the slaughter by George Bush and the national Republican party. I feel that time will show Judge Roberts pro abortion and anti everything Christians claim to stand for, though I pray I am wrong.
Judge Roberts & the CFR Roberts was enamored by CFR's Richard Haass's book, The Opportunity, devoted to the idea of integrating the world under a single political and economic order through a war of attrition in Garner's infamous formulation, an "end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." (The New American. 10/3/05. P 7.)
Moreover, according to CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, the goal of the Bush administration is to abolish the USA, merging Canada, the USA and Mexico into one big country. (Ibid, p. 23. Copy of article upon request.)
The mentality seems to be that if a man will stand up for a photo-op with a nice looking family, Christians will buy whatever he is selling, even a poison pill. The Christian War against large families, against Christian education (support of the government schools), against sound Biblical doctrine (love of entertainment in their "worship"), their love of debt, their support of abortion (consider the number of Christians who have abortions), among many other anti Christian activities, is selling this once Christian nation down the drain. (See Bush's continued War on America this issue.)
Since we were going to be in Indiana over a Sunday, we were invited to speak at our old church in Linden, and then the next Sunday, September 18 at another pastor friend's church in Logansport IN. (Pastor Bob Cosby.)
We had our schedule all worked out, planning to stay in OK for a few days and meet some other "Reformed" pastors.
However, on the evening of September 3, we received a call that Christina's grandmother was in the hospital, and not expected to live more than a week. Masie Love was Carol's mother and came to live with us right after Bettie and I were married. She lived with us for 4 years. Cutting our stay in OK short by several days, we rushed to Tipton Indiana, and then spent the next several days in the hospital with Mrs. Love. Mrs. Love was in a coma, and the doctor told us several times that she was not expected to live over 24 to 48 hours.
We had to go back to Linden to preach, and that Sunday morning just as I got ready to speak, we received word that Mrs. Love had gone to be with the Lord. She would have been 96 this December.
We went by Tipton, and made the final arrangements, and proceeded on to northern Indiana to deliver a box of books to Bettie's sister to take with her to Brazil to another sister, Becky, who lives there. (Becky is the one who had returned to the States with her daughter for a family reunion July 1-3 at our house. She was unable to take back all of the books that she acquired while here.)
The viewing for Mrs. Love was Tuesday evening, the funeral was Wednesday morning, and then we had to go back to Crawfordsville to pick up Christina after the wedding Thursday evening. We then went back to Bro. Cosby's house for a couple of days, and spoke at his church September 18.
After the service, we headed home, stopping by Bettie's daughter just south of Columbus OH. (See ashridgecabins.com) We finally made it home Monday evening, September 19, after a 3,500 mile trip. (Gas cost was about 8-9 cents a mile.)
The Lord's hand was obviously in our trip. We had already planned to be in Indiana, and with Mrs. Love's passing, we were already there. Otherwise, we would have had to rush to Indiana from VA, an 11 hour trip each way.
We were able to renew some old friendships, and make new friendships in OK. (The really enjoyable part of traveling.) It is good to know there are other men "out there" who take the same stand as we do. At times, it seems those of us who take strong stands feel we are all alone. However, the church we attend an hour south of us in Harrisonburg (Pastor Lloyd Sprinkle) does take the stand with which we feel at home.
Three weeks is quite a bit longer than we like to be away from home, and as you know, it is extremely expensive to live "on the road." We decided to pack all the meals we could, and eat at rest stops, rather than at restaurants. With today's gas prices, we found we could either buy gas or food on the road, but not both.
We had the Jeff Ethell Collection appraised, and were on the verge of letting it go for much less than its appraised value, when things worked together for David Ethell to help me make a business out of the slides. David worked at home as a partner in a software development company (Vital Assets). The company decided to dissolve, leaving him free to pursue other interests. He decided that he and I could join together and maybe make a good business out of the collection. (The appraiser gave an estimate of what the collection could produce with proper use by providing images for publication and other purposes.)
The appraiser estimated 20,000 color slides of WW II pictures, primarily aircraft (Warbirds). The color slides also include Army ground forces pictures, as well as scenery and civilian shots. At least two Japanese publishing houses use our shots of Japanese and German aircraft for their books. There are also many Korean color shots. He estimated about 10,000 air show and foreign air force images from the 70s to the time Jeff was killed in 97. And another 15,000 B &W images of WWII aircraft, which I have only glanced through. There is a general list of the file folder names on the web site.
(Japan was in the process of developing an airplane that would launch from a sub. They did launch one to attack the Oregon coast. Their plan was to attack the Panama Canal. The Americans did not know of the aircraft until after the war. We have the only know color shot of that aircraft. The new air museum at Dulles borrowed our slide to know what color scheme to paint the plane they have. There are many unique images in the collection.)
Of the 45,000, we have only about 3500 on our web site thus far, and I am working hard to get as many up as quickly as we can. There is no other web site like it in the world. Furthermore, our data base of images is searchable, e.g., a search for *P 51* will bring up all the P 51 images we have posted, *Navy* will bring up all the Navy images we have, *Japanese* will bring up all the Japanese images. It can be searched by nationality, by aircraft type, by unit name (if we have the unit info), location where the picture was taken, Guadalcanal, and many other search parameters. If you have broadband, check it out. Dial up will work, but it will be slow.
Friday evening, September 30, I again celebrated my anniversary of my heart "event" (Oct. 29, 1999. The heart attacks no one) again in the emergency room of Martiansburg WV, VA hospital. I have only missed one year of not going to a hospital emergency room on that anniversary. I did not realize the date until I was there, and my wife mentioned the date to me. The cardiologist in Indiana told me that though I may not remember a serious event like that, my body does. My body acts just like it is haveing another "heart attack", and it is scarry enough to cause me to have it checked out. The EKG was as normal as it could be in my situation, and the enzymes were normal. The doctor said it was "stress related," and sent me home. We pray that it is only "stress".
October 7, 2005. I just returned from the VA medical clinic, and though another EKG showed normal, the tightness in my chest and weakness in my left shoulder and arm continue. The doctor said they probably should have stented the place when I was in the hospital for my birthday, August 14, 15, for the angiogram. But they did not. So it looks like I will need to have that done after all. (The most dreaded part of the whole procedure is lying still for the 12 hours after the procedure.) There is an appointment we all must keep, and I am ready to keep it. I know our days are numbered, and that number will not change. But God has provided good technology to help enable us to reach our appointed days. My family's hope, and mine, is that I have not yet reached my appointed time, and that I can continue to be productive for Him until that day. Pray for us.
Please let us know when you have an address change, for it costs us .75 for each change the PO provides, if they do their job. We lose many addresses because the PO fails to honor the endorsement on the mail "Address correction requested".
Remember, we only publish as we have time and money, with money being the big factor. Please consider supporting our efforts.
Thanks for your support in your prayers and giving.
By His Sovereign Grace Alone,
A 6-year-old was overheard reciting the Lord's Prayer at a church service: "And forgive us our trash passes, as we forgive those who passed trash against us."
By Thomas Williamson
Recently I received a nice, glossy magazine published by a large "mega-church" here in Chicago. On perusing it, I found it to have little Biblical content. It appeared to be mostly political stuff, with pictures of liberal Democratic politicians.
I was turned off by the appearance that the agenda of this church was mainly political, especially since it was a brand of politics that I personally do not identify with. I lost whatever desire I might have had to visit that church.
Is it possible that it may also work the other way? If the Christian Right, or individual churches and associations, are perceived as identifying too closely with conservative Republican politics, might this turn away the people we are trying to reach, before we can get close enough to them to proclaim our basic gospel message?
What is the main purpose of our churches and of fundamentalist Christianity? Are we here mainly to preach the gospel and fulfill the Great Commission, or is our Prime Directive to get people to vote Republican and support President Bush?
Before I go any further, let me state that I am not of those who believe that Christians should stay out of politics. I have always been heavily involved in politics since I have been a Christian. I have voted, written my elected officials, given money to candidates, written letters to the editor, held paid membership in lobbying groups, walked in political marches and demonstrations, displayed political posters and bumper stickers, and occasionally have torn down posters of candidates I did not like.
In October, 2004 I attended a pro-family rally in Chicago featuring conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes, whom I supported. Not more than about 100 people, many of them conservative blacks, bothered to show up for this rally in a city of 2.9 million people. I respect the Christian liberty of those who choose not to get involved in politics, but I wish more Christians would voluntarily get involved. I am not one of those who believe that Christians should just stay home and pray, while leaving the determination of public policy to the liberals, infidels, atheists, socialists, feminists, abortionists, sodomites, tavern-keepers and union bosses.
I am not saying that individual Christians should not identify as Republicans or support President Bush. I am suggesting that churches and Christian movements may want to consider avoiding an appearance of partisan political orientation that cuts us off from reaching large numbers of people in our communities.
Some of the criticism, that the Christian Right is a partisan Republican cause, is unfair. To oppose the starving to death of disabled persons such as Terri Schiavo is not necessarily Republicanism. Many Democrats oppose abortion and the gay agenda, and many Democratic Congressmen voted to save Terri Schiavo's life. Even one former Democratic Presidential candidate, Jesse Jackson, was on the side of the angels (for a change), intervening to help save Terri.
Nevertheless, there is a perception, right or wrong, that the Christian Right has become a biased cheering section for the Republican Party and for President Bush. For instance, Laurence Vance on LewRockwell.com says, "It is a disgrace that so many conservative Christians are apologists for George Bush and the Republican Party. But not only are Christians who make excuses for Bush and the Republicans a disgrace, they are hypocrites as well, for they are the ones who would scream the loudest if a Democratic President and the Democratic Party did the same things that Bush and the Republicans have done. As a conservative, evangelical Christian, I never thought I would miss those 8 years of Bill Clinton's regime. The problem with pro-war, Bush-worshipping Christians is that they refuse to believe that Bush lied the country into war. . . ." Some will not agree with the characterization of the Christian Right as "Bush-worshipping," but nevertheless there are some who have that perception about us.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, formerly a Moral Majority leader, says, "The Religious Right, as it now exists, scares me. The Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular. . . The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving."
