The Conflict Of A Cosmic War: Does Palmyra Serve A Dual Purpose?

     One cannot ignore the diabolic nature of headlines such as this:   Slaughter in the Roman amphitheatre: Horrific moment ISIS child executioners brutally shoot dead 25 Syrian regime soldiers in front of bloodthirsty crowds at ancient Palmyra ruin.  The news is gruesome.  As both Breitbart.com and the U.K.'s Daily Mail report, ISIS has released a significant new execution video from the historic city of Palmyra, in the Syrian desert.  Child executioners are shown in the video being forced to brutally slaughter a group of more than 25 Syrian soldiers.
     The massacre takes place in the historic amphitheater at Palmyra, an ancient Roman city cited as a UNESCO World Heritage Site that has recently been overrun by ISIS terrorists.  The articles go on to record that the executioners appear to be in their teens, leading some to believe that these children are graduates of the Islamic State's terrorist training camps.  But the cold-blooded manner in which they simultaneously pull the trigger on their victims, while "performing" on the stage of the historic amphitheater in front of a crowd of eager audience members, tells a larger story... one of demonic influences and false gods.
     The history of Palmyra actually is even older than the Roman Empire.  It is mentioned in ancient historic texts as early as 2000 BC, and is mentioned, or referred to, in the religious books of three of the world's prominent religions ... The Christian Bible (Second Book of Chronicles 8:4) records "Tadmor" as a desert city built (or fortified) by King Solomon of Israel, and it is mentioned in the Talmud, as well.  The ancient historian, Flavius Josephus calls the city by the Greek name "Palmyra", attributing the founding of "Tadmor" to Solomon in Book VIII of his Antiquities of the Jews.  Later Islamic traditions attribute the city's founding to Solomon's Jinn (in Arabian and Muslim mythology, a jinn is an intelligent spirit of lower rank than the angels, able to appear in human and animal forms and to possess humans).
     I recite all this ancient history to let you know that I think it is no accident that the city of Palmyra is the latest focus of interest by ISIS for a reason... perhaps for two reasons, as I will venture to explain.  First of all, I have made it clear numerous times that I am not a Bible scholar; just a person who is seeking to understand how big our God is, and to comprehend all the sovereign ways He works in this world He created.
     That being said, Breitbart.com is clear in pointing out that the Islamic State captured the ancient city of Palmyra in May, an area replete with priceless ruins and artifacts now in the line of fire. ISIS jihadists have become notorious for destroying such pre-Islamic artifacts, claiming that their existence constitutes “idolatry” to false ancient gods, and thus they must be destroyed before the eyes of Allah. While the group initially released a video promising that they would not destroy ruins in Palmyra that did not violate this “idolatry” provision, recent photos indicate that many of the ruins have been removed from the area, and the city itself has been filled with land mines. The amphitheater appears intact, perhaps due to its usefulness as an arena in which to dramatically stage executions. 
     The Western world, and the major news outlets, have all expressed their dismay that ancient ruins and artifacts are being destroyed throughout Iraq and Syria by ISIS, and there are international concerns for the fate of these spectacular ancient treasures.  But let me ask you to consider this:  what if these ancient ruins and "spectacular treasures" are really ancient temples to false gods and symbols and idols of false worship?  What if God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty, is using ISIS to cleanse the Middle East of some of its oldest demonic temples and strongholds of demonic influence?  Think the modern God of Grace and Prosperity would never allow evil people to be used to further His purpose?  Think again ... and think of Judas Iscariot, and Nebuchadnezzar, and Antiochus Epiphanes, and, yes, even Hitler.  I'm not saying for certain that this is what is going on, but I would never discount God's intent in this cosmic conflict with Satan.  What is ironic, is the possibility that while ISIS thinks they are destroying icons to false gods which offend Allah -- they could actually be destroying false idols that offend YHWH!
     And speaking of The Adversary, what is his play in this cosmic battle for control of the world? For starters, we need to realize that the amphitheater where these latest ISIS executions took place is not the only ancient historical architecture associated with Palmyra.  This city is also the home of the Temple of Bel, a false Babylonian god mentioned in the Bible.  In Jeremiah 51, God says He "will punish Bel, the god of Babylon, and make him vomit up all he has eaten."  And Isaiah 46:1 refers to two Babylonian gods,  saying, "Bel bows down; Nebo stoops; their idols are on beasts and livestock."

The Temple of Bel

     Bel was the Moon-god of Babylon, and a temple dedicated to him still exists in Palmyra.  The prophet Isaiah stated the image of the god, Bel, was stamped on the beasts and cattle by the Babylonians. And you will be interested to know that the symbol of Bel, the Moon-god, is a crescent moon with a star. The symbol of Islam!  So, right here in Palmyra, is the Temple of Bel, which stands out from the other religious buildings of Palmyra for its size and location; its main altar (space reserved to the god) was consecrated in 32 AD.  The immense size and the dominant location of the temple are an evident sign of the prominence of Bel/Baal over the other deities worshipped at Palmyra.  And ISIS and Islam have a direct connection through their iconography.
     Now, so far as I understand, ISIS has promised to spare much of the ancient site of Palmyra and only destroy statues deemed polytheistic.  What is interesting to me is that both the Roman amphitheater and the Temple of Bel appear to still be intact.  Could it be that Satan's countermove in this cosmic war is that the amphitheater stage is being used to display blood sacrifices to the ancient god Bel (or Baal), which establishes and feeds the demonic stronghold that is at the heart of ISIS?  Activists and a monitoring group said ISIS used the majestic Roman theatre in Palmyra to execute nearly two dozen pro-Syrian foreign fighters, along with more than 200 people since their offensive in the area began in mid-May.  These latest executions show that they do not plan on stopping.
     I realize that my proposals are pure conjecture.  I do not claim to know the mind of God or His specific plans to combat Evil.  And I certainly don't try to entertain thoughts of the Devil's schemes.  But my spirit is telling me that this location in Palmyra has great significance to both sides of this eternal and supernatural battle.  All I know is that what I am seeing in this day and age is not too far removed from what occurred in the Bible.  God has used people -- both good and bad -- to further His plans toward the ultimate finale.  And Satan has tried to not only counterfeit each move, but continued his efforts to open pathways to his influence and build demonic strongholds.  Is it possible that ISIS is being used by both sides in this cosmic war?  That they are an instrument of God's judgment against ancient pagan temples of idol worship, AND a tool of Satan to secure not only his demonic foothold in the world, but to persecute God's own people?  It has been a battle since the beginning, and I sense that we are approaching the last campaign.  I'm glad I know who wins!

