Reproach of Men

This lesson is probably misnamed somewhat. But perhaps not, as it addresses the issue of reproof and our attitude about it. Nonetheless, any society, any nation is made up of its people. Hence, its character is defined by its people. If its people will not bear reproof, will not bear correction, then there is little that can be done for that society, that nation.

This lesson is in two parts.

Part One:

Part Two:

For those wishing to download the file or the podcast does not work, the following link to the mp3 files.

Setting A Society Up For Failure – Part 1

Setting A Society Up For Failure – Part 2

There are some things that simply defy explanation — and I am not talking about the processes of nature. Rather, what I refer to is human behavior. There are some things that men do that simply defy explanation, and this post is about one of those things.

As I am certain all know by this point, that Al Gore, Jr. has been on a crusade to war against “global warming” and has spared no effort is seeking to accomplish his self-appointed task of saving the earth against the ravages of modern human habitation. From his point of view, modern, industrialized man is producing excessive pollutants, particularly carbon (a basic element) and that is driving the earth’s overall temperature up, and will result in the destruction of civilization as we know it.

Now, I (as many others also) have pointed out that we cannot reliably predict the weather 5 days in advance, so how is this possible that we will know the weather 40 years from now? Moreover, it has been proven that the number one “greenhouse gas” is actually water. Sadly, it covers 70% of the earth’s surface and there is nothing we can do about that. (Since that’s not much of a bogeyman, and we can’t do anything about it, Al Gore can’t seem to use that in his campaign. Wonder why?) It has been pointed out by many that the entire database of information Al Gore and others use to promote their scenario is flawed in the way the data is interpreted. However, that is not enough to persuade Al and friends to hold their horses and wait for better data. Instead, they charge ahead full steam and say we must change seeing that when we finally get “good data” it will be far too late. This is a wonderful bit of self-justifying logic that is used to bludgeon opponents into submission (or at least keeping their mouth shut).

It is the self-justifying logic that requires question here — along with a lot of other things the “climate change” advocates state. Where I differ with the other opponents of Al Gore and company is the basis upon which to challenge the presumptions of global warming. Where most talk about data, statistics, weather patterns, and our overall lack of understanding of the earth’s weather, I see the necessity of a different approach.

Some centuries ago, a certain highly visible religious organization held to the belief that the earth was flat, and persecuted anyone who disagreed. This was in spite of the fact that the Scripture plainly and expressly taught (and still does) that the earth was indeed round, and a ball hanging in space.

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. (Isaiah 40:21-23)

Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. (Job 26:5-8)

Of course, those who followed the Bible back then knew the earth was round, and held in space by the commandment and power of God. Everyone else holding to the view of the Catholic Church, is today ridiculed as being a member of the “Flat Earth Society.” Due to this, it is a little on the funny side of things for Al Gore to refer to his detractors as “Flat Earthers.” Now he means to do this as he believes global warming to be a fact. However, we can believe many things to be fact, when in reality they are not. The funny part about this relates to the fact that the Catholic Church absent the Scripture to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat, and Al Gore has come to the conclusion global warming is occurring absent the Scripture, yet he calls those who question the claims of global warming “Flat Earthers”. Kind like the pot calling the kettle black. It is made more ironic by the fact of his tailoring the presentation to the particular audience of the moment:

“His slideshows are tailored to his audiences. For example, when he talks to evangelical Christians, he includes passages from the Bible.