If even conservative Christians feel that there is a problem with the partisan pro-Republican orientation of the Christian Right, it is evident that liberals and non-Christians have the same problem with us. They may be less likely to respect our gospel message, since it is perceived as being part of a Republican crusade.
The pro-Republican bias in the Christian Right reveals itself, when Condoleezza Rice is glorified in major Christian magazines, as a woman of deep Christian faith, even though she is pro-abortion. Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, is vilified (and rightly so, in my opinion) for her pro-abortion stance, but why do we give Condoleezza a free ride on that issue?
It seems that some fundamentalists today believe that we need to give unquestioning support to the President, especially on matters of Middle East policy and the "war on terrorism." This is justified on the basis that "We have to trust the President because he has access to intelligence information that the rest of us do not have."
This doctrine of unquestioning trust in the President is something new. The Christian Right did not take this attitude toward the first President Bush, nor to Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc. Will we be willing to render this same unquestioning obedience and support to Hillary Clinton if she is elected President in 2008? If not, why not? [I must say that I almost hope Hillary gets elected. It will dead-lock the federal government, which we need. Ed.]
Some would say that since we are in a time of war, we have to rally behind the President without question. But the Christian Right did not take this attitude when Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999. The attack on Yugoslavia, in common with Bush's attack on Iraq, was against a country which had not attacked us and posed no military threat to us. In both wars, we bombed civilians back into the Stone Age based on "intelligence" that later turned out to be faulty. If we have an obligation as Christians to support all wars without question, why didn't we come out 100% for Bill Clinton's war?
During World War I, former President Theodore Roosevelt said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American people. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else, but it is even more important to tell the truth."
Some will say that the situation with President Bush is different - he is different from other Presidents because of his deep personal Christian faith and his love for Jesus, so therefore we are obligated to support his Middle East policy without question. But how deep is Bush's faith, really?
Bush is on record as saying that Jews and Muslims can get to heaven without believing in Jesus, and that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. He has stated, "I do not talk about a particular faith. I believe the Lord can work through many faiths, whether it be the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, Muslim faith, Hindu faith. When I speak of faith, I speak of all faiths, because there is a universal call, and that main universal call is to love your neighbor. It extends through all faith."
In the same vein, the President has said, "Miracles happen as a result of the love of the Almighty, professed, by the way, taught, by the way, by religions from all walks of life whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu. . . . Again, I don't care what religion it is - there's nothing more hopeful than the word."
In his 2005 inauguration speech, President Bush cited the Koran as a source of America's ideals of freedom. Ryan George of "Living Water of Washington DC" reacted by saying, "Our hearts dropped when we heard the reference to the Koran in the President's inauguration speech. How have we gotten to the point where the President of the United States of America cites the Koran as one of the sources of truth on which America's ideal of freedom depends? Perhaps we should ask God in prayer for an answer to this question. Moreover, perhaps we should be a little more cautious in identifying our Christianity too closely with our nation or its leaders."
President Bush has appointed an openly gay ambassador to Romania, who took his male sweetheart to live with him in the U.S. Embassy there. He has worshiped at Shinto shrines, and has promoted Muslim holidays, more so than any previous President. He invited foul-mouthed rock star Ozzy Osbourne to the White House.
Most of us supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 because we thought he was a better candidate than the Democratic nominee. The question is not whether we should have voted for Bush. In many ways, Bush has been a good president, and no politician is expected to be perfect.
The question is, should we lionize him on the basis of a deep Christian faith which he does not really appear to have, and then demand unquestioning support for any or all of his policies on the basis of his alleged deep Christian faith?
Do we owe the President unquestioning support on all issues, including domestic, or only those issues connected with the Middle East and the war in Iraq? In the event that the President should proclaim himself in favor of civil unions for sodomites, would we have a duty to support him on that? (The reason I mention it is because President Bush has already expressed sympathy for the concept of civil unions for gays).
If we are allowed to express disagreement with some of the Bush's domestic initiatives, would that principle not also allow us to disagree with aspects of his foreign and military policy? Would it perhaps be better to allow such freedom in our movement, rather than to demand a rigid, lock-step, pro-Bush orthodoxy that turns away any interested seekers and prospects who do not share our total pro-Bush orientation (in other words, most of the American people)?
Experience over the years has shown that it is dangerous and unwise to promote blind, unquestioning support of any leader, whether it be the Pope, a charismatic televangelist, a Baptist preacher, or a politician, even the President.
The latest polls show 59% of the American people opposed to the war in Iraq, with 39% in support. As the Iraq quagmire continues to claim the lives and drain the treasure of the American people, opposition to the war will probably grow.
Individual Christians certainly have the right to support the war, and to express such support. However, we should avoid giving the impression that support for the war is an official position of the Christian Right, or that people who do not support the war are not welcome in our churches. To do this may marginalize and alienate ourselves from at least 59% of the American people, and shut ourselves off from ministry to those who do not share our political views. (The same problem might be experienced by churches that make opposition to the war a test of faith. Maybe we should allow people to make up their own minds on such issues, and let them feel that they are welcome in our churches regardless of their political opinions).
By all means, let us offer praise and support for conservative Republican politicians who share and promote our Bible-based moral positions on the social issues. Let us do the same for conservative Democrats who deserve praise.
Christians should continue to be involved in politics. Personally, I would like to see Christians increase their involvement in political activity. But of course, all such involvement must be voluntary, without coercion. And it should be carried out in a way that avoids giving our churches and movement a partisan image, or that demonizes and unnecessarily offends those who do not share our views, especially on issues such as the war in Iraq which are not necessarily clear-cut moral decisions.
Joseph Bayly, in "The Gospel Blimp," said, "Adding anything to the gospel of Christ must weaken it. Jesus Christ refused to fall into this trap. My kingdom,' He said, is not of this world.' And as if to emphasize the point, He chose disciples of the most diverse political opinions: Matthew, the collaborator with Rome, and Simon, member of Canaanite resistance movement against Rome. I do not suggest that any area of contemporary life should be excluded from Biblical insights and prophetic preaching. But areas of proper concern for Christians within the Church are not our message to the world outside."
It appears that Bayly was calling for balance - yes, Christians can be involved in politics, applying our prophetic Biblical insights to all current issues.
But we should not be dogmatic about taking political stands on matters that are not clear-cut moral issues. We should avoid making our political positions into tests of fellowship among ourselves. And we should avoid, if possible, the appearance of partisanship. Our prophetic insights should lead us to judge righteous judgments, treating politicians of all political parties equally.
Thomas Williamson, 3131 S. Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60608
A boy was watching his father, a pastor, write a sermon. "How do you know what to say?" he asked.
"Why, God tells me."
"Oh, then why do you keep crossing things out?"
By Bobby Bowman, editor, Baptist Trumpet
I just finished reading Warren Smith's book "Deceived on Purpose," second edition (Mountain Stream Press, 2004). I was given a copy of the book by a friend who is very alarmed over the advances in the New Age Movement in America and throughout the world.
For some reason, unknown to me, I resisted reading it. I think I was a bit fearful of what I would learn. My strange fears were not unfounded. The book borders on frightening.
Warren Smith became a disciple of the New Age Movement and studied extensively "A Course in Miracles" (Foundation for Inner Peace). Apparently he, for a time, embraced all the teachings of the movement. His life changed, however, in 1984 when he and his wife came out of the New Age Movement and received Christ as Savior. He wrote, "We discovered that the spiritual teachings we had put our trust in were not from God and that the Jesus' we had been following was not the real Jesus Christ"
Smith became a student of the Bible and has spent a number of years investigating the extent of influence the abominable movement is having on churches and, consequently, Christians today. He further wrote in the cited book, "I warned Christian believers that the same false New Age Christ' who had so deceived us was moving onto the world scene and was already in the process of deceiving the Church. I warned that Christians had to be careful about teachings they were accepting."
The book's author writes he first encountered Rick Warren in 2002 in a book entitled "From the Ashes, A Spiritual Response to the Attack on America." Warren was listed among Christian leaders but alongside New Age leaders like Neale Donald Walsch, the Dalai Lama and Starhawk the witch. Walsch challenged every Christian leader in the book, in the light of the events of September 11, to accept and preach the new gospel" that "We are all one." Walsch is quoted by Smith, "We must change ourselves. We must change our beliefs upon which our behaviors are based. We must create a different reality, build a new society.... We must do so with new spiritual truths. We must preach a new gospel, its healing message summarized in 2 sentences: We are all one. Ours is not a better way, ours is merely another way.... I challenge every priest, every minister, every rabbi and religious cleric to preach this."
Walsch claims to have actual conversations with God. Warren further writes of Walsch, "God' tells Walsch, God is creation. You are the creator and the created. You are already God. You simply do not know it. You are one with everyone and everything in the universe - including God. There is only one of us. You and I are one."
Smith goes on in his book to expose the New Age concepts of Robert Schuller and his relationship to New Age leader Bernie Siegel. Then he shows how Rick Warren came under the influence of Schuller and became his disciple in church - growth concepts. Rick Warren wrote on p. 88 of "The Purpose Driven Life," "The Bible says, He rules everything and is everywhere and is in everything.,'" a quote from the New Century Bible. That is supposed to be Ephesians 4:6 which reads in the King James Version, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." The latter is very different from the pantheistic suggestion of the former "translation."
I encourage others to read "Deceived on Purpose" along with "The Purpose Driven Life" and draw their own conclusions. I would appreciate the comments of our readers after having read the 2 books. Is the New Age Movement, which wishes to introduce a new "Christ" (possibly Maitreya), subtly imposing its antichrist concepts on churches and well meaning, truth seeking, Christians? What do you think?
Baptist Trumpet Reader Agrees On "Purpose"
By Eddie Dixon
Morrilton, Arkansas 72110
Praise God! Bro. Bowman, when I opened my Trumpet this morning to read it, I absolutely was leaping around with joy when I read your editorial, "Purpose Driven?"