Proverbs 16:4     "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

Acts 5:29 ... Christians and Civil Disobedience

But Peter and the apostles answered,

 “We must obey God rather than men..."

     This verse of Scripture is often used in juxtaposition to Romans 13:1:  Let every person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God’s appointment.  In light of the rapidly changing culture in which we find ourselves, it is important for Christians to know what they believe and why.  Are we to obey the government without question, trusting that God has placed rulers in authority for His purposes?  Or do we follow the standards and principles of the Bible, and resist government that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus?  

     I do not claim to have all the answers, and I can understand why some Believers would struggle with how we are to live out our faith in this post-Christian age.  I can only tell you what I have decided, after struggling with what the Word is telling me, and after asking the Holy Spirit to give me clear discernment.  I will admit that I am human, and I cannot discount that my emotions and human thought have not contributed to my decisions, but I have settled on a course of action.

     If you are a Biblical Christian, and not simply a cultural Christian, then the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is troubling, to say the least.  The SCOTUS decision means that the governing officials in every state of the union must issue a marriage license to same-sex couples, who will now have the right to be considered married in the eyes of the law.  But whose law?

     If you are a Bible-believing Christian, the answer to that question is important.  Yes, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans that we are to be "loyally subject" to the civil authorities; that they have been placed there by God.  I believe that to be true.  But, through my deep study in the Word, I have discovered that God often placed rulers in positions of power as judgment against His sinning people.  Other times, they began as God-fearing rulers, but became influenced by a wicked spirit, and God then allowed them to continue in their position of power, while He acted out His plan to discipline them or the nation.  Whether they were restored or not, depended on their willingness to repent and turn back to God.

     In today's increasingly Godless society, we are faced with many laws and dictates that are clearly not following Biblical teachings or principles.  The same-sex ruling has been mandated according to man's law.  It violates God's law.  As a Christian layman, I should have no problem continuing to live in a society that has disobeyed God's plan for marriage ... no problem, that is, unless I am a Christian baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage; or a Christian pastor who is asked to perform a gay wedding ceremony.  Does man's law allow us to decline based on our desire to be "loyally subject" to God's law? 

     If you are the Christian baker or florist, we have seen that the answer is "no".  Christian businesses have been driven to bankruptcy, due to man's anti-discrimination laws.  It remains to be seen how man's law will deal with Pastors who refuse to conduct a gay wedding.  How will you respond when the time comes that you must choose between man's law and God's law?  Because, I promise you it is coming, and it will affect everyone of faith.  We will have to choose, just as Peter and Paul had to.

    The military leader and the chief priests of the Jewish Temple did not like what the apostles believed or were teaching; it went against the accepted culture of the day.  This Gospel message of Jesus was offensive to the leanings of the current administration, and because Peter and other apostles refused to compromise and go along with the culture, they were jailed.  I cannot know for sure, because Scripture does not reveal this, but I can imagine that Peter, John and the other apostles spoke to each other at great length about how they would proceed in their commission, and went to God in prayer for inspiration and answers.  

     I do not think it improbable to assume by their actions that they received guidance from the Holy Spirit to continue teaching in the manner they had been, being careful not to incite violence.  But the Sanhedrin's demand that they quit preaching and teaching was clearly against God's command that they spread the Good News of Jesus's death, burial and resurrection.  But we must also be cognizant that by disobeying man's law, they were willing to accept the government's punishment for their actions.  In their day that included jail time and being flogged, a particularly loathsome and painful punishment.

     Can you say you are willing to follow the same path?  According to the succeeding verses in Acts 5, they rejoiced that they were being counted worthy [dignified by the indignity] to suffer shame and be exposed to disgrace for [the sake of] His name.  Is that how you would feel?  Would you do everything you could to avoid the discomfort, inconvenience, and possible loss of your livelihood?  Or would you stand steadfast in your faith, accepting of whatever the earthly government threw at you for the sake of receiving praise for a "job well done" by the Heavenly Authority? 

     Christian pastors and leaders have declared that they will not obey the un-Godly laws instituted by the Supreme Court.  They will practice civil disobedience and accept whatever judgment man hands down.  I, too, must follow my conscience and follow God's laws.  We need to pray for those Christians on the front lines -- and for ourselves -- that we will not disappoint God when the time comes to declare our loyalty to Him.  Our failure to boldly declare our faith in the past has led us to this precipice.  We can no longer compromise, make concessions, or accept standards that displease our God.  May we exhibit the strength, courage, and allegiance of the Apostles of old, and fulfill the commission of our generation.

Will Future Generations Understand The Meaning of 4th of July?

     That might seem like a superfluous question.  But just take a moment and watch this video of Americans in this generation that don't have a clue!  You might think it is a humorous display of how little Americans know about our history, or why we celebrate the 4th of July, but I find it extremely disturbing.

