Attacks on Our Roots

I find the recent attacks on our history through the destruction of our historical monuments extremely discouraging. This is something we should not take lightly. It is in fact, something that is dangerous to our nation due to the loss of something that serves as evidence and proof of actual events. I feel it imperative that this be addressed, before even more is altered and ultimately lost forever.

In light of the defamation and destruction of these monuments, another issue needs to be considered. Because also at risk, are the future loss of our cemeteries and the history and faith that is displayed there.

I have long had concern about the loss of our cemeteries. And now there is even talk of destroying Arlington National Cemetery in light of what has happened in recent days. Have we lost all sense?

Burial And Cremation

In regard to the loss of our cemeteries, the move toward cremation instead of burial can have the same detrimental effect on our nation that the destruction and loss of our monuments can have. And truthfully, I believe they are linked. Yes, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about our monuments, but for this post I am going to direct my comments to the issue of cremation as opposed to burial. Because after the monuments have all been destroyed, the loss of our cemeteries will be next. History, as well as our faith, manifestly evident through our cemeteries will be lost forever via the continuing trend of cremation.

I am a Christian, so first and foremost in importance to me is what the Bible says about this issue. All historical facts, for me, are of utmost importance in light of what the Bible says.

With the recent promotion of cremation, I believe there is something deeper that has been occurring for some time. And that is this: One of the most important principles of our Christian faith can more easily be challenged when we destroy this respectful and symbolic gesture toward the deliberate care of the body after death. And that principle is the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the single, most important aspect of the Christian faith that gives us our hope. Traditional burial is symbolic of the fact that as Jesus was buried and raised from the dead, we also will be.

 

Most importantly to this discussion, I believe the danger for our nation in its recent acceptance of cremation over burial, is the fact cremation negates the symbolic meaning of the Resurrection from burial to life. It is to destroy another tenet of Christianity that has traditionally been vitally important. And personally, I believe that is the goal. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and also that we who believe and put our faith in Jesus will be raised from the dead is a key precept of Christianity. It is the demonstration of victory over death. To allow cremation over burial is a subtle attempt to minimize and change the principles of Christianity. And if not an intentional goal, it is still a consequence of allowing cremation to become the norm.

Furthermore cemeteries are, in fact, a witnessing tool to attest to the reality of a nation's belief in God. How many headstones do you see without a mention of God? Not many. Cemeteries are also a historical record; showing our nation's faith in Jesus for generations. They are important to not only our faith, but the complete accuracy of our history, showing that we are and always have been a Christian nation.   

I would like to show some Biblical reasons as to why burial is important to not only the Christian, but to our nation as a whole.

Biblical Examples

The Bible does not expressly forbid cremation and we are free in Christ to chose either. However, the Bible is clear about God's intent; not by forbidding one, but by EXALTING the other. All Old and New Testament saints were buried setting an example for us.  Jesus was buried. John the Baptist was buried. Other examples we are given for burial in the New Testament are Lazarus, and the rich man. More, Ananias and Sapphira were buried even after they sinned by lying to the Holy Ghost. Acts 5:1-11 

In the Old Testament, Abraham, Joseph, David and all notable Old Testament saints were buried. God buried Moses. God wanted Moses hidden and buried without a monument. This could have been done more easily by cremating him. But Moses was buried, and for me, that demonstrates the importance that God places on burial over burning a life that He created. This clearly shows the importance that He places on respect of life. Deuteronomy 34:5-7 Now this Scripture has been used to say that God doesn't approve of monuments for fear of idol worship by the Israelites. But the Bible clearly doesn't state that. Actually, the opposite is true. God often required commemorations of ceremonies with a stone. Genesis 28:18; 1 Samuel 7:12; and Joshua 4:5-9. God had no problem with monuments. We have to take things in context and remember with whom we are dealing. Moses' life began in hiding when he was placed in the river by his mother in order for his life to be saved. And for whatever reason God saw fit to bury him in hiding, as well. However, He still accomplished that task with burial over burning.