I am so thankful for your boldness in presenting this information. I have been studying on this for quite some time, and have tried to warn a few friends about it. But no one seems to be concerned, and they usually think I am some kind of weirdo for even considering it. It is difficult right now to find a church that is not into the "purpose" thing. It has very much disturbed and concerned me about where all of this is leading. (By the way, I have read it).
I want to give you a couple of web addresses to look at. They have several articles each about the purpose driven stuff. One is www.biblebb.com. Scan on down it and you will see "purpose driven files." There are also many sermons on here by John MacArthur. And by the way, if you have not read "Hard to Believe" by MacArthur, I encourage you to read it! He also points out from the Scriptures why this whole movement is so dangerous to the true gospel.
I am going to send you another attachment, a site called "Critical Issues Commentary." I think you will find some very interesting and biblical articles here. You can find the writer's background also on his site. I have not only subscribed, but also ordered one of his DVD's on the issue of purpose driven. He has already proven to me that he is reliable in his teaching.
Bro. Bowman, get ready. You may be surprised at the persecution you might receive over taking a stand on this. This is big. Stay bold! I believe, according to the Bible, you are right, as I am sure many others will. But there will be just as many who believe you are wrong.
I wish there was some way I could tell you how disturbed I have been over this movement over the past couple of years. And I am seeing some of the bad results of it also in the local churches.
As MacArthur so boldly says, it is bringing the tares in, attempting to make the gospel more attractive to the unbeliever. Salvation is a gift - I believe as MacArthur does, it does not matter how much entertainment you put on to draw them in, if the Holy Spirit is not in it, it is useless.
In this day and age, we need to have someone watching all of these books that are coming out and making sure they are presenting the true gospel and that they are teaching the Word. I am surprised at the churches who are not researching their authors and teaching. As we know, Satan is really good at mixing in a little truth with false to draw us away. If it was so obvious, no one would fall for it!
Just like Catholicism has truths mixed with false, it is the same with this book!
I pray we will study the Bible and a good word-for-word translation, not the one used most in Warren's book - "The Message!"
Again, I am keeping you in prayer. If I can be of any help or encouragement, write me. In the meantime, 1 will continue to pray for you and that God will wake up the churches on this issue. God bless you!
The above is from Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist letter, Sept. 05.
A little girl became restless as the preacher's sermon dragged on and on. Finally, she leaned over to her mother and whispered, "Mommy, if we give him the money now, will he let us go?"
From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and "
"Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him no, that is not the word I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
[Editor's note: Why should the taxpayers for many generations be forced to finance those who desire to live in a flood plain? Of course, the federal government is involved in many unconstitutional projects: War in Iraq, "public" education, welfare, medical care, &c.]
After the christening of his baby brother in church, little Johnny sobbed all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him three times what was wrong.
Finally, the boy replied, "That priest said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I want to stay with you guys!"
The following quote by Sir Winston Churchill is from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899):
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualitiesbut the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step..."
(Fundamental Baptist Information Service, www.wayoflife.org email@example.com, 866-295-4143)
Praise Jesus! Hello. I hope all is well with you. I pray that God will bless you and the church greatly.
I'm in prison. God has forgiven me for the crimes and sins that I have done. God does save people who are in prison.
None of my old friends will write to me now that I am living for God. I am hoping that you will be kind enough to put this letter some place where people can read it, and get my address. Maybe some members of the church there will write to me. It's sure a real lonely feeling to see the mail cop pass on by my bed day after day without stopping with a letter for me.
I don't have any family. Both my parents are dead. I don't have any brothers, sisters, or children. I'm single. I am 51 years old. I hope to hear from some one soon.
Phillip Caudle, #974057, K4, 2-8, Pendleton, Correctional Facility, PO Box 30, Pendleton Indiana 46064
[Maybe someone could write to him. He sent this to the Linden Church, and they sent it on to me, 2/20/05.]
I appreciate your on line booklet on the Other Jesus, and would like 100 to begin with. We obey the 10 commandments and worship on Shabbat, because no man's authorized to change the 4th commandment. Also, the names given to believers in the N.T. by men were Nazarene, or Christians. However, according to scriptures, we're called Israel/Israelites because this is what the Father/Yahweh called them in the O.T.(via Moshe and the Passover) and the N.T.( believers.via Yahshua/Christ-our redeemer). However, I'm not picking on you, but one of our elders told me what u said, then I prayerfully searched scriptures, then was led by the Rauch HaQodesh to your website. WOW! Todah Rabah and I hope to discover more truths in these last days.
In Yahshua HaMashiach,
Dr. Christopher(Eliyah) Ratliff
KANEOHE HI 96744
PS- I use to be an Independant-Fundamental Baptist, but discovered the truth. May the Heavenly Father/Yahweh, continue to bless (make u happy) you.
Terri asked her Sunday School class to draw pictures of their favorite Bible stories. She was puzzled by Kyle's picture, which showed four people on an airplane, so she asked him which story it was meant to represent. The Flight to Egypt, was his reply. Pointing at each figure, Ms.Terri said, "That must be Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, But who is the fourth person?" "Oh, that's Pontius- the pilot."
1. God has two distinct programs in history, one for Israel and one for the church.
2. The church does not fulfill or take over any of Israel's promises or purposes.
3. The church age is a mystery,' and thus no OT prophecies foresaw it.
4. The present church age is a parenthesis' or intercalation' during which God has temporarily suspended His primary purpose with Israel.
5. The present church age began at Pentecost and will end at the pretribulation rapture of the church before Christ's second coming.
6. The church, or body of Christ, consists only of these believers saved between Pentecost and the rapture.
7. The church as the body of Christ, therefore, does not include OT believers.
by Dave MacPherson
Since the 1970's stunning new data has been surfacing about the pretribulation rapture's long-covered-up beginnings in the 1800's. In recent years several persons associated with Dallas Theological Seminary (which had long been pretribized) have reportedly gone to Britain to check on my research sources and then write books opposing my claims. In 1990 an Ohio pastor told me that Dr. _____ _____, the most qualified DTS prof, traveled there and came back and wrote nothing! The pastor added that he and some others had a good laugh. But change was coming. In 1993 Chuck Swindoll, who became DTS president after John Walvoord, stated: "I'm not sure we're going to make dispensationalism [the chief attraction of which is a pretrib rapture] a part of our marquee as we talk about our school." When asked if the word "dispensationalism" would disappear, he answered: "It may and perhaps it should" ("Christianity Today," Oct. 25, 1993)! But a few diehards (with the stubbornness of Iraqi insurgents and New Orleans looters) keep on milking their cash cow while continuing to cover up and twist the following historical facts about their latter-day, cult-like belief:
1825: British preacher Edward Irving revealed that he had been teaching some of dispensationalism's key aspects as early as late 1825. (John Darby-exalter R. A. Huebner has never even claimed to find any original prophetic idea in Darby before late 1826!)
1827-1830: Darby was still posttrib during these years. His 1827 paper had him waiting for only the posttrib "restitution of all things." After discussing in 1828 the "unity" of the church, he looked for only the Rev. 19 coming in 1829 and 1830.
1830: During the spring a young woman in Scotland, Margaret Macdonald, declared that she had discovered in the Bible what had never been seen by others: a rapture of "church" members described as a "pre-Antichrist" (or pretrib) event. Her words: "one taken and the other left" before "THE WICKED [Antichrist] be revealed." She was a partial rapturist seeing only part of the "church" raptured and the rest of the "church" left on earth. When she wrote that the "trial of the Church is from Antichrist," she meant the part of the church not included in her pretrib rapture. Leading partial rapturists including Pember and Govett have always applied the word "church" to the ones "left behind." Robert Norton, Irvingite historian and on-scene witness of Margaret's utterances, wrote that Margaret was the "first" to privately teach pretrib.
A September article in "The Morning Watch" (Irvingite journal) saw the "Philadelphia" church raptured before a "period of great tribulation" and the "Laodicea" church left on earth. Huebner's "Precious Truths" claimed that Philadelphia was seen raptured before only the "seventh vial" and not before "the great tribulation" even though the article writer added twice on following pages that this "period" was indeed "the great tribulation"! In the previous (June) issue the same writer had seen Philadelphia on earth until the final posttrib advent. In between these two issues, TMW writers had visited Margaret who explained her new "revelation" which was soon reflected on TMW pages without giving her credit!
In December a published article by Darby was still defending the posttrib view!
1833: British lawyer Robert Baxter, an ex-Irvingite, wrote that the pretrib "delusion first appeared in Scotland" before it began to be taught in London the following year.
1834: A Darby letter referred to the new pretrib rapture view, stated that "the thoughts are new," and advocated the subtle introduction of it by writing "it would not be well to have it so clear"! Darby also called it the "new wine." Others who knew that pretrib was then a new view included other Plymouth Brethren, Irvingites, Margaret, and later 19th century historians such as Margaret Oliphant who referred to "a new revelation" in 1830 in western Scotland where Margaret Macdonald lived.
1837: Years after Darby supposedly had derived a distinction (or separation) between the "church" and "Israel," his 1837 article saw the church "going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews"!
1839: The first year Darby was clearly pretrib. His pretrib basis then (and during the next three decades) was Rev. 12:5's "man child" that is "caught up." But this "new" Darby teaching was actually a plagiarism of Edward Irving who had been using this verse for the same (pretrib) purpose since 1831!
1843: In a letter written from Switzerland, Darby referred to "the dissemination of truth and blessing...thus spreading on the right hand and on the left, without knowing whence it came or how it sprung up all of a sudden...." Here he gloated that others didn't know "whence" pretrib came or that he had advocated the subtle sneaking of the new pretrib view into existing groups (see "1834" above)!
1853: Darby's book "The Irrationalism of Infidelity" recalled his visit to Margaret Macdonald and her brothers in mid-1830. He remembered 23 minor details but carefully omitted the most important one: Margaret's teaching of a coming of Christ that would exempt believers from the great tribulation "judgments"a detail that all others who visited her and then wrote accounts could easily remember! (It's obvious that Todd Strandberg's mother didn't soap his mouth enough because even though he knows better after the airing of "Open Letter to Todd Strandberg" on the internet, his falsehood-packed "Margaret MacDonald Who?" article on his "Rapture Ready" site continues to pollute minds by stating that I "have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision"!)