Gore is trying to redefine this as a moral and spiritual issue. “We all share the exact same interest in doing the right thing on this. Who are we as human beings? Are we destined to destroy this place that we call home, planet earth? I can’t believe that that’s our destiny. It is not our destiny. But we have to awaken to the moral duty that we have to do the right thing and get out of this silly political game-playing about it. This is about survival,” he said.”¹

Now, I will leave our stewardship of this earth to another time and another article. What I wish to focus on is the lack of understanding that Al Gore and others have of the Creator and His ability to create an environment that is well able to withstand man’s physical endeavors. This should not be surprising as they either deny the existence of the LORD God, or they acknowledge Him only long enough to invoke His name to deceive others into believing their cause. Nonetheless, the proof of the LORD God’s understanding was once again shown in an article which was published by the BBC this week:

“Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.”²

Now, the article goes on to try to salvage global warming as a valid theory, but the evidence in the article is clear:

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.³

Well, what would one expect? After all, the Scripture is express:

He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:4-5)

In the LORD God’s infinite understanding it is obvious that He already knew what man would do, and already prepared a regulator, a thermostat (if you will) to control the earth’s overall temperature. After all, He knew in eternity past that man would fall, long before He ever created man, or this world:

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. (I Peter 1:17-21)

Now, it would be foolish to say that man is not damaging this earth, we are. However, it is not our physical acts, and so-called global warming that is doing the damage. Instead, the damage is being done by our own wicked hearts and the sin we engage in:

The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left. (Isaiah 24:4-6)

No, it’s not our “technology” and “modern society” that is doing the damage, but the same wickedness that has existed in the heart of man since the Fall. This same wickedness brought about the destruction of the Flood, and will bring about the destruction of this universe by fire. Thus, it is Al Gore that is actually in the category of being a “Flat Earther” for denying and misusing Scriptural truth.

1. CBS, 60 Minutes, Mar. 30th, 2008↩
2. Global Temperatures ‘to decrease’↩
3. ibid↩

In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

“My flippancy is pretty much a response to his implicit attempt to get a pragmatic person with prioritized values to be for something they are very much against, based on principle. It stinks and I don’t accept it.”

Yes I know, it’s a mouthful. However, I am not the one who stated it and I will not point out who stated it. It is sufficient to point out that the statement was indeed made and the individual was sincere about the statement. What I will point out is the commonality of this thinking in Americans.

The above statement brings to light a very serious problem in American society and is the reason that we, as a nation and people, are under the rather unpleasant judgement of God. The person quoted above responded in the manner they did in reply to the assertion that principle, particularly the principle of honesty, trumps all other consideration when we are determining who is fit to hold the public trust. If we note in their response, there are a couple things that they have determined are far more important than honesty and the principle behind it:

1. Their pragmatism.
2. Their “prioritized values” based upon that pragmatism.

This is an interesting, albeit incorrect way to look at things, and it does tend to lead one to some very interesting conclusions. The LORD has much to say about this kind of thinking.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverb 14:12; Proverb 16:25)

The above verse from Scripture is given twice (hence the two references) and in principle is stated again in Proverbs:

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Now, pragmatism is defined as:

“an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

And is a result of being “pragmatic,” which is:

“dealing with things in a practical rather than theoretical way.”

That would be all well and good, except the frame of reference from which the individual quoted above starts is nowhere near the truth. How can we know that? Because of the answer given. They rejected the principle of the truth and its application in favor of their own evaluation apart from the absolute truth of both the word of God and principle.

Practically speaking, it is far better to have the truth, than to not have it, even if it is inconvenient at the moment. Why? Because at least we will know where we are at. In light of placing someone in a position of public trust, it would seem to be a no-brainer that we would always want someone who is unfailingly honest– even if they tell us things we don’t want to hear.

Nonetheless, the individual quoted above rejected that position based upon their own understanding of what is “real” and thus “practical” and extrapolated from there. The end result is a departure from the firm foundation of principle, and the truth, and results in building values that have no solid foundation.

There is a way that seemeth right, . . .

What this means is a failure to set aside our own perceptions and follow the proven path. Instead, we follow our perception thinking it to be right because we, based upon our experience, have determined that we do perceive rightly. It is very much like testing an instrument against itself. If the instrument is flawed, it will give a flawed reading every time. Testing it against itself only yields flawed readings set against other flawed readings. Hence, when the instrument is “adjusted,” it is adjusted to be consistent, but yet still inaccurate. What it takes to become accurate is another instrument that is traceable and proven to be consistently accurate compared to the flawed instrument, and the flawed instrument adjusted accordingly.