Another important example we see of burial is through Joseph. At his time, Joseph's body was saved for 200 years in order that he be able to be buried in Canaan. Obviously his body meant something and had a purpose. Genesis 50:24-26 and Exodus 13:19. Joseph claimed it would happen; Moses preserved Joseph's bones to bring back to the Promised Land; and Joshua eventually buried Joseph in Shechem, 200 years later. Joshua 24:32. Furthermore, earlier on, the body of Jacob (Joseph’s father) had been taken from Egypt and buried in Machpelah (modern Hebron) in Canaan. Genesis 50:5; Genesis 50:13-14. The body is important to God.

Along these lines, we also still have the location of David's tomb known and available as a witnessing tool to the factual proof of what the Bible has told us. Burial is first and foremost a witnessing tool for and to the God we serve. It demonstrates the importance of life and what He has created, and it gives us factual evidence of what really took place rather than having it all burned away.

The Bible is full of important examples. The story of Achan in the Old Testament allows us to see that those depicted as dying in there sin were still buried. Achan who secretly stole from his camp brought judgment on the camp, and though he was stoned then burned for this sin, his remains were, in the end, still buried by covering them with stones. Joshua 7:25-26

In contrast, it is rare to find an example of any righteous or even an unrighteous person that was cremated or burned in any fashion for the finality of their death. The  tradition of the Hebrews was not to cremate. We are told in 1 Samuel 31:11-13 that Saul and his sons were burned; but after, their bones were still buried under a tree. That speaks volumes to me. 

I believe these examples are given to us in Scripture to show us that death is not final. In fact, it is not even the end of the body. Of course at death, our bodies no longer hold our spirit, but the body is still to be respected and shown worth. That is apparent in each of these Biblical examples. The body through burial is a symbolic planting of what will be raised to eternal life. A key tenet of Christianity is that we will receive new bodies to live on with Jesus in Heaven. The symbolic meaning of this "planting" (to be raised and live forever) is lost to us through cremation. And equally sad, for some, cremation is symbolic of hell.

Christian Tradition

It is only in recent years that cremation has gained popularity and acceptance. Throughout the history of our Christian nation, not having a proper burial was considered a disgrace. It was devastating to families to think of their loved ones left unburied. Great strives were taken to be sure loved ones were properly buried, and shown respect by offering words about their life and encouragement from the Bible about the after-life. We have seen this throughout our history, even as settlers traveled west without benefit of cemeteries or cities. They buried and marked a grave for their lost loved one. That sacrifice of burial is to be honored, when a burning would have been so much easier.

The first cremation in America actually didn't take place until 1876.  Included in that cremation were readings from Charles Darwin and the Hindu scriptures. Christianity has compromised with the world on many fronts. For years, the numbers were small for those who chose cremation over burial and it was mostly from those who were liberal or outside of the Christian faith. Cremation once non-existent, became rare in the late 1800's, and now it has almost become the norm.

Tools of the Left

As time passes and we fall more and more away from Biblical teachings, it shouldn't really surprise us that the importance of burial is lost. With the decline in mores in our nation, the rise of cremation shouldn't take us aback. It is no coincidence that these two are connected at this time in history.

The left has often used environmentalism as a tool for their political agenda. As the world falls into the trap of diminishing life and elevating the environment, we should not be shocked at the push for cremation. When those with this mindset seek preservation of land over human life, and especially death, it is inevitable that burial will be challenged and cremation promoted.

Satan loves to change and distort Christian principles. He seeks to counterfeit all that God intended to make our lives better and use to bring us comfort. We have given Satan an open door on so many levels. And once open, it is difficult to close.

Counting the Cost

There may be a time where the cost of burial over cremation has to be considered. We have the freedom in Christ to know we are not sinning if we choose cremation over burial due to a matter of finances. If cremation is all one can afford, that should not be held against anyone. But cost should have nothing to do with this issue as a main reason to defend cremation over burial, either. Money should not dictate what is right. One should not be condemned or chastised for spending money on a funeral. Jesus allowed the woman to pour out expensive oil before his death. Choosing cremation due to costs may be understandable for some who cannot afford a burial. There is no condemnation for this, but neither should there be condemnation in the reverse. 

I use this post only to hopefully enlighten others, or cause one to think. It is not to pass judgment on those who have chosen or will choose cremation. I only want to show the problems in making cremation the norm, when burial could first be chosen.  