1855: An article by eminent Brethren scholar S. P. Tregelles tied "Judaisers" to pretrib. But in an 1864 book he tied "Irving's Church" to pretrib. Both Huebner and Walvoord claimed that Tregelles contradicted himself, and Huebner charged Tregelles with "untruth and slander." But even William Kelly, Darby's editor, saw no contradiction and wrote, concerning "Judaising," that "nowhere is this so patent as in Irvingism"!
1861: Robert Norton, medical doctor and Irvingite, wrote that the "true origin" of pretrib had been "hidden and misrepresented." (This was about the time that Kelly was working towards the goal of elevating Darby and giving the false impression that Darby should be credited with the pretrib view.) Several pages later, in the same book, Norton revealed Margaret as the true originator of pretrib.
1863: In his "Five Letters" leading Brethren scholar Tregelles wrote that some Brethren had been unscrupulously issuing tracts by the thousands in which they changed the "words and doctrines" of "the Reformers and others" to give the impression that those ancient writers had actually been teaching the novel doctrines that some Darbyist Brethren were then circulating in the 1800's!
1864: Brethren scholar Tregelles charged fellow Brethren with changing even the words in ancient hymns: "Sometimes from a hymn being altered, writers appear to set forth a secret rapture of which they had never heard, or against which they have protested." I should add that in an 1865 letter Darby asked his editor to preserve the newer (pretrib) hymns and "correct the others," that is, the older (posttrib) ones!
1860's: From the 1860's to the 1880's William Kelly, editor of Darby's works, was busy putting together some volumes known as "The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby." Opposition to Darbyism had been increasing and Kelly was determined to fight it and continue to exalt Darby. His goal was to present a Darby that was prophetically "mature" long before he actually matured. He achieved this dishonesty with misleading words in brackets inside sentences in Darby's early works, and with footnotes that he "borrowed" from Darby's much later works when he was obviously more developed! Darby even gave this deviousness his blessing. In an 1865 letter to Kelly he wrote: "I should think that some of the Notes would require some revising....Even the sermons contain things I should not accept...." Kelly even flaunted his shameful manipulation in a footnote to Darby's 1830 article; the note said that "it was not worth while either suppressing or changing it."
Interestingly, since the Irvingites were clear (and clearly first) when it came to public pretrib teaching, they didn't need later "fixers" to dishonestly correct their original statements!
1872: In an article in "The Princeton Review," Thomas Croskery of Ireland listed beliefs of the Plymouth Brethren including these: "That the moral law is of no use at all to believers" and "that believers have nothing to do in the way of keeping themselves from sin for God must look to them if He will...." He said that "Mr. Darby" pursues his opponents"with a virulence that has no parallel in the history of religious controversy."
1877: A medical doctor, James Carson, wrote that "the Darbyites have managed to cloak their opinions by using language in a Jesuitical sense...." He added: "Unless a person makes himself properly acquainted with the opinions" of Darbyites and argues "with the utmost precision on every point...it is impossible to manage such wily and slippery customers."
1879: A later work by Thomas Croskery declared that "Brethrenite doctrine...clearly tends to immorality." He then quoted Darby's editor, William Kelly, who stated: "I am no longer, as a Christian man, having to do with the responsibility that attaches to mortal man, but am passed now into a new state, even while I am in the world." Rev. Frederick Whitfield spoke of "the flagrant immoralities among the Plymouth Brethren" while James Grant commented: "Darbyism is the most selfish religious system with which I am acquainted."
1880: William Reid's work on Brethrenism revealed that "no other sect was, perhaps, ever so fruitful of divisions" and referred to "the novel doctrines propounded by some of its leaders." He quoted Lord Congleton, a leading Brethren member, who asked: "Have you tried these Brethrenthe Darbyites?....They are false in what they say of their brethren, they are false in doctrine, and they are false in their walk."
And Henry Craik, a colleague of George Muller, was also quoted: "The truth is, Brethrenism as such, is broken to pieces. By pretending to be wiser, holier, more spiritual, more enlightened, than all other Christians; by rash and unprofitable intrusions into things not revealed; by making mysticism and eccentricity the test of spiritual life and depth; by preferring a dreamy and imaginative theology to the solid food of the Word of God...." (Leading Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon's 1967 book "The Origins of the Brethren," p. 253, quoted earlier Brethren member Lord Congleton who was "disgusted with...the falseness" of Darby's narratives. Rowdon also quoted a historian of the Brethren, W. B. Neatby, who wrote that "the time-honoured method of single combat" was as good a method as any "to elicit the truth" from Darby!)
1880's: In 1880, a year after his Christian conversion, C. I. Scofield was in the St. Louis jail for forgery because he'd stolen his mother-in-law's life savings in a real estate scam. In 1883 his first wife divorced him (for desertion) and he remarried three months later. Although he had no formal theological training, he began putting a non-conferred "D.D." after his name in the 1890's. In 1899, when he preached D. L. Moody's funeral sermon, he still owed thousands of dollars that he had stolen from acquaintances 20 years earlier. (In 1921 he advised his daughter, who then had financial problems, to pray to an ancient Catholic saint; at the same time his Scofield Bible, p. 1346, was predicting a future reign of "apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy"!)
1889: Aware that for 60 years the leading historianswhether Brethren or Irvingitehad been crediting someone in Irving's circle (and not Darby's circle!) with the pretrib rapture, Darby's editor William Kelly embarked on a sinister plan to discredit the Irvingites (and their female inspiration) and belatedly (and falsely) give credit for pretrib to Darby. He achieved this in 1889-1890 in a series of articles in his own British journal while analyzing the Irvingites in a supposedly fair and honest manner. Let's see a few of the many examples of his clever dishonesty:
When quoting early Irvingites like Baxter and Norton, Kelly would consistently skip over their clear pretrib teaching but quote just before and after it! And he was a change artist. When Irvingites would write about their pretrib "rapture," Kelly loved to water it down into only their belief in the "Second Coming"! If the Irvingites expressed their belief in an imminent pretrib catching up, Kelly revised it into their "constantly to be expected Lord"! When Irving's followers hoped to escape, by rapture, the coming "tribulation," their "tribulation" was changed by Kelly into only "corrupt or apostate evils"! My 300-page book "The Rapture Plot" has 16 pages (!) of glaring specimens of short quotes exhibiting Kelly's shameful revisions of Irvingite doctrine!
1918: A prophetic book by E. P. Cachemaille discussed the pretrib origin, tied it to the 1830's, then added: "There has since been much scheming to give the doctrine a reputable origin, scheming by those who did not know the original facts, not being contemporaries of Dr. Tregelles."
1942: Noted prophecy teacher H. A. Ironside, who had a Brethren background, dared to assert, minus evidence, that what early Brethren taught re the rapture was "so contrary" to what the Irvingites had been teaching, adding that no links had existed between the two groups!
1960: After mentioning that the claim that Darby originated pretrib "is certainly open to question," evangelical scholar Clarence Bass wrote: "More probably, however, its origin can be traced through the Irvingite movement." But he failed to elaborate, evidently aware that he would be opening a can of you-know-what!
1973: Darby worshiper R. A. Huebner wrote that "The Irvingites (1828-1834) never held the pretribulation rapture or any any-moment' views." He was aware that many couldn't know how close he had repeatedly come to clear pretrib teaching by Irvingites and then had covered up everything while using the same devious tactics his inspiration William Kelly had used a century earlier while analyzing the same Irvingites!
My "Plot" book has a 31-page chapter of many quotes from the earliest Irvingites showing that they repeatedly and clearly taught pretrib as well as imminence. For example, in 1832 the Irvingite journal said that "some" will be "left in the great tribulation...after the translation of the saints." We've already seen clear pretribism in the Sep., 1830 issue of the Irvingite journal. It's bad enough that Huebner (who never attended seminary, college, or even Bible school) has mind-poisoned his tiny circle of Darby-idolizers, but disastrous that pretrib leaders like Walvoord, Ryrie, LaHaye, and Ice were apparently "too busy" to check Huebner's sources and later on too proud to admit they'd been taken in by him!
The parallels between Huebner and his two inspirations, Darby and Kelly, are astounding. Like them, he easily applies "demon" to opponents and their beliefs. Like them, he exaggerates and even purposely muddies up Darby's earliest pretrib development and Darby's later reminiscences. And like them, he can deftly dance around pretrib "cobras" in Irvingism (and its female inspiration) without getting bitten! In his 1973 book, Huebner had 95 copying errors when quoting others including pretrib leaders! (For more shocks on the internet, type in "Humbug Huebner.")
1989: Thomas Ice, one of the biggest pretrib diehards, doesn't have favorites when he discusses the pretrib origin; he can use deviousness as well as sloppiness. When he reproduced Margaret's short "revelation" account he somehow left out 48 words! As if his carelessness wasn't bad enough, his reproduction also included four distinctive errors that Hal Lindsey had made in his own reproduction of it in 1983what Ice chose to do instead of going to the original 19th century sources! (See my internet piece "Thomas Ice - Hired Gun" if you are shockproof.)
1990: A year after his "rapture" of 48 words from Margaret's handwritten "revelation" account, Ice was elevated all the way up to Dallas Seminary's journal which published his article on pretrib history. In it he had some copying errors when quoting John Bray, Huebner, and Walvoord. Even worse, when he quoted the same Margaret Macdonald account, he skipped right over what he knew was her main point (a catching up of church members just before the Antichrist is revealed) even though he quoted shortly before and after it! And when quoting present-day Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon, he used an ellipsis to cover up Rowdon's evidence in his 1967 book that Irvingite development preceded Darby's!