     The signing of the Declaration of Independence was a very important date in world history, although the 4th wasn't actually the date it was signed.  That occurred on August 2nd.  No, July 4, 1776 was the day the Continental Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence.  July 4th became the date that was included on the Declaration of Independence and the fancy handwritten copy that was signed in August (the copy now displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.).  It’s also the date that was printed on the Dunlap Broadsides, the original printed copies of the Declaration that were circulated throughout our new nation.  So when people thought of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 was the date they associated with it.
     But it is more than just a date in the founding of our nation.  It symbolizes, for the first time, that leaders of men recognized that "Nature's God" had given all men certain rights that could not be usurped by tyrannical governments.  Specifically, it says,  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... 
     And, yes, I recognize that this seems hypocritical in light of the fact that many of the Southern Founding Fathers were slaveholders.  The writings of the Founding Fathers show that many of them acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, but knew that the abolition of this abhorrent practice would need to take a back seat (for the time being) to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States from Britain.  Sadly, they "kicked the can down the road" to be dealt with by a future generation; although the reality is that the freedom of the nation needed to come before they could address the freedom of the slaves.  That issue would be dealt with in a mere 84 years when the new nation was ripped asunder by the Civil War.
      So, what exactly was meant by "unalienable rights"?  As I wrote in a February 9, 2013 post, I would venture to say that most Americans have a distorted idea of what "unalienable" means.  I would further conclude that they think it takes its meaning from the word "alien", signifying that these "unalienable" rights were unfamiliar or foreign to men of that time.  That is a wrong interpretation, and we actually mispronounce the word altogether.  In 1776, when the Declaration was written, this word was not pronounced as un-alien-able; the correct enunciation was un-a-lien-able, as in "a lien", a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt.  For instance, the bank holds a lien against your car, until the note is paid off.
     What the Founding Fathers were actually saying was this:  the natural rights that have been given to us by God are not subject to a lien by any king or ruler; they are ours to possess outright. In other words, our rights are not determined by governments; or granted by them; and cannot be legislated by them.  It was the first time in the history of the world, that a nation of people dared to declare that they recognized God's rulership and authority as being above that of any monarch or crowned head.
     This was an important step in the evolution of a nation and of mankind.  The Founders of our nation were declaring that they were ready to live their lives as free men, unencumbered by the heavy hand of an oppressive authority; that they wanted to live their lives according to the "Laws of Nature", which in the 18th century meant certain fundamental principles or moral standards that were apparent to everyone.  This thought was perhaps best expressed by English philosopher John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government: "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule."  These laws of nature were understood to be that which the God of the Universe had instituted when He created man in His image.
     Those same fundamental principles and moral standards are still in place in nature; and the need to declare that these laws are above the laws of men, should still be as important today as it was on July 4th, 1776.  THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING TODAY!!  Yet, how many Americans have lost sight of the reason this day exists?  How many recognize or understand what was accomplished on this day 239 years ago?  How many realize that what the government has done in the last two weeks violates the very essence of the Declaration of Independence?
     I invite you to take the time to read this historic document.  Read the Declaration of Independence and then tell me if we, as a nation, have honored the spirit in which it was written.  While you're enjoying the day with your kids and family, ask yourselves if we any longer resemble the ideals upon which this country took such a courageous leap.
      When I compare where this country was in 2013 when I wrote that original post, and how far we've slid in a little over two years, I am astounded.  And I imagine that most Americans are too busy to even care or notice.  So, if you are one of those Americans who don't even know why this day is a holiday, then you have a choice ... you can go back to your hamburgers and hot dogs, or like the people at the beach in the video, laugh it off as inconsequential; OR you can do a serious study comparing who we were in 1776 and what we've become, and determine that it is worth fighting for and make the effort to teach your children its importance.  Because believe me, their future -- and maybe even their survival -- depends on understanding the meaning of July 4th and why it is worth celebrating.

1 Peter 2:16     "[Live] as free people, [yet] without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but [live at all times] as servants of God."





.

More Warnings: Implantable Biochips

     I can't help it.  I just instinctively recoil when I hear about another deal made between pharmaceutical corporations and biotechnology companies.  Add in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and I am instantly suspicious.  So was Rob Matheson at TechSwarm, who reported that an implantable, microchip-based device may soon replace the injections and pills now needed to treat chronic diseases.