Death Represents Life

The human body has always been important to our nation. To change that is simply another open door to destroying (or at least, minimizing) what we have always believed as a God-fearing country.

My pastor tells of a time when this especially became real to him. He had been called to serve at Ground Zero, just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. When he returned from New York, he spoke to his congregation of all that he witnessed there. He told of the countless days and hours where people searched continually and diligently for the bodies or even any remnants of those lost. The grief, but excitement, when only a finger might have been found will be engraved forever in his mind. Standing at attention at a funeral, to be stunned when it was only a small casket brought forward with only a portion of a body inside, painted an awesome picture of the importance of life for him and for us as he shared his experiences.

This is America. We are a Christian nation with Biblical values and precedents. The many days that he and countless others spent searching through the rubble with the ash and the stench and the wreckage are proof of that. The grief that was present in that place was in an ominous way, still tangible. There is an importance that is placed on the remains of our loved ones, and that made itself excruciatingly apparent there as they searched over and over through the ruins. "Hope" was the seed of that effort. "Honor" was the root. And "respect", the catalyst that allowed it all to take place. I will never forget his words.

"We dig", he softly and respectfully imparted to our quiet, listening hearts.

In Summary

The Bible doesn't necessarily speak to cremation. Rather it exalts burial to allow us to discern what it is we are to do.

Yes, we have the freedom in Christianity to do what we want. But, which action brings the most glory to God?  Burial has typically been the Judeo-Christian worldview in regard to the symbolic reflection of the Resurrection and respect for the life and body that God has created. Those cremated will still join the Lord and receive their new bodies, but to condone cremation is to support another loss of all that is God's best that He intended for us while here on earth. In my opinion, with cremation, we simply join the world in its digression and we slowly destroy another Christian tradition and belief. For me, cremation is, in fact, another attack on Christianity.

Now I have been to beautiful celebrations of life where someone was cremated. The emphasis on God and the after-life can still be the central focus. But it is after the celebration takes place for which I am concerned. There is no visual, public record, or statement of this life. There is no place to go and quietly grieve. There is no further tangible connection for us left behind here on earth. I find that heart-breaking.

Stored away in an urn, or carefully scattered at a place of importance to someone - both are options that still destroy the record and history. More importantly it destroys an opportunity for sharing God. What does one see over and over at a cemetery, but the historical record of the relevance of God to a nation that once reverenced Him. And that's important.

Russia, Russia, Russia

Judge Jeanine has had enough of "Russia, Russia, Russia" and so have I!

 Judge Tells It Like It Is!  Well worth the view! 

Skunks in the Chicken House!

What is a United States Senator doing sticking his nose in somewhere I don't think it yet belongs. Why is a senator trying to disrupt the vote that is first set and truly should first come forward in the House? No, really! Why? I don't get it.

Senator Rand Paul started his attention seeking theatrics weeks ago. He was dead set to paint the new healthcare bill as something disastrous. He was the first one to call it "Obamacare Light", wasn't he? Well, he was successful in bringing the damage he sought. The bill failed and he couldn't be happier. What was that all about? Why wasn't he working to make the bill something more successful, instead of aggressively fighting it every step of the way?

The Freedom Caucus (conservative members of the House) was very influential and indeed successful in getting some important changes to the bill. If the citizens had been educated about those changes, they surely would have wanted their representatives to support it. But I just don't think people understood. The misinformation out there that comments on social media reveal is unbelievable. I do understand why it was so difficult though. I really, really had to work at finding the correct information. It was terribly confusing. I was beginning to think no one understood.

But aligning themselves with Democrats, those that think of themselves as the most conservative members are, in fact, the ones that caused this bill to fail. It was extremely disappointing for me, because many of these conservatives are usually the people I like to support. But for them, the bill simply wasn't "pure' enough so they voted "no". They wanted it their way or the highway. They wanted it all or nothing. But actually, when does 100% ever work in government? It doesn't, and it never has. They were successful in making it look like it was only the efforts of the evil RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) who were pushing this bill forward and seeking passage. That simply isn't the case. I am tired of the intended division that is caused by name-calling and finger-pointing. The truth is, in my opinion, is that the members that voted "no", were far more concerned that they would lose their legislative seats, than passing this legislation. That fear seems to have controlled them and appeared more important to them than taking the time to educate their constituents about what the bill entailed. Politics before what is best for our nation.