1991: After many objective, no-axe-to-grind scholars had publicly endorsed my research (which emphasized Margaret, the Irvingites, and 1830), R. A. Huebner, aware of the same objective scholarship and determined to negate it, came out with a book in which he claimed to find Darby teaching pretrib in 1827that is, three years before Margaret etc. But halfway through his book (which had more than 250 copying errors!), he admitted that his 1827 "proof" could refer to something completely different! Nevertheless, diehard Thomas Ice, after admitting to me that he was indeed aware of Huebner's change, continues to declare publicly that Huebner's 1991 book "proves" that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827!
1992: When Tim LaHaye's "No Fear of the Storm" reproduced Margaret's short account, he "left behind" 48 wordsthe same 48 words that Ice had left out in 1989! In the same book LaHaye made 84 other copying errors when discussing pretrib beginnings! Although he had a whole chapter focusing on my origin research, un-scholar LaHaye didn't list any of my books in footnotes or bibliography which kept readers from being able to find out what I had actually written! And LaHaye based his analysis on inaccurate secondhand sources and also made many copying errors when quoting them.
For many years Tim and Beverly LaHaye's "conservative" organizations have raked in millions of dollars while telling folks to vote for only "moral" political candidates, and while appearing to be very pro-family and anti-gay. What they haven't revealed is that their son Lee LaHaye has long been the Chief Financial Officer of Concerned Women for America and that Lee is openly gay ! Can we be sure that "Left Behind" Tim isn't just as hypocritical with his pro-pretrib stance? (If you're man or woman enough, warm up your computer and type in "Pretrib Hypocrisy," "LaHaye's Temperament," "Tim LaHaye's gay son," "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up," and "Thieves' Marketing"for starters!)
2005: In the August "Pre-Trib Perspectives" Thomas Ice again had the audacity to claim that the late Prof. Paul Alexander saw a "pretribulational translation" in Pseudo-Ephraem's now famous Medieval sermon. But Ice has known since 1995 that Alexander's 1985 book has textual as well as outline summaries of P-E's chronological order of endtime eventsboth summaries showing only one final coming of Christ that follows the great tribulation and not even a hint of a pretrib coming in either summary! Is it possible that Ice knows more than the professor whose book somehow inspired one of the desperate pretrib diehards? As Eph. 4:14 puts it, Ice knows how to "lie in wait to deceive." And lie and lie! (See my internet paper "Deceiving and Being Deceived" and discover the calculated dishonesty in the Pseudo-Ephraem and Morgan Edwards claims plus other dishonesty including massive plagiarism in some of today's leading pretrib diehards! Type in my name and see all of my internet items. Since Ice and LaHaye are associated with the Pre-Trib Research Center which has its own site, you may feel inspired to write them, ask them some blunt questions, and even send them a copy of this paper.)
PS - You can win $1000.00 if you can prove that I have ever covered up or watered down any crucial aspect of pretrib rapture history! If you would like to obtain my No. 1 book on pretrib history entitled "The Rapture Plot" which expands the info in this paper and has much other documentation, call 800.643.4645. [The Rapture Plot can be ordered from The Biblical Examiner $20 post paid.]
TheSunday School Teacher asks, "Now, Johnny, tell me frankly do you say prayers before eating?"
"No sir," little Johnny replies, "I don't have to. My Mom is a good cook."
Thanks to George Müller and Hudson Taylor
Bro. Sprinkle had Bro. Howard Phillips speak at his Revival conference. Bro. Phillips' final message was about China. It was quite distressing. Copy available.
He told how China is quickly surpassing the US in every area, economic, militarily, &c., and how our leaders are even financing the China's expansion with tax payer money. No doubt within the next 10 years, we could easily see a vast change in the make up of world power, with the US becoming a third rate nation.
My mind goes back to George Müller (The following is from Chapters 52 & 53 of Death of the Church Victorious. Anyone who will be honest concerning history must admit that the mess we are confronted with today from Communist China must be laid at the feet of George Müller, and then Hudson Taylor.
Can there be any kind of renewal of American Back Bone to stand up to China without a renewal of the theology that gave America its Back Bone to stand up to England? China will win the conflict for world dominance unless America returns to the faith of our fathers.
Another very important man drawn to Groves and Darby was George Müller (1805-1898), "who may well be called the most illustrious man ever associated with the Brethren." Müller's story is too well known to be told again in detail. The son of a tax collector, he grew up in a grossly wicked manner. He attended a religious meeting in the home of an acquaintance of one of his friends and was converted, November, 1825. Müller met Groves through a common friend, another pillar in the millennial movement, Henry Craik (1805-1866). Müller married Groves' sister, October 7, 1830.
In November, 1830, twenty-five year old Müller accepted a call to pastor a Baptist church at Teignmouth, England. "For some time, Müller continued a Baptist pastor. But, little by little, he began to develop views which were to cause him to become more and more associated with the Brethren." Probably influenced by Groves' view of wealth (it was unspiritual), Müller renounced his regular salary at the end of October, 1830. Müller's link with the Brethren is well established:
More germane to our immediate purpose, it provides [the marriage, &c., ed.] further evidence that Müller was imbibing the spirit of Groves not only through the reports that were coming from Baghdad, but through personal contact with those who had been influenced by, and had influenced, him.
Groves had a great influence over Müller. The beliefs that united Müller, Groves and Darby were common desires for freedom from the creeds of organized religion, common fellowship around the communion table, and their common spite for the organized ministry of the church. Müller did not necessarily unite with them around doctrine, although he was in basic agreement. Though Müller developed his views concerning living by faith at Teignmouth, he did not impose them on others. His views, though, were and are still common among the Brethren.
The early days of the Brethren saw Müller unite with Henry Craik to pastor a church in Bristol that greatly prospered under their leadership.
In October, 1832, Darby preached in both chapels occupied by Müller and Craik [both 27 at the time, ed.] and wrote appreciatively of the work that was being done there, his only adverse comment being the one frequently on his mind in those days: I should wish a little more principle of largeness of communion'.
In Müller, however, we see that the extreme views of withdrawal from society were not totally shared by all who united with the Brethren. He is known for his social work with orphans. Nevertheless, Müller founded the Scriptural Knowledge Institution (SKI), which did more to spread the destructive tenets of Brethrenism than probably any one other event of his time. Müller's Institution was a main-stay of Hudson Taylor's China Inland Mission in its early days. In his February 25, 1834, journal entry, Müller gave six reasons for forming "a new Institution [SKI, ed.] for the spread of the gospel." Although this writer certainly agrees with five of Müller's reasons, he must take serious exception with Müller's first reason:
The end which these religious societies [then in existence, ed.] propose to themselves, and which is constantly put before their members, is, that the world will gradually become better and better, and that at last the whole world will be converted [sic.] To this end, there is constantly reference made to the passage in Habakkuk ii. 14: "For the Earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;" or the one in Isaiah xi. 9: "For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." But that these passages can have no reference to the present dispensation, but to the one which will commence with the return of the Lord, that in the present dispensation things will not become spiritually better, but rather worse, and that in the present dispensation it is not the whole world that will be converted, but only a people gathered out from among the Gentiles for the Lord, is clear from many passages of the divine testimony, of which I only refer to the following: Matt. xiii. 24-30, and verses 36-43, 2 Tim. iii. 1-13, Acts xv. 14.
A hearty desire for the conversion of sinners, and earnest prayer for it to the Lord, is quite scriptural; but it is unscriptural to expect the conversion of the whole world. Such an end we could not propose to ourselves in service of the Lord...
1. We consider every believer bound, in one way or other, to help the cause of Christ, and we have scriptural warrant for expecting the Lord's blessing upon our work of faith and labor of love; and although, according to Matt. xiii. 42-43, 2 Tim. iii. 1-13, and many other passages, the world will not be converted before the coming of our Lord Jesus, still, while he tarries, all scriptural means ought to be employed for the ingathering of the elect of God.
The then operating missionary societies "constantly put before their members" the hope of Christianizing the world before Christ's return. That goal of Christianizing the world Müller found unscriptural. Lacunza's "dispensational" view of Matthew twenty four, which became popular in his lifetime, caused Müller to abandon any hope that the gospel could change the world for Christ. It also caused him to say that those expecting the Gospel of Christ to Christianize the nations are not serving the Lord. Müller, therefore, led in changing the goal of missionary endeavors from Christianizing the world's nations to simply "soul saving." Accordingly, the missionaries trained by the SKI went over the world to "save souls," yet they were convinced that it was unscriptural to hope that the gospel message could bring about godly social change. The expectations of their faithless gospel were met. Müller's ideas united with Darby's, who, echoing Irving's words, condemned all who desired to convert the world to Christ.
Müller attended the 1833 Powerscourt prophecy conference in Ireland.
Hudson Taylor and Others
Hudson Taylor's influence for powerless, other-worldly Christianity cannot be overlooked.
The early decades of the twentieth century were perhaps the years of greatest enthusiasm for foreign missions and in this area Keswick's record was indeed strong. J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905), a Britisher who founded the China Inland Mission in 1865, had become deeply committed to Keswick views. The China Inland Mission became a model for independent and self-sacrificing missionary work as well as a source for much of the later fundamentalist agitation against liberalism in the mission field. The Student Volunteer Movement, originating out of Moody's Northfield conference, also had close Keswick ties. Many impressive young men of the era responded to these teachings by consecrating their lives to missionary service.
We do not question Mr. Taylor's love for God nor his godliness. However, we must question his deep commitment "to Keswick views" that "social service programs were particularly dangerous." We must also question Taylor's close tie with Müller's SKI and its message that it is sin to seek to Christianize the world (a neutralized, powerless gospel). Taylor "became a protegé of C.I. Scofield," and he fully embraced the dead message of withdrawal from all society to become personally more spiritual.
"The early decades of the twentieth century were perhaps the years of greatest enthusiasm for foreign missions..." However, notice that the message taken to the four corners of the world was one of hopelessness and defeat. Taylor and his mission work, though saving many souls, delivered to the Chinese a hopeless message of defeat Taylor, with the help of Müller's SKI, neutralized Christianity, leaving the Chinese "helpless against the military onslaught of the Communists." Fully expecting an imminent "rapture," multitudes of Chinese Christians were tortured and slaughtered. On the other hand, non-millenarians fled. Hiding safely in the mountains, they kept Chinese Christianity alive.