     According to Matheson, a company called Microchips Biotech partnered with Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest producer of generic drugs, to develop and commercialize its wirelessly controlled, implantable, microchip-based devices that store and release drugs inside the body over many years.  The microchips consist of hundreds of pinhead-sized reservoirs, each capped with a metal membrane, that store tiny doses of therapeutics or chemicals. An electric current delivered by the device removes the membrane, releasing a single dose. The device can be programmed wirelessly to release individual doses for up to 16 years to treat, for example, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and osteoporosis. Sounds good, right?
     I will admit that medical technology has seen great advancements in recent years; and who can deny how great it would be to help eradicate and control all the above-mentioned diseases, or how much the industry has done to help our wounded veterans returning from war?  But when I listen to some of the philosophies of the inventors, and who they are willing to get into bed with ... well, frankly, it sends chills up my spine.
     All you have to do is read about the history, and listen to some of the comments made by Microchips Biotech cofounders Michael Cima and Robert Langer.  (The emphasis in italics is mine). Inspiration for the microchips came in the late 1990s, when Langer watched a documentary on mass-producing microchips. “I thought to myself, ‘Wouldn’t this be a great way to make a drug-delivery system?’” Langer says.  He then brought the idea to Cima, a chip-making expert who was taken aback by its novelty. “But being out-of-this-world is not something that needs to stop anybody...” Cima adds. “In fact, that should be the criterion.”  Follow that up with this revelation:  Together with graduate student John Santini PhD, they invented a dime-sized prototype which contained only 34 reservoirs, each controlled by an individual wire connected to an external power source. At the time, they considered a broad range of practical, and somewhat fantastical, applications beyond drug delivery, including disease diagnostics and jewelry that could emit scents. “We were trying to find the killer application. We thought, ‘I have a hammer, what’s the right nail to hit?’” Cima says.
     Now, I know that less critical people would see nothing remarkable about their statements... just a couple of science geeks thinking outside the scope of normal applications.  And maybe my spiritual discernment is super-charged, but when these microchip geniuses note that at about this time their invention captured the imagination and interest of the Gates Foundation, then the story takes on another dimension.
     It was after the results of their first human trials were published in 2012, that Bill Gates took notice.  Their microchips were implanted into seven elderly women, delivering teriparatide to strengthen bones. Results indicated that the chips delivered doses comparable to injections — and did so more consistently — with no adverse side effects.  So, wouldn't you know it -- Bill Gates quickly sees how the microchip technology could be used in his ongoing campaign to control population growth.  Because, don't you know, there is apparently a huge problem in the world of medication-prescription adherence -- and it is a surprisingly costly issue in the United States. A 2012 report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine estimated that Americans who don’t stick to prescriptions rack up $100 billion to $289 billion annually in unnecessary health care costs from additional hospital visits and other issues. Failure to follow prescriptions, the study also found, causes around 125,000 deaths annually and up to 10 percent of all hospitalizations... not to mention an exponential growth in the number of babies born to women who don't follow any form of birth control.
     Do you see how that line of thinking would appeal to Bill Gates, who perceives a huge problem in the world's population explosion?  (Remember his oft-quoted statement at the Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) Conference ... "if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [global population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.")  Imagine if you could implant women in third world countries with contraceptive-delivery microchips that controlled conception for 16 years.  Think you might be able to lower global population numbers?  Infertility would be a convenient "fix" for the world's overpopulation issue.
     Of course, I know I am only looking at this from a potentially harmful aspect.  But like I said at the beginning ... I can't help it.  The mad scientists and technology engineers of the world have openly declared that they want to create "the singularity":  the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence.  By merging our human bodies with computer microchips, we are taking one more step in that direction.  And, ultimately, that means we lose control of the human experience; and perhaps, even of human life.
     It's not hard to see that technology invented by Microchips Biotech could be used to control population growth; or decide who receives life-saving drugs; or even who is determined to be worthy of life, itself.  Can you see that individual choice will be eliminated?  Once that microchip is implanted, its wireless technology component will allow someone else to dispense -- or not -- your medicine.  Personally, I know in my spirit, that I am made in the image of God, and He gave me a brain to make my own choices about how I will treat this body; this temple of the Holy Spirit.  I do not want this flesh to be corrupted; to turn over the control of it to a piece of computer equipment that is under the jurisdiction of godless men.  I want to leave this world as I came into it ... fearfully and wonderfully made.

Psalm 139:13-14   "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well."

Amen, Brother!

    Rod Dreher, a writer for The American Conservative, recently wrote an article that caught my eye, titled "A Chrisitanity Without the Cross".  It was based on an essay by Francis J. Beckwith, who is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, where he also serves as Associate Director of the Graduate Program in Philosophy and Co-Director of the Program in Philosophical Studies of Religion.  So I dare say the man is qualified to speak to us on the state of our faith in the 21st Century.  
     I would like to share with you an excerpt from Beckwith's article called, "The Problem with God's 'Wonderful Plan for You'."  I believe it correctly predicts the lack of true understanding that most Evangelical Christians have about what it means to "take up our cross and follow Jesus daily."  I also think that his essay will show you why -- in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings, and the ones that are sure to follow regarding religious freedom -- the Church and Christians may be at great spiritual risk.  He points out that the typical "Gospel of Grace" message that we are accustomed to hearing preached is not what we need ... But rather than listen to my opinion of his brilliant essay, please read the following for yourself:

     I have come to believe that the first spiritual law coined by Bill Bright (of Campus Crusade fame) – “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life” – presents a misleading depiction of what it means to follow Jesus.
     For some reason, this trite and superficial way of evangelizing has been the staple of American Christianity since the 1950s. It was, I believe, largely successful, because in the era in which it arose, the moral and cultural sensibilities of the Christian faith, though certainly not explicitly embraced by everyone or even lived with total integrity by those who claimed to embrace them, were considered uncontroversially true, and they were the appropriate standards by which one’s conduct could be fairly judged. Thus, there was no need to bring up the Cross, since there didn’t seem to be a hill to die on.
     But the decades long near-absence of the truth of the Cross and the Gospel of suffering and transformation – that following Jesus is as much about getting heaven into you as you getting into heaven – resulted in generations of American Christians who spend half their Sunday services singing “hymns” to a Jesus that sounds more like their boyfriend than their Lord.
     For this reason, as the hostility to Christian faith continues to mount in the United States – especially on issues that will require government coercion in matters of religious conscience – many of our fellow Believers, unwilling to entertain the possibility that they must suffer as Christ suffered, will continue to acquiesce to the spirit of the age and construct a Jesus that conforms to that spirit. This Lord will wind up agreeing – or at least, not disputing – any of the pieties of the secular intelligentsia.
     The economic, social, and familial pressures will seem so unbearable – so inconsistent with that “wonderful plan for your life” – they will quickly and enthusiastically distance themselves from those brethren who choose to pick up the Cross and not check the “like” button. Whatever it is that hangs in the balance – professional honor, academic respectability, securing a lucrative business contract, or thirty pieces of silver – it will surely be described as the place to which “the Lord is leading us.”
     Although they will claim to be devout “Evangelicals” or “Catholics,” [or Lutheran, or Baptists, or fill-in-the blank] they will nevertheless embody the beliefs that H. Richard Niebuhr once attributed to, what was at the time, the most dominant [and false] religious force in America, Liberal Protestantism: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

     And that false theology will lead so many down a path of corrupted faith.  In other words, Christianity without the Cross does not represent the message of Christ.  I fear that, very soon, the faith of prosperous, comfortable American Christians is going to be put to the test.  And will they "take up their cross" and "follow Jesus"?  By that I mean can they recognize that God's plan for them might not be so "wonderful"; that it might actually involve loss and ruin, or resemble the suffering, tribulation, and death that Jesus endured?  Or will they accommodate and compromise their faith to fit the world's standards, and try to hang on to some form of that "wonderful" life they felt they were promised?  
     It will be interesting to see what kind of faith we Christians are made of.  I feel pretty sure that in the light of where our culture is headed, we are going to see in the days, weeks, and years ahead, a lot of people tested.  There will be Christians who will fall; heresy and apostasy will abound.  When the Cross is not part of your faith, you are simply following the Prosperity Gospel that centers on you.  True faith will require your endurance and perseverance, in the manner of our Lord.  We must partake of His suffering.  Are you ready to take up your Cross?