There is no one that understands Constitutional Law with a Christian perspective better than Jay Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice. They came out in support of this bill. On Friday before the vote, Jay and his son, Jordan, did an excellent live review of the law and the reasons they supported it. It made more sense than anything I have seen, read, or heard. You can view it here and I recommend it to everyone.

 

Here is a quick break down in terms of the bill that someone as simple minded as me can understand:

• It got rid of the individual mandate.
• It got rid of the employer mandate.
• It put things back in state control.
• It rolled back taxes. This would have been repealed and taxes RETURNED!
• It eliminated the issues that were a problem for businesses like Hobby Lobby.
• It eliminated funding of Planned Parenthood.
• It would have helped the economy!

Many people have said they were concerned about the apparent rush to push the bill through the House. They lamented that it was happening so fast. But there was a reason for that. Federal funding comes up in April. Now that this bill has failed, Planned Parenthood will once again be funded. The passage of this bill would have prevented that funding and time was of the essence.

The points in the above list are the simple terms that are important to me. These are the facts that I can relate to and figure out for myself. Below is a post I took from Facebook. It is written by someone that knows a whole heck of a lot more than me. I am sorry I did not get his name. He has outlined the bill and the three phases it was designed to reach in more official terms. He demonstrates what was to happen in each of the three phases that would have occurred had this first phase passed. This is what the gentleman wrote:

"Bottom line you and other Freedom Caucus members only want to repeal Obamacare with no replacement. That will require 60 votes in the Senate.

Executive summary of what you did not support:

The Three Phase Approach to Repeal and Replace Obamacare ...

Phase 1 ...

REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMACARE ...
(Budget reconciliation process requiring 51 votes in Senate):

▶ Eliminate Obamacare’s mandates and penalties.▶ Dismantle the trillion dollars of Obamacare taxes.
▶ Provide real assistance for the middle class through tax credits to help individuals and families purchase the insurance they want.
▶ Put Medicaid, the Federal Government's primary health care program for low income individuals and families on a sustainable foundation.▶ Give individuals and families more control over their healthcare dollars and decisions by expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSA).▶ Provide resources and flexibility to States to empower them to bring premiums down and help their vulnerable citizens.

Phase 2 ...

PROVIDE ESSENTIAL REGULATORY RELIEF ...
(HHS/Tom Price):

▶ Adopting regulatory reforms to stabilize insurance markets and increase coverage choices for patients, including insurance portability and purchasing across state lines beginning as early as 2018.
▶ Loosening restrictions on the financial structure of insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges, which will give individuals and families access to lower premium options.
▶ Improving choices for patients and putting downward pressure on prices by curbing abuses of the enrollment processes and encouraging full-year enrollment.

Phase 3 ...

REFORM HEALTHCARE THROUGH ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION ...
(Outside of budget reconciliation process that requires 60 votes in Senate):

▶ Allow health insurance to be sold across state lines.▶ Allow Americans to use the money in their HSAs to pay for more healthcare costs.
▶ Streamline processes at the FDA, removing the red tape that slows down approvals of generic competitors to high-price drugs in order to lower the cost of medicine.
▶ Allow small businesses to band together, through Association Health Plans, and negotiate for lower health insurance costs for their employees .
▶ Reform the medical malpractice lawsuit system by ending doctors’ incentives to practice unnecessarily costly medicine.

Return power to the states to:

▶ Set the safeguards and other parameters governing their own health insurance markets, including repealing any of Obamacare’s insurance market distortions that could not be included in a budget reconciliation bill .
▶ Set priorities and enact creative solutions for serving their most vulnerable citizens in the Medicaid program.
▶ Lower premiums for everyone in their state through the use of high risk pools, reinsurance, health savings accounts, and other solutions, and provide assistance to lower income people."

Sounds pretty darn good to me.

So many (including Sean Hannity) were saying: "The Republicans have had 7 years to get this done!" Blame, blame, blame! "Why didn't they have something ready?" is the oft repeated refrain.