Moreover, China's modern attitude toward forced abortion must, at least in part, be attributed to those who taught a generation of Chinese Christians that it was sin to be involved in social programs and issues.
When Christians withdraw from involvement in social programs, they give them to the ungodly by default.
1. Origins, 118. See also Neatby, A History of the Brethren Movement, 53ff., Rowdon, Origins of the Brethren, 114ff., and Moyer, Who was Who in Church History, s.v. "Müller, George."
2. Neatby, History, 55.
3. Coads, A History of the Brethren Movement, 38.
4. Ordained of the Lord, H.A. Ironside, 95. Because the pastor's salary came from "pew-rents," which Müller was convinced were wrong, he wanted nothing to do with them. Faith, 81.
5. Origins, 121. "I dread narrowness of heart more than anything for the church of Christ, especially now." Letters, I.8, 1832. But Darby became so narrow that he destroyed the movement he basically founded.
6. Coads, History, 52, 53. The millennial system of passivity, other-worldliness/non-involvement in "worldly matters," and their distinctive, unique prophetic views. The system neutralized Christianity wherever it went.
7. The Life of Trust, being a Narrative of the Lord's dealings with George Müller, written by Himself, 109, 110, 113. See Origins, 129.
8. Collected Letters of J.N. Darby, I.257, 1858. Collected Writings of J.N. Darby, II.185. Apparently, these men, Müller included, believed the gospel of Christ is powerless when it comes to bringing about godly social change through individual conversion. See 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5, Jude 3. Is the literal sword, which is expected forcefully to subdue sinners, stronger than the Spirit of God? Müller was a key figure in the death of victory.
9.Coad, History, 45.
10. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 97.
11. Price, The Rapture Cult, Religious Zeal and Political Conspiracy, 75, 76.
(PEOPLE FROM THE SOUTH WILL UNDERSTAND THIS.)
There was this fellow from Texas who had a flat tire. He pulled off on the side of the road, jumped out of his car, walked down the hillside and picked a bunch of wildflowers, and proceeded to put one bouquet of the flowers in front of the car and one behind it. Then he got back in the car to wait.
A passerby studied the scene as he drove by and was so curious he turned around and went back. He asked the fellow what the problem was.
The man replied, "I have a flat tarr." In response the passerby asked, "But what's with the flowers?"
The man responded, "When you break down they tell you to put flares in the front and flares in the back! I never did understand it neither...
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. Jonah 3:4
Jonah preaches no more and no less than what God told him say.
I would guess that he is pretty "put out" with the Lord anyway about having to go, so he probably says no more than what he must say. But this is a good example to follow. We should say no more nor less than what God has instructed us to say.
In fact, did not the Lord warn us about taking from or adding to His word?
Note his message: "Within 40 days Nineveh will be history." God's mercy is over. His patience with your sin is over...
God will not hold off His judgment forever. One day it will be full (Romans 2). EB Pusey, writing in 1860, in his commentary on Jonah writes
[T]aught by that severe discipline, he discharges his office strictly. He cries, what God had commanded him to cry out, without reserve or exception. The sentence, as are all God's threatenings until the last, was conditional. But God does not say this. That sentence was now within forty days of its completion; yet even thus it was remitted. Wonderful encouragement, when one Lent sufficed to save some 600,000 souls from perishing! Yet the first visitation of the cholera was checked in its progress in England, upon one day's national fast and humiliation; and we have seen how general prayer has often-times at once opened or closed the heavens as we needed.
"A few years ago," relates Augustine, (de excid. urb. c. 6. (L.) add Paul. Diac. L. 13.) "when Arcadias was Emperor at Constantinople (what I say, some have heard, some of our people were present there,) did not God, willing to terrify the city, and, by terrifying, to amend, convert, cleanse, change it, reveal to a faithful servant of His (a soldier, it is said), that the city should perish by fire from heaven, and warned him to tell the Bishop! It was told. The Bishop despised it not, but addressed the people. The city turned to the mourning of penitence, as that Nineveh of old. Yet lest men should think that he who said this, deceived or was deceived, the day which God had threatened, came. When all were intently expecting the issue with great fears, at the beginning of night as the world was being darkened, a fiery cloud was seen from the East, small at first then, as it approached the city, gradually enlarging, until it hung terribly over the whole city. All fled to the Church; the place did not hold the people. But after that great tribulation, when God had accredited His word, the cloud began to diminish and at last disappeared. The people, freed from fear for a while, again heard that they must migrate, because the whole city should be destroyed on the next sabbath. The whole people left the city with the Emperor; no one remained in his house. That multitude, having one some miles, when gathered in one spot to pour forth prayer to God, suddenly saw a great smoke, and sent forth a loud cry to God."
The city was saved. "What shall we say?" adds Augustine. "Was this the anger of God, or rather His mercy? Who doubts that the most merciful Father willed by terrifying to convert, not to punish by destroying? As the hand is lifted up to strike, and is recalled in pity, when he who was to be struck is terrified, so was it done to that city." Will any of God's warnings "now" move our great Babylon to repentance, that it be not ruined? (Barnes' Notes. Minor Prophets. Jonah 3:4.)
1. modern medicine and vaccinations are used as a substitute for general and national humiliation, confession of sin and turning to the Lord. The result is that modern medicine is being rendered useless.
2. modern technology is being used, and vast sums of money (fait paper, which is no more than an accounting book entry) are being spent to protect from natural and man made disasters. We have yet to hear for a general call of repentance to the Creator. Rather, folks are looking forward to rebuilding, so they can return to their wicked ways.
As the just suffers with the unjust, are we hearing cries for repentance from any area? Are churches setting aside their entertainment programs for sound Bible teaching? Or are we hearing cries for opportunities to return to anti-God activity?
As we see Godliness discarded, both inside and outside of the church, and exchanged for "every man doing what is right in his own eyes", we can be assured that we are now in the death throws of our once great Western Civilization that emphasized personal responsibility and personal liberty, both of which are established in God's Word. Those of us who remember just 50 years ago are shocked at how fast and far society has fallen into chaos.
"The tragedy is that conservative Republicans never remember. They never remember that Republicans have sold them out on NAFTA, the Fed, the World Trade Organization, bailouts of the UN, Planned Parenthood subsidies, the National Endowment of the Arts, the Legal Services Corporation, Bosnia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, federal control of education, quotas, immigration, taxes, spending, and almost everything else that really matters."
Columnist Diane Alden favorably reported the assessment of current politics given by an unnamed Republican who attended a recent meeting of conservatives and found most still wanting to support Republican lawmakers.
"The ABA position is that some of these provisions of the Patriot Act are so invasive of individual liberties that there has to be a sunset provision. They're offensive to democracy."
President-elect Michael Greco of the American Bar Association targeted the measure's grant of power to search homes without an owner's knowledge and without properly obtained search warrants.
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States," reported former CIA officer Philip Giraldi in the August 1 American Conservative. "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons::"
"As in the case of Iraq;" continued Giraldi, "The response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
While Vice President Cheney has reportedly begun preparing for a war with Iran, a potential nuclear power, he has also supported a deal that would send two nuclear reactors to Chinawhich already has a nuclear arsenal and has intimated, at various times, that it would be prepared to use those weapons against the U.S.
Notes syndicated columnist (and former Reagan-era Treasury official) Paul Craig Roberts, "the chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced that the Commission will approve Westinghouse's sale of two nuclear reactors to China." That deal received Mr. Cheney's personal attention during a three-day visit to Communist China in April 2004. The three-day visit to Beijing and Shanghai, reported the New York Times, included the vice president "making a pitch for Westinghouse's nuclear power technology" to the Chinese regime.
"Iran will never again be a world power, even if it has a few nukes;" comments Roberts. "China is a different matter. China already is a world power. China holds enough US government debt to have the dollar and US interest rates in its hand,... Why in the world is the Bush administration using up the US military and its weapons systems in Iraq, a country that was no threat whatsoever to the US, while aiding and abetting China's rapidly growing economic and military power?" [Bush's huge spending binge has sold our soul to Communist China. China now controls our economy. Ed.]
The New American, pp. 8, 9, 9/5/05
This was not the way Frank Clewer wanted to discover his super power. The Australian man's choice to wear a woolen shirt under a synthetic nylon jacket created a static electricity charge so powerful that as he went about town, he scorched the floor of his car, melted pieces of a plastic floor, and even set a carpet ablaze. Mr. Clewer, whose static-charged garments forced firefighters to evacuate a building, said he didn't realize the rubbing of the shirt and jacket were creating a charge until he was back in his car (scorching the floor mats). He returned to the building and received help from firefighters who tested the charge on his garments. The result astounded the firefighters: Mr. Clewer's clothes were packing a 40,000-volt charge of static electricity. A bit more power and his clothes would have burst into flames. (World, 10/1/05. P 7)
Bush has fought to not only keep, but to expand the powers of the Patriot Act. Bush also wants to revisit the "Posse Comitatus Act of 1878", defined below. It was enacted during the "Reconstruction Era" to prevent the armed forces from acting in a US civilian law enforcement capacity. If Bush gets his way, the standing military will be permitted to act against US civilians, at the discretion of the president.
Nov 24, 2001 - This bit of relative antiquity defines the role of the US Military in our lives and keeps us from becoming little more than a wealthy banana republic.
Currently, America's military is largely prohibited from acting as a domestic police force. And while the presence of military "advisors" during the siege, brutality and slaughter at WACO Texas set ominous trends in motion, few thought in terms of its implications. But that was before the terrorism of September 11, 2001, now glibly called "911."
"Our way of life has forever changed," wrote Sen. John Warner R-Va., in an October 2001 letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Should this law [Posse Comitatus Act] now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?"
The law was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood the heel of a jackboot.
In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act. [As it stands now, all military used inside the US must be under civilian control, i.e., the governor of the state wherein they are acting. Ed.]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism. "In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have," he said. [Who will define terrorism?? Did the feds identify the victims at WACO as terrorists? What prevents any American citizen who might criticize any federal employee from being labeled a terrorist? It is almost certain that anyone who is not Politically Correct, and is vocal about it, will sooner or later be labeled a terrorist. Ed.]
Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it. The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus. "I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people."
But Michael Spak, former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law had another spin. "It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law," he said. "But is it necessary? No."
Many American politicians and bureaucrats hold what might be called a "Consumerist" interpretation of freedom. In a nation where liberty is defined by the ability to choose from a variety of breakfast cereals, it may not be long before the supermarket cash register will be nicknamed "Checkpoint Charlie."
The truth about Bush and those in leadership is so clearly visible that only those who do not want to see cannot see. Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:12, Isaiah 29:10-16. God's people drew near to God with their mouths (they sang many "praise songs"), but their hearts were far from him as they sacrificed their children to the state, dressed like prostitutes, condoned and even had abortions and generally lived like the world. Therefore, God sent blindness to them, so they would miss the truth, and not be healed. Then he could justly judge them.
Just as the false prophets were sent to deceive Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead, so the false prophets have been sent to worldly Christians, so they might be judged for their evil ways. (1 Kings 22.)
God's hand of judgment is upon America, and is getting heaver each day. (E.g., September 29, 2005. Gold is up to $460 per oz, from $270 about 5 years ago. Thus, inflation, i.e., government spending fiat money, has cut the value of the dollar by 50% against a firm gold standard. What 50¢ would purchase at the start of Bush's reign, costs $1.00 now.)
Will God open eyes, and bring a revival, or will his judgment continue unabated? Only he knows.
I hope you are like we are. Though we might like to help with various needs, we are very cautious about where the money goes. Anyone who keeps up with current events knows that the Red Cross is one of the most wasteful "charitable" organizations around. Our church has been helping a church in Mississippi that is helping others on down on the coast. I asked Bro. Sprinkle to give me the update he read from the pulpit Sunday, 9/25/05. Instead, he had Brother Ron Rumburg send the following to me. He is heading up the efforts of a church there. Brother Ron is Chaplain-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans International. I am sure any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Hurricane Katrina update
Dr. Cecil Fayard
Elliot Baptist Church, PO Box 595, Elliot, MS 38926, 662-417-6089
I will try to summarize what has been going on.
"Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised and his greatness in unsearchable"
Our work with evacuees began on the Sunday night before Hurricane Katrina hit when we received our displaced people. For the next three weeks we fed and helped in every way we could 80-100 people a day.
The Wednesday after the storm hit we made our first trip to the Coast, delivering gas and food. On Friday my daughter Karis, Brother T. Hill and myself made a trip that took us to Wiggins, Mississippi, helping a missionary's family with milk, bread, canned goods, paper supplies etc. From Wiggins we made our way to Hurley, MS. Gas was hard to find when we got that far south so we filled up every time we could, and when we got to the coast there was no gas for sale. At Hurley we supplied needy families, and then went down into hard hit Pascagoula. The devastation there is beyond description. While in Pascagoula we brought food to my son-in-law's family. He is in Iraq and was worried about them. Later, after they got the mud and mildew out of their homes, with the help of a group of our ladies, we sent down refrigerators, as they where using ice chests.
From Pascagoula we went to Ocean Springs, MS, (I graduated from Ocean Springs High School in 1971); there we provided much needed bedding, mats, pillows, sleeping bags, sheets etc., for folks who were sleeping on concrete floors. We also gave out food and water. From Ocean Springs we took what is normally a short drive to D'Iberville where my dad lives, or should I say lived. The house that I have considered home is now a pile of trash. The waters of Katrina went over the house and devastated it. The St. Martin Elementary School, where I went to school from first to fifth grades, is across the street from my dad's-- it is destroyed. It was 2:30 the next morning when I got into bed.
Since the two initial trips we have made many journeys to the coast. Each time taking Gospel literature as well as food, water, bedding, cleaning supplies, tools, building materials etc. We have also provided much needed medicine to Doctors and nurses from Duke University at a wholesale cost of $3,600.
Yesterday I went to my good friend and grocer Tim Golding and paid a grocery bill that totaled $12,496.84. We had already paid a bill of nearly $5,000. All of these groceries were sent to the Mississippi coastal area, Ocean Springs, Wiggins, Hurley, Pascagoula, Long Beach, Beaumont, Hattiesburg etc.
Our church has also sent a portable kitchen down to feed hot meals to people on the coast. In six days we fed 8,453 meals at a cost of $10,805.00. We also provided church groups on the coast with enough fish, fresh meat, bread etc. to feed another 8,000 people.
Last Wednesday night our church ladies made up 100 cleaning buckets: with each bucket a needy person receives a mop, broom, Pine Sol, 409, Joy dish soap, gloves, scrubbers, sponges, a Bible and a Gospel tract. Many of these buckets are on the way to Lafitte, LA today and the others will go with us to Bay Saint Louis, MS tomorrow where we will be cleaning the home of a 78 year old lady who needs our help. We also have a trip planned to McNeil, MS where we will be delivering 1,000 KJV Bibles.
We are very grateful for the Lord's people who have been so generous in helping us meet these needs.
Check out our website: http://biblicalandsouthernstudies.com
Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised..."
On Saturday, September 24, we sent down to the coast a much needed supply of prescription medicine. Doctors and nurses from Duke University contacted us about medical needs in the hard hit Long Beach, Mississippi area. They had no way of getting these prescription drugs as the Pharmacies there are destroyed. Because of the generosity of a local pharmacist we were able to get medicine at wholesale. The total cost to us for this shipment was just over $3,600.
On Tuesday, September 27, Charles and Brenda Vance hit the road at 3:15 a.m. with a large truck load of much needed supplies. Included on this truck were: 1,440 cans of sweet peas, 360 28oz. cans of baked beans. 720 cans of pork and beans, 1,440 cans of green beans, 1,200 cans of Treet canned meat and 480 cans of tuna. Also on that truck we had:
large amounts of plastic spoons, forks and knives, canned pasta, beef stew and soup, many cases of Pot Tarts, cases of non refrigerated milk, hair spray, shaving cream, deodorant, cold and allergy medicine, a large number of tarps (many sent to us by the Twinbrook Hills Baptist Church, Hamilton, Ohio), bread, brooms, mops, pots, pans, large metal spoons for cooking, sweet potatoes, sugar and much more.
On Thursday we loaded up our 15 passenger church van and a pick up truck and headed to Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. We had nine workers when we left the church and picked up two more in Gulfport(the Ben Campbell's from Carmichael, CA). Two of our deacons made this trip with us, Wayne Edwards and Roger Waters, we met Roger's son Shane (also a member at Elliott who is serving with the Mississippi National Guard) in Bay Saint Louis. Our mission for the day was to clean out the home of 78 year old Edith Tabor, Mrs. Tabor rode the storm out in Eupora, MS (near Elliott) and did not go back to her home until Thursday. Her home had not been opened until we got there. The water reached nearly to the ceiling, the sewer backed up and spilled out all over the house mixing with the mud that the storm surge brought in. We shoveled out mud and sewage for hours. All of her furniture had to be taken out and thrown away, all of her pictures were ruined, and all of her important papers destroyed. Every once in a while she would say to one of our team as we carried things out, "Maybe I can save that," and we would have to say, "Mrs. Tabor it is ruined , mildewed, and you will never get the smell out." It was so sad to see her face as we piled all of her earthly possessions on the side of the road. We also pulled out mildewed sheet rock, leaving the home just a shell of a house. One of our men, Andrew McCormick, stuck a rusty nail deep into his hand and had to get a tetanus shot.
On the way home we stopped in Saucier, MS and ate supper with the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the Mississippi Highway Patrol.
Yesterday we delivered 1,008 KJV Bibles that will be handed out on the coast. Every cleaning bucket that we hand out has a Bible in it.
Today we sent Waymon Scarberry back down to cook hot meals for the residents of the coast. Many of them, like Mrs. Tabor, still have no gas or electricity a month after the storm. We expect to feed 1,200 people per day at Pass Christian, MS.
As pastor of the Elliott Baptsit Church I want to thank each and every one of you who helped us in this worthy effort.
Yours in Christ, Cecil Fayard
olny srmat poelpe can.
cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
if you can raed tihs psas it on !!
[The above looks like something I would type.]
by Howard Phillips
Dear Friend of The Conservative Caucus:
I thought you would find useful the following commentary. This and additional commentaries are available on my blog at www.HowardPhillips.com.
Chairman, The Conservative Caucus
HARRIET MIERS IS LOYAL TO BUSH'S LIBERAL AGENDA
The following quotes from, respectively, Elaine Donnelly and David Frum underscore the reasons why George Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court is so outrageously bad:
"I am very disappointed by the President's choice for the Supreme Court, and regret that I have no choice but to explain the apparent implications of the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"Ms. Miers does not have a judicial "paper trail," but her record as White House Counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who are willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased.
"As White House Counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the DoD's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments; i.e., a future court ruling requiring young women to register with Selective Service on the same basis as men because they are now being assigned to land combat.
"In either case, White House Counsel Harriet Miers has apparently allowed the Administration to flaunt the law. (I am assuming that the many messages I sent to the White House on this issue were forwarded to Ms. Miers, among others, as the public debate developed over the past 18 months.)
"In the same way, I can only conclude that Ms. Miers approved of the Bush Administration's incomprehensible retention of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) regulations, which are different from the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. Again, either Miers is for Clinton's indefensible, expendable policy, or she does not understand the implications of DADT. President Bush could have eliminated that administrative policy early in his Administration while upholding the law. Instead, the confusing illogical of DADT could result in the law being declared unconstitutional by a future Supreme Court decision, with our without reference to foreign court rulings.
"Judge Michael Luttig, as a member of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote unequivocally about the difference between the law and DADT. Instead of naming Luttig or someone like him to the Supreme Court, Bush has named a less-than-stellar nominee because she is an old friend. That relationship would be enough to recommend Ms. Miers to any other administration job, but not to the Supreme Court. Too much is at stake.