Luke 14:27      "Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."

The Hyprocrisy, the Deceit, and the Absurdity

     In light of yesterday's post on "the cultural cleansing of the South", I could not resist commenting on the cowardice and deceit of one of Hollywood's most outspoken political activists, Ben Affleck.
     It seems that Affleck was a scheduled guest on the PBS show, Finding Your Roots, in which celebrities trace their ancestral heritage.  Somehow, the producers of such shows thinks it is fascinating to us "normal folks" to watch these celebrities discover the unknown facts about their six-times great grandfather.  In fact, one of the segments of Affleck's episode shows him astonished at the revelation that a distant relative fought in the Revolutionary War.  Befitting any Hollywood leading man, ol' Ben is thrilled to find that his great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a hero.
     But there was something left out of the televised version of Ben's family narrative.  Apparently, it was also revealed that several of Affleck's ancestors were slaveholders ... 14 ancestors, owning 242 slaves, to be exact (as discovered by Breitbart.com).  While none of us in the modern world would agree with our ancestors owning slaves, it was the standard IN THE WORLD at that time in history.  That's not an excuse ... it's simply the truth.  But it is what Ben did with his ancestral history regarding slavery that is so disturbing.

    He lobbied the producers of the PBS show to delete that portion of the program in order to hide this part of his family history.  First of all, I find this to be not only dishonest, but sad.  It just proves that our culture of entertainment is all about appearance, not the truth.  Ben was successful in getting his segment edited so that the footage showed him in a "heroic" light, rather than giving a historically accurate picture.  Really, Ben ... are you that insecure?
     Secondly, I am really getting weary of the tendency in our society to judge all white people in 21st century America by the standards of an institution that can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC)!  The Ancient Greeks practiced slavery of peoples of different color and ethnicities; the Roman Empire enslaved entire populations; and the Byzantine-Ottoman wars in Europe resulted in the taking of large numbers of Christian slaves and using or selling them in the Islamic world.  And let's not forget the Mongols, the Vikings, the Barbary Pirates, and so many more. The fact is that slavery was not suddenly invented by Southern white plantation owners in the American South!
     And isn't it time that the slavery apologists admit and recognize that unfortunately, slavery was a regular part of the African societal experience?  Sadly, while an inherently evil practice among human beings, African tribes were exploited by their own, once Europeans realized that they could export African slaves for profit.  This fact does not excuse anyone -- and we must face the dark stain upon our national history that slavery represents.  But should we be judged today in light of our ancestor's use of a despicable institution that was common to the world?  In fact, I do not know of one person -- whether white, black, brown, yellow, blue, or orange that maintains that slavery was a noble cause.  Not one!
     So, I also take issue with Mr. Affleck's sheepish apology:  "I didn’t want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves. I was embarrassed. The very thought left a bad taste in my mouth," Affleck wrote in a Facebook post. "I regret my initial thoughts that the issue of slavery not be included in the story. We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still grappling with the terrible legacy of slavery."
     See, Ben, it's what we do in the here and now that matters.  So your vehement defense of all Islam as peaceful, based on the historic definition of the faith, rather than the current actions of its radical followers, should take on a whole new significance for you.  And I disagree with your claim that "as a nation, [we are] still grappling with the terrible legacy of slavery".  As I said earlier, no American wishes us to return to the institution of slavery... period!   And what exactly is that "terrible legacy"?  It seems to me, the legacy is that our historic slave past continues to be used as a divisive, and convenient, political weapon against fellow Americans.
     And I had one other silly little thought .... since our President has declared that racism is in our DNA, then does that make Ben Affleck a certifiable racist?  Do you see how absurd this line of reasoning is?
     No white person in America -- at least since their great-great-great grandfather -- has owned another human being.  And neither has any black American suffered the indignity or abuse from that despicable practice.  Is it distasteful to know that your distant relative was involved in slavery, whether white or black?  Of course it is.  But what will it take for us to quit the "blame" and "guilt" games?  What will I ever be able to do to soothe or erase those scars?  The truth is ... nothing.  While I abhor this part of our ancient history, I did not partake in it.  I do not agree with it.  And I think it is time we turn our attention from ancient history to the modern sex slave trade and human trafficking.
     We need to quit looking backwards at something we cannot change, and look towards making a real difference in the lives of real people.  It is time to address the evil practice of modern slavery, in all of its nuances, and let go of the slavery issue from our past.  Southern white slaveowners no longer exist, but there are victims in the here and now that all Americans, of every race, can help rescue.

Philemon 1:16    "No longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

The War Against The South

     The horror and sadness of the Charleston murders have focused our national conscience on racial tensions.  Along with all the dissection of the murderer's motives, comes the sudden decision that the Confederate flag played a major role and should essentially be outlawed.  It seems to me (in a move designed to appear sensitive to the victims' families), every politician, fake media apologist, and greedy corporate CEO has now joined in the call for banning this iconic symbol of Southern heritage.
     Perhaps I'm a little sensitive, since I live in what is considered part of the South.  In fact, I have lived here for nearly three-quarters of my life ... by choice.  I love the hospitality and friendliness of the people; I love their pride in their history; and I love the importance they place on faith.  And perhaps I'm sensitive because my father recounted his grandmother's stories of escaping rural Tennessee ahead of the Yankee army, which was burning everything in its path.  As a small child, it was my great-grandmother's job to dig up the family silverware from its hiding place in the ground, and to gather as many family mementoes as she could carry in the wagon.  Or maybe I'm proud because my paternal grandmother's maiden name was Lee, a historic and proud name in the South and because our family lineage can be traced back to Old Virginia, and a possible connection to Stonewall Jackson, a celebrated Confederate General.  And maybe I just plain don't like the one-sided picture that is being painted of the South.  They weren't all slave holders.  Like much of the South, my family were farmers.  And to many. the flag simply means pride in their roots and traditions.