When we reject principle, and do that which seems to be right, we walk the same path that Israel walked, and we do that which is right in our own eyes. As we can see by the Scripture, doing so brought judgement and yielded death to Israel. Even though they were warned, they did not believe the warning as they determined that they had the right way to proceed, and would not be swayed or persuaded from that path.

Now, it’s not like we haven’t been amply warned as well. Not only do we have the Scripture and its admonition about abandoning principle and following our own way; we have had leaders in the past who warned about this very thing. U.S. Representative James C. Greenwood of Pennsylvania gave the following in a debate some years ago over the issue of a high public official who lied about his activities in office:

“Two quotes of relevance, my colleagues. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Sin has many tools, but the lie is the handle which fits them all.”“

“Nearly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt observed, “We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff and foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty, if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit, as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest,” he said, “we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not how brilliant his capacity.””

Thus, when we reject the principle of honesty, whether we are willing to acknowledge it or not, we have accepted and bought into the lie – and all the death and evil that comes with it

. . .but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Out of the blue, on Saturday morning, I received an e-mail from Aaron, the gentleman I have been contending with over the issue of Calvinism. Now, Aaron is not just a Calvinist, but a Charismatic Calvinist. Personally, I don’t see how the two fit together, but there are a number of folks who are just that. I found out within the last few months that Charismatic Calvinism is a relatively new phenomena that is only about 30, possibly as old as 40 years, but is certainly no older¹ and is sometimes referred to as “Reformed Charismatic” or “reformed third wave/charismatic.”

This, in itself, causes me to look askance at it for one simple reason:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (I Timothy 4:1-3)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. (II Timothy 3:1-9)

Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I take those warnings seriously, just like I take the following seriously:

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)

You know, that is a REAL GOOD QUESTION:

Will the Lord Jesus Christ find faith on the earth when He returns?

By the way, it is rhetorical . . .²

Now, the above bears heavily upon the following e-mail exchange with Aaron. However before examining the e-mails, it is imperative to understand that charismatic/Pentecostal doctrine and practice are all about signs, and a signs ministry. And, what the Scripture has to say about signs and the signs ministry.

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. (Matthew 16:4)

We should also understand that signs can be duplicated:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. (Exodus 8:5-7)

And, signs are of the flesh and by the physical senses, not by faith:

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (I Corinthians 1:22-24)

If anything ought to tell us a signs ministry is not what we ought to be doing, the above statement by the apostle Paul ought to. After all, he contrasts “For the Jews require a sign” with “we preach Christ crucified” by juxtaposing them with the word “But.” In short, it is not signs that we should do, but preach Christ crucified. In sum, it is not “signs and miracles” that get people to come to Christ and be saved. Rather, it is the preaching of the gospel, and faith. Everything else is simply substituting what can be perceived with the physical senses — for faith.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (II Corinthians 4:17-18)

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:6-8)

The reason for the strong emphasis on faith versus the physical senses is due to the fact that we cannot know the source of any sign that is done. In fact, in the days to come, all the signs will be performed by the Anti-Christ, and those supporting him:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (II Thessalonians 2:3-10)

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (Revelation 13:11-15)

Of course, we are warned about those who present themselves as ministers of Christ, and are not:

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (II Corinthians 11:12-15)

With that, I leave you to examine the e-mail exchange, and consider just where we are today. And yes, I do believe the gentleman is unsaved, and possibly demon-possessed. I don’t immediately recollect ever calling him a “moron,” but I could be wrong, and I would have to examine all the e-mails exchanged to be certain. If so, it was definitely in the context of him blatantly ignoring something so obvious that only someone utterly lacking in intelligence could miss it. By the way, it really is something to be called a “Pharisee” and then be told “God bless” all in the same paragraph. I have yet to figure that one out.

NOTE: Messages are in order, from first to last, separated by a solid line.