"In August I took the precaution of making a special trip to Washington to ensure that everyone concerned with the Roberts nomination understood what the Lohrenz v. Donnelly & CMR case, which D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Roberts helped to dismiss, was all about. I also raised the judicial issues of deference to the military and opposition to foreign court opinions being used in Supreme Court decisions. Democrats did not raise the Lohrenz case, which was fine, and Roberts gave excellent answers on the judicial/military issues that CMR is concerned about.
"But on both of these judicial/military issues, we now have a nominee who is likely to confuse the issue of what the Administration's position is on women in combat, registering women for Selective Service, and gays in the military. To which policy will the Supreme Court defer?
"As with women in combat, the President has said one thing and done another, and let us down. What's worse, it appears that he has let the military down."
"I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?
"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.
"The harsh truth is, at this 5 year mark in the administration's life, that its domestic achievements are very few. The most important, the tax cut, will likely prove temporary, undermined by the administration's overspending. The education bill, the faith-based initiative, and the rest do not amount to much. Social Security reform will not happen; work on tax reform has not even begun; the immigration proposals are disasters that will never become law.
"The Miers nomination is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades--two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession. On the nation's appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation's highest court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons. The personal and intellectual excellence of these candidates would have made it obvious that the Democrats' only real principle was a kind of legal Brezhnev doctrine: that the Court's balance must remain forever what it was in the days when Democrats had a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate. In other words, what we have, we hold. Not a very attractive doctrine, and not very winnable either.
"The Senate would have confirmed Luttig, Alito, or McConnell. It certainly would have confirmed a Senator Mitch McConnell or a Senator Jon Kyl, had the president felt even a little nervous about the ultimate vote.
"There was no reason for him to choose anyone but one of these outstanding conservatives. As for the diversity argument, it just seems incredible to imagine that anybody would have criticized this president of all people for his lack of devotion to that doctrine. He has appointed minorities and women to the highest offices in the land, relied on women as his closest advisers, and staffed his administration through and through with Americans of every race, sex, faith, and national origin. He had nothing to apologize for on that score. So the question must be asked, as Admiral Rickover once demanded of Jimmy Carter: Why not the best?
"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?
"There have just been too many instances of seeming conservatives being sent to the high Court, only to succumb to the prevailing vapors up there: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter. Given that record, it is simply reckless for any conservative president to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity of the highest intellectual and personal excellence.
"The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense. There is the negative pressure of the vicious, hostile press that legal conservatives must endure. And there are the sweet little inducements--the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard--that come to judges who soften and crumble. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.
"Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, Well, he must know best.' The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters."
THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS
450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180
Read Howard Phillips' daily Constitutional Commentaries at www.HowardPhillips.com
Booklets. Suggested Donation, $5.25 ea, post paid.
Biblical Instructions to WOMEN & YOUNG LADIES. Containing: 1) Instructions for a Godly Young Lady 2) Teaching Daughters to Blaspheme God 3) Marriage & Deceit 4) Sex Education 5) Women's Empowerment Movements 6) Feminization of America 7) The Value of a Woman
Concerning BILL GOTHARD Containing: 1) Character Counts Examined (As used in the public schools to develop "character without God.") 2) Character First defended by Gothard 3) Character First, a workers view 4) Gothard's Homeschool Program as seen by a pastor-parent 5) Law Resource F (Booklet 54, Gothard's Theology of Civil Government Examined.)
HOME SCHOOLING Articles by Dr Paul Cates, as appeared in The Biblical Examiner
1) Welcome to Homeschooling 2) Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading 3) What Can Children Learn & When 4) 12 Teaching Guidelines for Basic Psycholinguistic Skills 5) Developing the Total Child 6) What Every Home Schooling Parent Needs to Know about ADD 7) Dyslexia 8) Psychology: Psychiatry & Special, Education to the rescue?, Psychology Redefines Religion, Is Psychology a Science? 9) What's Wrong with Outcome-Based Education? 10) The Education Bloc, or Who Controls Government Education? 11) Why Home-Schooling is Important for America (by Samuel L. Blumenfeld)
MEN & RESPONSIBILITY Containing: 1) Instructions for a godly young man (importance of seeking marriage early in life) 2) Men & Responsibility 3) The Effeminate Male 4) Clement of Alexandria, 193 AD 5) The Virtuous Man, Job 29-31 6) Defend the faith, A call for young men to join the battle for God's Kingdom on earth
WAR AGAINST THE FAMILY Containing: 1) War Against the Family (The strengthened state, Lev. 18) 2) Teaching Daughters to Blaspheme (Titus 2:3) 3) Family Law (Behind closed doors)
MARRIAGE Containing: 1) Sex Education 2) Marriage & Deceit 3) License? Contract? Coverture? 4) My Marriage 5) Divorce 6) Homosexuality
CHURCH INC. deals with the Biblical principle of Churches being incorporated.
THE LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH of 1689 reprinted for our people and taught through in SS class. [A good study guide: A modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Concession of Faith, by Samuel Waldron, ©1989, Evangelical Press.]
TONGUES A BIBLICAL VIEW is just what it says. (28 pgs, SD $5.00)
THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY (SD $20.00) is a 75 lesson 300 page series.
THE BOOK OF JOHN (SD $10.00) is another series we put together for our folks for home-Bible studies.
IDENTIFYING IDENTITY (Spiral bound, 70 pgs, SD $14.00, post paid. It is not for the "faint hearted."
Pastor Ovid Need, Jr., has a discerning and systematic mind, and this appears clearly in his study, Identifying Identity: A Biblical Examination of Assumptions Found in British-lsraelism, Anglo-Saxonism, Christian Identity (spiralbound, 72 pp. $14 postpaid). This is a detailed exegetical analysis, made without rancor or unkindliness, of some of the basic assumptions of champions of that faith. In specific, the premises of one man are analyzed, but these are points common to most in the Identity Movement.
Ministers should keep a copy of this work on hand to answer questioners, or to loan to troubled persons. The fact that derelict ideas are sometimes held by likeable people does not lessen their danger. Pastor Need's analysis represents much painstaking study, and we are all the better for having his manual. It is detailed, specific, and Biblical. He explains and corrects rather than condemning and is always gracious. (R.J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Report, June, 1996.)
MARRIAGE: LICENSE-CONTRACT-COVERTURE WHICH? (SD $3.00) presents the Biblical Teaching and `forms' for "Christian Coverture Marriage."
ROMANS 13, WHERE IS THE LINE DRAWN? (Spiral bound, 96 pgs, SD $10.00)
Israel's Identiy - Israel's Conversion, including Ez 39:22-29, Zech 12:9-14, Rom. 11:11-13. (100 pgs, SD $12)
Triumph of Titus (Matthew 24 according to its context), now with The Time and Purpose of the Revelation, The Great Tribulation, Josephus' account and The Destruction of Jerusalem, by G. H. Holford, a reprint of his 1805 book is included in Appendix C. 124 Pages, SD, $13.00)
PAEDOBAPTISM AND THE WORD OF GOD. (75 pgs, SD $9.00.)
Death of the Victorious Church, tracing the roots and implications of modern otherworldliness, with foreword by R.J. Rushdoony & Dave MacPherson. Hardback. (Now shipping, 506 pgs, paperback, $25 (available now) and hardback, $40 (not available yet). All prices post paid, US. Ovid Need, PO Box 81, Bentonville, VA 22610. Or Christian Literature World, PO Box 4908, Lafayette IN 47903 (765-429 4122).
Warriors of Honor, The Faith and Legacies of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. (Liberty Videos) $20, post paid. "This documentary places the war in its historical and cultural context. It guides the viewer through the causes and the major battles of the Civil war while providing insight into the lives of two stalwart men who fought for the South. Both were masterful generals, brilliant strategists and, above all, faithful Christians. The faith of these "Warriors of Honor" governed their lives on and off the battlefield, and their legacies continue even today."
Online Bible, Millennium Edition, ver. 2.0. An unbelievable amount of material on 2 CDs, $40 post paid, US. Audio addition, Alexander Scourby reading the displayed verses or passages, $60 post paid. It will also pronounce the Hebrew or Greek words. PO MO preferred. Guaranteed the best Computer Bible program regardless of cost, or your money back.
The Rapture Plot, Dave MacPherson. 300 pg. $20 post paid.
The Biblical Examiner, sent upon request. Also, we have back issues available. [Contact us by e-mail or letter. Please include offering to help cover expenses.]
The OTHER Jesus - THE GOSPEL PERVERTED . They are provided as the Lord provides for us. They cost us about 10¢ each for the paper, plus, of course, postage. Order as many as you can use.
Make personal checks payable to:
Bettie Need (Postal MO preferred to Ovid Need) Mail to: The Biblical Examiner. PO Box 81, Bentonville, VA 22610 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
***Looking for a spouse? Let us help. christiancourtship.us.***
By Lorraine Woellert
washingtonpost.com Sunday, October 16, 2005; B01
Conservative howling over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers echoes unabated since President Bush introduced his friend and confidant to the public on Oct. 3. If anything, the clamor has intensified, with some in the conservative chattering class now hounding Miers to withdraw. But while Bush dodges the brickbats, another critical element of the Republican political base is applauding from the wings.
That would be big business. For the first time in more than three decades, corporate America could find itself with not one, but two, Supreme Court allies with in-the-trenches industry experience -- Miers and newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; both are legal wonks who have packed a powerful punch in the corporate world. Together, they could be a CEO's dream team.
You wouldn't know it listening to the punditocracy, which is fixated on Miers's record -- or lack thereof -- on hot-button social issues. Bush is scrambling to quell this uprising by touting Miers's loyalty and Christian bona fides while the White House dispatches defenders to reassure his conservative base that she won't be Souter in a skirt.
Lost in the bitter brouhaha over abortion, gay marriage, God and the flag is another important facet of the Supreme Court debate: Miers has a blue-chip résumé that would wow Wall Street. Her record on constitutional issues is thin, but Miers's top-flight credentials in corporate law are attractive to the CEO-in-chief, who holds an MBA and was himself a businessman before being elected governor in Texas. ...