     I find it disturbing that in the rush to prove that the nation has transcended its racist past and will not tolerate the likes of a crazy, white supremacist, such as the Charleston killer, there is a growing move to eradicate all Southern influences ... and the over-reaction is neither reasonable nor rational.
     For instance, the memory of Pastor Clementa Pinckney has became the rallying point for removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse.  Somehow, the politicians and the PC police felt that the flag symbolized the hate that caused his murder and the deaths of eight of his parishioners.  There was an outcry that his casket was actually carried past the Confederate flag during his funeral.
     But would it surprise you to know that in 2000, during his first term in the South Carolina State Senate, Pinckney actually voted in favor of H5028, the May 2000 compromise which placed the Confederate flag at its current location?  From what we have gathered about Reverend Pinckney's character, it seems to me that he would have cautioned against such a rash decision and rush to judgment.  He would have recognized the emotional attachment that millions of Southerners have to the flag -- not that it represents slavery to them; but that it is a symbol of their unique heritage and of the approximately 600,000 who died in a war that split the nation apart.  Is it too much to consider the sentiments of one writer, who said, "I find it strange that the actions of one sociopath should mar the reputations of millions, as if the flag itself pulled the trigger?"  It is as if somehow, just being proud of being a Southerner means that you are a racist and a bigot.
     But it is not just the Confederate flag that is under attack.  There are actually those who wish to cleanse the nation of all its Southern culture; to wipe it out as if it never existed.  Corporate giants such as Wal-Mart, Amazon and Sears are now refusing to sell any Confederate products (while continuing to sell Nazi paraphernalia).  There are efforts to change the names of military installations named for Confederate generals and soldiers; among them Fort Bragg.  So far, at least, the Army is not going for it.  “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history,” Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Malcolm Frost said in a statement. “Accordingly, these historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.”
     But I'm afraid that's exactly the point that these modern-day dogmatic ideologues wish to stress.  They are not interested in reconciling or allowing the South's history to coexist with the national narrative.  In fact, they would rewrite history, if they could.

Statue of Jefferson Davis on UT campus

     A good example is the effort being made at my alma mater, the University of Texas, in which there is an actual petition to remove statues of Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate army, and Albert Sidney Johnston, a Confederate general who died during the Civil War.  The petition states, “It is impossible to reach the full potential of an inclusive and progressive learning institution while putting an idol of our darkest days on a pedestal.”
     But here's where these leaders of student government fail.  They have listened to their progressive professors, who have filled their heads full of distorted truths, and the result is they also want to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, because, "Given Jefferson Davis's vehement support for the institution of slavery and white supremacy, we believe this statue is not in line with the university's core values — learning, discovery, freedom, leadership, individual opportunity, and responsibility."
     If these students had been taught any form of critical thinking, they would do their own research and find out why Jefferson Davis assumed the Confederate Presidency.  They could decide for themselves if the protection of slavery was his motivation, or if there was another more important reason, as he expressed in his own words:  "Every evil which has befallen our institutions is directly traceable to the perversion of the compact of union and the usurpation by the Federal Government of undelegated powers...My faith in that right as an inherent attribute of State sovereignty, was adopted early in life, was confirmed by study and observation of later years, and has passed, unchanged and unshaken, through the severe ordeal to which it has been subjected ... I shall die, as I have lived, firm in the State rights faith."  Furthermore, he asserted that he was loyal to his country, "by the bonds of community independence, the supremacy of law, and adherence to the Constitution as it was interpreted by those who made it."
     It saddens me that there is such an abusive and over-reaching attempt to eradicate the history, influence, and culture of the South.  Even Gone With The Wind is under attack as romanticizing the history of the Slave South.  What's next?  Will there be a book burning of To Kill A Mockingbird, The Color Purple, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and all novels by William Faulkner?
     We cannot and should not re-write our history!  But tell that to the students at the University of Texas.  Believe it or not, but according to a survey many of them would remove statues of George Washington because he owned slaves his entire life, and did not emancipate them until after his death.   And when, as part of the petition, UT students were asked if they would also support a move to wipe Washington from the pages of history?  A good portion of them answered Yes!  Several also agreed that demolishing the statues would be a fantastic way of "controlling the future by re-writing history" -- a line lifted straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.  “It’s so bad, it’s like as if you’re having a statue of maybe Hitler or someone like that,” said one trendy as he signed the petition.
     This, folks, is what our kids are learning at universities all across America.  Just the mere use of words like "racist statues" or "treason", when applied to the historical figures of the South, were enough to get the results the petitioners desired.  Let's face it. We are seeing a clear and blatant attempt at "cultural cleansing".  And just like all the "movements" of the past decade, I am astounded at the speed in which it has materialized and is advancing.  It almost feels as if we are powerless to stop the tide of change and deception that is flooding our nation and the world.  But why should I be surprised... we should recognize it.  We've seen it before in Nazi Germany, and we are well aware that the devil knows his time is short, and we know he's coming at us with all his fury.  He knows that the Civil War nearly destroyed this nation under God, so why not try that tactic again... divide and conquer.  But we must be determined that we will not allow that division to occur again, while maintaining the proud heritage of the South.  And please, Lord, help us to educate our young!  They are so easily deceived!

Thanks to writer Todd Starnes, and to the D.C. Clothesline website for their invaluable insight.

Psalm 52:2    "Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit."

Who Is Next?