But the truth is Republicans did have the bill ready. It was the previously written Tom Price Bill and President Trump strategically appointed Tom Price as Director of Health and Human Services. The bill WAS ready! They were using the previous bill that Tom Price had helped prepare.

The attitude that we saw, yesterday, in the few Republicans that wouldn't support this bill is what kept it from moving forward and it is a dangerous attitude, in my opinion. It is the same attitude that we saw in 2008 and 2012 when the Ron Paul agenda so badly divided conservatives that people stayed home in the general election, rather than get out and vote for someone that Ron Paul had deemed as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Because of that divide we got Obama - not just once, but twice. Yeah that claim to "purity" really worked well, didn't it?

Why is it always the Paul's that do the disrupting? Why is it yet another Paul that once again keeps a conservative plan, strategy, or answer from moving forward? You know, the Paul's that keep claiming to be not really Republican, but libertarian?

I still suspect a skunk in the chicken house, just as I did in 2008 and 2012. It is interesting to me it is two of the same name. Surely their disruptive efforts and continued success to those ends are just coincidental, but I am really getting tired of it. 

Rand's bill is supposedly ready; waiting in the wings to move forward. It remains to be seen if it is indeed anymore conservative than this one was, or if it will even get anywhere. It will be interesting to see. If it isn't, we can safely assume all the distraction and dissatisfaction Rand created was only about Rand and getting his name on the bill. That name. Things smell like a skunk to me.

 

Taking Our Temperature

Everyone loves to read small poignant quotes from a celebrity or author they recognize. I think we all love to read those little memes on social media, that get our attention with a photo and just a few words. Thoughts that will make one think; that are to the point, and that are heart hitting seem to be pretty popular these days. I believe quotes probably always have been useful.

I love them myself. A few eloquent words to express what we are thinking, validates what we believe and often encourages us.

If I use a quote in my writing or on social media, however, I am extremely careful to do research on who said it and why. I like things used in context to understand the true meaning. I believe it is extremely important.

Further, I also want to know what exactly the person who said it stands for, and what their world view might be. The reason for this is simply that I do not want to promote someone who has an opposite belief system as mine. That is something for each of us to determine; but I am not going to unwittingly promote someone with whom I disagree. Say for example, I quoted someone who is a racist. Maybe the quote had nothing to do with race, but people knowing who he is, might then believe that I am a racist, or that I support racism. And that would be a fair assumption, in my opinion. Simply because someone said something that was correct on one issue and I have quoted them, it would be natural to think that I might agree with the author and we are like-minded on everything. It is simply human nature to think this way. Or what if someone saw the quote and they liked it too? What if they didn't know anything about the author of the quote, but then started trying to find other writings or information about this person? That would be quite common. What if they found that everything this person believed was detrimental to their life style, but they did not yet have the wisdom or discernment to recognize the fallacies or problems? What if they trusted me for my discernment on these things and I carelessly let them down?

You probably know where I am going with this by now. With all the recent discussion about the new movie, The Shack, I am a bit surprised by the acceptance of it by Christians. I decided it was time to weigh in, myself.

I think I have pretty much heard or read all the arguments. I believe I pretty well understand the pros and cons that have been brought ever since the book by author Paul Young was published in 2007. The main argument among Christians who defend this book/movie seems to be...

• "Well anything that gets us talking about God is good." 
• "Use it as an evangelism tool, by talking about it."

The discussion, when these people are pressed, then usually ends in:

• "It's fiction!!"

But these arguments never seem to address the point that there are non-believers that are going to see this movie without the benefit of evangelism. Not everyone has someone in their life that can help clarify, or advise them. Unbelievers are going to be left with the belief that this is who our God is. There are going to be baby Christians, or those that are not solid in their faith, that can easily be led astray by incorrect doctrine. I believe we are all accountable for that, wherever it crosses our paths.

"But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." ~ 1 Corinthians 8:9. There are numerous verses regarding this; I believe that demonstrates its importance.

Taking such liberties with our faith that Paul Young has in this book, there is a very good chance that his next work may be even more inaccurate and even more dangerous. What then? We have opened a can of worms by our acceptance of the first. Where and when are we going to draw the line and stand for truth?