   

     We have all been so consumed with the recent Supreme Court decisions that there's been rarely a ripple in our consciences about the deepening financial crisis in the world.  In case you haven't noticed, the banks in Greece have shut their doors for the week, after there was a run on them over the weekend.
     Perhaps we have become impervious to the doom-and-gloom of financial news.  After all, since 2008 our own economy has been on the decline --- no matter how much the White House and various news organizations would like us to believe otherwise.  And it's been a couple of years since I wrote on this blog about Greeks scavenging for food in dumpsters, and the panic that many felt about their future.  The threat of bank closures has always hung in the air; and now it is reality.
     From my limited understanding, the crisis centers around the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing that it will end liquidity funding (fancy name for a bailout) that was being used to prevent a Greek banking collapse.  Greece's European partners want it to agree to an austerity plan that is unpopular with Greece's leader and its people.  In fact, Greece’s prime minister Alexis Tsipras suddenly terminated negotiations with the European lending institutions, surprising everyone, and called for a referendum of the Greek people on July 5.
      According to a CNBC report, Greeks are expected to vote on whether to accept the bailout measures offered by international creditors, which come with strings attached; they can accept prolonged austerity measures, or reject them and potentially leave the euro zone. This has the European markets on edge, and the Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers met without Greece present, to take steps for the protection of the eurozone.
     Of course, this is a risky gamble if the people of Greece vote to exit the eurozone.  What happens next?  Well, for one thing, Russia and Vladimir Putin are waiting in the wings to help Greece solve its financial crisis.  Reports on Russia Today, quote President Putin as saying that Greece has not asked for a bailout of its €316 billion debt, but Moscow could help out by buying Greek state assets in privatization sales, or in other investment projects such as Turkish Stream, the working name of the proposed natural gas pipeline from the Russian Federation to Turkey across the Black Sea. In 2015 the Greek government plans to privatize €1.5 billion worth of assets, and Russia appears ready to take advantage of that strategy.
     You will also find it of interest that Gazprom, Russia's largest oil producer, and holder of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, tried unsuccessfully to buy a controlling stake in Greece’s Public Gas Corporation [DEPA] for €900 million in 2013, when Antonis Samaras was prime minister.  But it's a new day in Greece, with a new prime minister.  Could this play be back on the table? Just think how that would upset the world's apple cart -- Russia would have a foothold in Europe, not to mention a position in the world's strategy for control of gas and oil reserves -- and the future of the world's economy could drastically change.
     But Greece isn't the only country in the world facing financial difficulties, and their situation is sure to affect the stability of the entire globe.  According to Breitbart News, China’s stock markets have been in free fall since June 12, falling almost 20 percent in a couple of weeks.  The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) made a major move, cutting interest rates sharply, to a record low, which in effect, props up the stock market, but it will have little effect on China's economic growth.
     Then there is Puerto Rico’s governor Alejandro García Padilla, who has announced that the island territory will be unable to pay off its $72 billion in debts. As Breitbart's John Xenakis wrote, "Many people have invested in Puerto Rico bonds because they pay 10 percent interest (yields) and because under federal law they’re “triple-tax free,” meaning that you can earn 10 percent interest every year and not have to pay federal, state or municipal tax on the interest you collect. It’s a sweet deal, provided that Puerto Rico doesn’t go bankrupt, because if it does, then you lose most or all of your initial investment.  But the unemployment rate in Puerto Rico is 13.7 percent. Only 700,000 of the 3.5 million people, or 20 percent, work in the private sector. The other 80 percent either are on welfare, or they receive unemployment or other aid, or they work for the government."  (There is a lesson here for us, if we are smart enough to pay attention).
     Mr. Xenakis presents this very important scenario ... Today we have major financial crises in China, in Europe and in Puerto Rico. In each case, officials have made some preparations. But can the global financial system handle all three simultaneously?  Economic gurus have been pointing out that our own Wall Street stocks are in bubble territory, and dangerously close to bursting.  Will the current world economic crisis be the catalyst that causes a panic similar to our 1929 crash?  No one knows for sure.
     So, while America seems determined to ignore the global financial crisis, the reality is that the world sits on the precipice of financial disaster as the world banks struggle to solve staggering debts.  The prediction is that the Dow will react negatively to the latest news from Greece, and it will remain to be seen how the rest of the world reacts.  Could this be the beginning of a political and economic crisis that the Bible predicts?  One in which this end-times prophecy in Revelation is fulfilled? ... “ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour [a brief period] as kings with the beast.”  The Bible tells us that conditions will be so desperate and dramatic that these 10 rulers will give their authority to a powerful figure who, as head of a new global superpower, will bring order out of chaos.
    We cannot know when this event will take place, but if you are a Believer, you can be assured that it will happen.  We should all be watching what happens with the Greek situation, and it is undeniable that these are interesting days in which we live....

Proverbs 22:7   "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender."


   

Acts 1:8

But you shall receive power (ability, efficiency, and might) 

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be 

My witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria 

and to the ends (the very bounds) of the earth.

     In the verse just prior to this one, Jesus has given a mild rebuke to the apostles for asking Him when He was going to re-establish and restore the kingdom to Israel.  His answer is summed up in this paraphrase ... It is not for you to be concerned about the times, year or seasons which the Father has fixed according to His own plan.  The Lord then goes on to give them this powerful prophecy ... But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.  WOW!

     We must remember that most of the apostles were simple fishermen and had never ventured much beyond their villages before they met Christ.  Imagine what they thought when, first, He appeared to them after His resurrection, and then once they are over the shock that He has risen, He is telling them to preach the Gospel in places that stunned them.  

     The Lord first mentions Jerusalem.  What do you think they thought about re-entering the city they had just escaped from?  After all, it was in the city of Jerusalem that Jesus was tried and crucified.  Neither the Jews, nor the Romans would be welcoming them back.  