Aren't we encouraged in Scripture to take a firm stand?  "To chose this day whom we will serve." We are taught in 1 Peter 5:8 to "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"

We must understand good and evil and promote that which is right. We, as Christians, know well the admonishments; why do we chose to ignore them when it comes to this?

The postmodernism being taught in our schools and colleges today would have us believe that there is no black and white. They insist there are only shades of grey that we need to manipulate as we walk through our lives. Well, perhaps things do turn grey in our life. But that doesn't mean things are NOT black and white; good and evil; right and wrong. It only means we have accepted the grey as we try to finagle the path we have chosen.

The media, many in Hollywood, and those who despise our faith, love to test us. They love to take our temperature by disseminating a little controversy at a time. They want to see just exactly what we will accept and how far they can maneuver their agenda. Those that would seek to destroy our faith want to push us to see how far they can go before we will say, "WHOA!! Enough is enough!"

 For those that say this book/movie is only fiction: I would say BUT! But  there is a problem with that thought! This movie is being haled and touted as a "Christian movie"! The movie has been given a designation of "Christian" which demonstrates that it should hold to Christian values and beliefs. And quite simply, it absolutely does NOT. It has an intentional connection to Christianity, so therefore there is a greater danger in its teaching, than a movie that truly is "just fiction" - i.e. one that has no correct doctrine, nor any intentions to try to teach doctrine. The bigger danger with this movie is that it is being haled as such a great "Christian" movie! That is far more dangerous than say A Dog's Purpose that talks about reincarnation of DOGS, but no intention to promote a faith. This movie is far more worrisome than those little Hallmark movies that are often off doctrinally, but still like to occasionally mention God.

There comes a time, when we must stand for the Word of God. We cannot let untruths continue, because they make us feel good. We cannot continue to rationalize and justify, and present straw man arguments simply because it is something we see as innocuous. There comes a time when we must chose between good and evil, black and white, right and wrong. We must stand for our faith and the doctrinal issues that are the Cornerstone of what we believe.

There are numerous warnings in Scripture about false teachers. There is also a warning for those who believe they are called to teach. This verse is often overlooked. We all like to be considered teachers at times. It builds us up; makes us feel useful and like we know more than most. And truthfully, when we are promoting something as well-known and discussed as this movie - in an instance such as this - we are teaching our faith. We best head this clear warning.

3My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.  ~ James 3:1-2 NKJV

Finally, we all know the story about the frog thrown into hot water that will quickly jump out. But a frog in cool water, when the water is slowly heated to a boil, will simply accept it and be boiled to his death.

Shouldn't we be aware that a little truth watered down or misconstrued is no truth at all? Shouldn't we want to be on fire for our faith and stand for truth wherever we can? The non-believer will not have discernment to recognize doctrinal error, but they will recognize one who contends firmly for their faith as opposed to one who is on the fence, or one who has a taste for the world. The unbeliever is taking our temperature, too. And really, when people are seeking truth, they want truth. Why would we give them anything else?

¹⁶ So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

~ Revelation 3:16 KJV

 

Politics and Religion

 

"Never talk politics or religion." I don't know who said it, but this quote has been used for as long as I can remember to silence people. In fact, I don't think anyone knows who said it. For all we know it could have been Timothy Leary, Saul Alinsky, Joseph Stalin, or some other political radical. Who knows, who cares. Just repeat it, because it is easy, safe and gives us an excuse.

 

In my opinion, this quote is the biggest lie coming directly from Satan since the time he told Eve the fruit would open her eyes and she would be like God. Genesis 3:4-5

⁴ Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. ⁵ For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Yes, Scripture does warn us about foolish arguments as in the verses I have posted below. Christians love to use these verses as their excuse to not be involved in politics, or to have to state their opinion on almost any matter. But when they use these verses in this way, they are taking them out of context. 