     Next, Jesus tells them they will share the Gospel in Samaria.  "But wait!", they thought.  "Didn't you tell us earlier not to preach to the Gentiles?"  But here's the understanding of this change in their instructions ... when the Apostles began their mission of sharing what Jesus had taught them, they were not fit in their abilities to spread the Word.  They had not yet received the Holy Spirit, along with (as the Amplified version tells us), the ability, the efficiency, and the might (power) that would be necessary to preach effectively.  Secondly, it was part of God's plan that the Gentiles must not have the Gospel brought to them, until the Jews had refused it.  This had certainly happened by this point in the timeline.  The revelation of Jesus as the Son of God was completed, and the Jews rejected Him.  It was time to teach the rest of the world about Him.

     And that's where "all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" come in.  They would be instruments of God to spread "The Good News" to the ends of the world --- first to the world, as they knew it to exist; and then because of their work and influence, it would spread throughout the coming centuries to every corner of the earth, as God created it.

     But Jesus makes it clear that they will need the power of the Holy Spirit to accomplish their task.  Just as He used His power to heal the sick, and cast out demons, in order to declare His message was from the Kingdom of God, He will enable the Holy Spirit to give them that same power to confirm that the doctrine they preached was from God.  Just as Jesus needed to distinguish Himself from the false prophets and teachers of the day, so shall they be able to separate themselves from the counterfeit teachers.  They will have the same power to do the Father's will.

     But we must be clear about what being Christ's "Witness" entails.  Yes, they would carry His literal message of redeeming love to those who would repent and have faith in Jesus as their Savior.  They would testify as to His words and His deeds, and above all as to His resurrection and ascension.  They would offer His saving grace to all who would believe in Him.  But "Witness" also means “one who bears witness by his death” … a martyr.  They would hold fast to the Truth of who Jesus was and the Truth of His message --- even unto death.  

     The Bible records this most sobering meaning of what it means to be a witness.  It is clearly spelled out in the account of Stephen's death by stoning in Acts 22, and in the recounting of Antipas, whom Jesus calls, "My witness, my faithful one, who was killed (martyred) in your midst" (Revelation 2:13).  

     So, I wish for us all to realize that when we accept Christ as our Savior and we receive the Holy Spirit, that we receive the sufficiency to preach the Gospel to a lost world, along with the powers to testify to His Kingship.  That's a serious responsibility.  And we are called to be witnesses ... in every sense of that word.  Do you take your task seriously?  Are you prepared (and willing) to carry it out to its ultimate end?  Jesus did, and He did it for us.  As co-heirs in the Kingdom of God, we should do no less.   

A Letter To My Gay Friends

In the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, I would like to address my gay friends.  Yes, I have friends who are gay.  And I worded it that way because I see them as my friends first, and their lifestyle choice as second in regards to my relationship with them.  I see them as people; as individuals  whom I respect; whose company I enjoy, and whose talents and intellect I admire; and yes, as people I care deeply about.  It is true that we have a fundamental difference in how we few the institution of marriage, and I have never shied away from my position that no laws by men or for men will cause me to deny my Lord's Word.
     However, it should be our mutual desire that our differences will not cause a disruption or interruption in our friendship.  I am determined to demonstrate my God’s love while revealing His truth to the world, and without fear.  That means that I will continue to believe in "Biblical marriage" as the standard, but I recognize that this world has determined otherwise.  I will respect your right to embrace this new law, as I hope you respect mine to continue to endorse God's law.
     I would never presume to deny any person's capacity to love; after all, it is the second most important commandment in the Bible.  I simply believe that the concept of marriage is greater than any "rights" determined by man or court.  It is my understanding that the Supreme Court was deciding whether the states were denying gay couples their "civil rights" by banning gay marriage in their individual states.  It is also my understanding that "civil rights" refers to the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.  And obviously, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage advocates are due those rights, as it pertains to the legal description.  It is now the law of the land and you have been granted those legal rights.  I understand why you would celebrate that.
     But I would like to explain that my definition of marriage goes beyond anything this world defines as political or social "rights", and it aligns with the Bible.  To me, God's laws are higher than man's laws.  It's that simple.  And because you are my friend, I am assuming that you know that God's opinion matters more to me than this culture's or the world.  That's why I take it to heart when the Word says, "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother [the Bible's definition of a family], and shall cleave [join to] his wife; and they shall be one flesh [resulting in a child]."  It was divinely ordained by God that marriage would consist of one man and one woman, for the express purpose of continuing His creation.  I know that's not sexy or romantic, but I believe marriage to be holy and sanctified; and it should be divinely interpreted by the One who created it, not a nine-person court ruled by their political and social opinions.  
     I have no desire to legislate anyone's relationship or condemn or judge the matter of love between two people; and I can understand your resolve to establish a legal definition of your partnership.  That is understandable and reasonable.  But I would like to request that my rights to my religious freedom (including my opinion, and how I act out my faith in this world) neither be challenged, questioned, or disputed.  That, too, is the law of the land.
     As far as I am concerned, this Supreme Court ruling changes nothing as far as our friendship.  I will continue to proclaim my allegiance to God's Word in all matters, while continuing to share that my Lord died for us all.  It is my fervent prayer that we can all live in the Light, and come to fellowship with each other; that the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.
     Undoubtedly, this ruling will lead to further challenges to my Christian faith, and I need you to understand that I cannot compromise my beliefs or disobey God.  I am not only a hearer of the Word, but a doer.  I do not think it too difficult to agree to mutually respect each other, and treat our differences with courtesy and civility.  There is no need for me to prolong this discussion or even make it a focus of my life.  In the end, God is my Authority, and I must rest on His Word.

James 5:16    "Confess to one another therefore your faults (your slips, your false steps, your offenses, your sins) and pray [also] for one another, that you may be healed and restored [to a spiritual tone of mind and heart]. The earnest (heartfelt, continued) prayer of a righteous man makes tremendous power available [dynamic in its working]."