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. ¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; ¹¹ Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. 
~Titus 3: 9 - 11

And this one:

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.         ²⁴And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,                                                                                                                              ²⁵ In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;  ~2 Timothy 2: 23 - 25

Paul warned both Titus and Timothy to stay out of foolish arguments, or discussions that would never go anywhere. But that doesn't mean we are to bow out of discussions; or ignore difficult verses in the Bible that may be hard to understand or that may be controversial. To ignore such verses would be the height of foolishness, and contrary to what Scripture tells us elsewhere. For example:

• "Study to show thy selves approved." 2 Timothy 2:15;
• "Declare the full counsel of the word of God." Acts 20:27 and Acts: 20:20;
• "There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors." Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 15:22, Proverbs 20: 18 and Proverbs 24:6.

The instruction in the verses in Proverbs, particularly, show discussion is beneficial. One learns in open discussion, because several points can be made that one may not have been otherwise considered - points that will be brought to light in conversation.

Paul gave the admonishment in Titus due to false teachers basing their heresies on genealogies and speculations about the law. He gave the same instruction to Timothy in 1 Timothy: 3-4. Paul had to speak to this problem because there were false doctrines causing divisions within the church that threatened correct teaching. He wanted to prevent the possibility of a split among new Christians. His words, of course, are relevant today as well. We are warned to avoid false doctrine. The truth is and what Paul was concerned with was there could be more problems that arise by the discussion or publicity of an untruth. Further, as noted in the Jamieson/Fausset Commentary, his concern was about "making the works of the law required for justification in opposition to the Gospel of grace".  This was something that was occurring at that time.

 

But this Verse was certainly not intended to avoid talking about the Word of God at all; or even about politics or civic duty.

Jesus spoke about things that may be considered "political" today, i.e. civic duty and even morality. Jesus told us to pay our taxes. He condemned the sin, while loving the sinner. He simply didn't argue about it after his point was made. But He certainly never told us to be silent. Quite the contrary, He told us to go to all nations: Mark 16: 15; and Matthew 28:19 among others. He commanded us in civic duty as in Matthew 17:27 and Matthew 22:21. And there are countless other Bible verses that tell us to obey civil governments and leaders: Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13, etc. There is certainly nothing wrong in discussing civic duty in order to bring about a better awareness. And Jesus never chastised anyone for that, nor do I believe He intended that to be considered a problem.

Are we not to imitate Jesus as much as possible? Civic duty and discussion is extremely important in any society. It is a "cop out" to use this verse to avoid responsibility.

Rather, Paul in his instruction to Timothy and Titus (and to us!) was speaking with regard to unimportant details or even "godless chatter" as the commentary in the Life Application Bible refers to it. He wasn't telling us to refrain from civil discourse, or Bible studies.

Again, the admonishment in both Timothy and Titus was due to false teachers spreading false doctrine in the church and causing divide. Another verse often cited is 1 Timothy 6:3-5, but this verse is, in fact, about using the church for financial gain. It had nothing to do with politics. And it was certainly not meant to prevent civil discourse.

It is extremely disheartening to see people take these verses out of context to make a point that in itself is a political point. Don't kid yourself; your silence is making a statement loud and clear. And our opponents win by our silence. Please be sure that that is the statement you want to make and that you are not simply caving to someone's political agenda by trying to shame you into silence.

The Right Track

As expected, there has been a whole lot of commentary about President Trump's inauguration speech. Pundits are weighing in on television, talk radio, and of course magazines and newspapers.

Some claim Trump's speech was a "populist" speech. Some are lamenting that it revealed far too much "nationalism" - that it was a selfish, greedy, isolationist speech. Some have noted it was a "capitalistic" speech. Other than it being greedy, selfish and isolationist, I agree with all of those assessments. One could make a case for each.

Regardless, it showed, clearly, that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to the American people. That is really what this speech reflected. He was speaking directly to Americans and letting us know he understands exactly why we elected him. He was simply reiterating what he had always said while campaigning. This was closing the deal, so to speak. He was letting us know that he heard America's voices loud and clear; and that is exactly what he will be acting on. It is what his base required of him and he is responding in accordance.

One cannot make the case it is selfish, greedy or isolationist. Please allow me to explain.

First of all Nationalism is NOT evil. It is God-given; and we should be good stewards of whatever it is that God has given us.

That God created the nations is an indisputable fact! It is a truth without question. 

The Bible tells us in Acts 17:26:  "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

But we have also been shown this truth throughout the history of man.

For example, the Tower of Babel, created by man and confounded by God, is explained in Genesis 11. Simply and concisely explained for this article, they were trying to build an idol to heaven. When the Lord saw this, He confounded their language, and the end result was people who could no longer communicate and thus were hindered in their endeavor.

"From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." The end result was nations.

Secondly, God designated specific land and boundaries and gave them to Abraham, as also explained in Genesis.

Finally, another proof of God's desire for nations is His end times warning of a one world government. The nations, and specifically Israel, were created for a time clock which serves as an evangelical tool for Christians.  Boundaries were promised and set. But I am getting too far from topic now; that discussion is for another post. Suffice it to say, a one world government is not His intent. That is, until Jesus returns again. Until then, there is a need for nations.

If nations and boundaries were God's intent, why then are we so afraid of them? Why do we look at them as something evil? Why are we afraid to grow and support our own nation? Why is it suddenly evil to feel a sense of pride for one's nation? This is a relatively new phenomena. Capitalism and Nationalism - even American Exceptionalism - used to be seen as good things and something for which we were grateful.

Personally, I believe the current negativism we are seeing is because we have had an abundance of leftist teaching in our schools, media, and more recently, even our churches. Contrary to what is being taught, Nationalism should be seen as the means to being good stewards to what God has given us.

There is nothing greedy about Capitalism. It is Capitalism that grows a nation's economy. America MUST be strong in order to keep bringing aid to the world which is a primary necessity for enabling us to share the Gospel. How are we going to be able to help those in need, if we let ourselves spiral downward into citizens that can barely take care of ourselves, let alone offer gifts of benevolence to others? There is a distinct lack of understanding by many, especially in  the millennial generation, in regard to why America must remain strong and successful. If people cannot understand this, it is because they absolutely do not understand Capitalism and have been taught to believe it is something greedy and evil.

If we are strong as individuals, our nation will be strong. If we win, other nations win. That has always been the case. For the past eight years we have been blasted with the rhetoric that describes us an Imperialistic nation only out for ourselves - that we are out to control the world. America is NOT and never has been an Imperialistic nation. Under the Obama administration, this belief especially became more widespread. But what nation have we ever tried to take over or control? Dinesh D'Souza does a fantastic job of explaining this inaccurate description in his book Obama's America. America has in the past, always understood the need for strength in order to show benevolence to those around the world who have far less wealth. It is what we have always done!

Our nation was created with the Founders intentions for benevolence to come from the individual, not the government who then could attach strings to their lives and control them. They had learned their lesson from Jamestown, and had it not been for John Smith taking 2 Thessalonians 3:10 to heart and putting it into action, they would have never been successful. "If you do not work, neither shall you eat." So to say we are not Christian if we don't allow for the welfare state is simply inaccurate and extremely destructive to our system. Jimmy Carter has long been one of the chief players in promoting this false narrative.

A man who simply doesn't get it.
Or, is he more dangerously one that wants to mislead us?

Furthermore, to say we are a selfish people because we want strong borders is a farce. You cannot allow laws to be broken in the name of compassion. It breaks down all other laws and the strength of a nation to protect their own citizens, which is the first role of government. We are a nation of laws which must be respected. With the President's latest executive order regarding immigrants coming into our nation, the left has been thrown into a tizzy; all of them suddenly becoming so godly and concerned with our Christian nation not acting like one.

Finally if we are to remain strong - to be a beacon of light to the world - we must insist on peace through strength. We must have a strong military in order to accomplish the kind of strength that will deter others from trying to take advantage of us. Our military might cannot be torn down as it was under the Obama administration -  to pre WWII levels. We must grow and empower our military, not use it as a social experiment. Our homeland must, above all, be protected. That is the purpose of our government. The government's primary role is to protect the people.

The liberal left trying to make us look like we are not Christ-like is laughable when one considers they have relentlessly tried to remove God from every aspect of our lives. Schools, government, television - you name it. God is not welcomed there. This is all a false narrative, false accusations to try to lead people to another way of thinking. God did not intend nations to set themselves up as sitting ducks, in order for other nations and peoples to take advantage.

President Trump is on the right track and we need to pay attention, be alert, be on our knees and help him get there.

Deuteronomy 32:8
Psalm 74:17
Acts 17:26