Aaron wrote:

Paul,

Why do you think there are thousands of Christian denominations? We have the same Bible. It is amazing to me how man has taken God’s word, and made it their own. Man has lifted up certain scriptures taking them out of context, and made doctrine out of them. Example: We debate over if you can lose your salvation or not; if baptism is required for salvation or not; if the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for today or not; We have Pre-trib, Mid-trib, Post-trib rapture debates over the church; if hell is real or not; Millenium debates; some Christians believe in Universalism; some Christians believe in Armianism; some Christians believe in Calvinism; the list goes on and on.. There is one truth to all of these debates that divide the church. Why do you suppose Christian denominatons are all over the place when it comes to doctrine and theology? Answer: Man walks in the flesh, lifts up scripture out of context, makes doctrine and theology out of it.

But there is good news. In these last days, God is going to shake up the American, religious, cotton candy gospel giving church, and raise up people who want to walk in Holy Ghost miracle power to get people saved healed and delivered in Jesus name. You are going to see people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, deaf ears hearing, cancer falling off people, people getting up out of their wheel chairs, casting out devils. This is already happening in other countries. The days of playing Church are over in this country. Either you are going to be apart of this or your going to be a spectator. God bless.

Aaron

Aaron,

First, we do not all have the same Bible. The source texts for all those bibles are considerably different with thousands of variant readings. There are two major distinct Greek text families of the source texts. There are three distinct separate major variations of the Old Testament Hebrew with considerable variation in the readings.

Second, what the label says, and what’s in the can, bear no resemblance to each other. Just because the vast majority of the folks out there carry the label of Christian, does not mean they are. To be a Christian, one must follow Christ, and that the Christ of the Scriptures. By that I mean they are not free to remake Christ into someone that “fits” a distorted doctrine. For instance, Catholics are not Christians, and were not known as Christians for centuries. Instead they were known as Catholics, and they followed the doctrine and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Bible. In fact, it was forbidden for Catholics to even possess or read the Bible for centuries – by order of the Popes. It has only been in the last 300 years that they have successfully relabeled themselves “Christian.”

If we care to really examine the doctrine of many other “Christian” groups out there, we will find they are also not really Christian, but merely have applied that label to themselves so they would be more acceptable to everyone.

You have fallen for the deception of ecumenism, and are not careful in examining who believes what, and what Bible you really ought to use.

–
In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

Aaron wrote:
By your response- you will be a spectator- arguing over doctrine, what Bible to use- pointing your Pharisaical finger at people-while God is raising up the real Body of Christ who will walk in Apostolic Holy Ghost power to get people saved healed and delivered in Jesus name. Your response is typical and proves my point the condition of the American Religious Cotton Candy Gospel Giving Church. The miracles are already happening in other countries and will soon happen in America, God is going to shake the American church where she needs to be shaken to wake her up! You have fleshly, religious, denominational strongholds only God can break. God bless.

Aaron,

You’re setting yourself up for the Anti-Christ.

–
In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

Aaron wrote:
I don’t know how to respond to your despicable remarks. I’m a moron, unsaved, and possessed by the devil. You will stand in judgment of your name calling and your behavior towards me. Mark it down. See ya Paul, I have wasted enough time with you. I’m going to get people saved- healed- and delivered in Jesus name. God bless.

1. http://www.charismaticreformed.org/history.htm↩
2. The answer is not a “YES.”↩

I don’t usually comment on current events, or the antics of the more notable individuals in this society, however, what has come to light of late begs for comment. This is especially true when no one bothers to even find out what the Scripture actually states concerning the statement or event that created such a stir.

In this Presidential campaign there has been a return to some unpleasant ugliness that one would have hoped didn’t exist in America. However, if you know and understand the nature of man, then you know what an impossibility that is. However, aside from the mainstream media’s censorship of Ron Paul on the Republican side, the Democrats have had their circus going to full effect with the “conflict” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And now, there is this latest event precipitated by Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Now, Pastor Wright was the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and is the man Barack Obama looks to for guidance in spiritual things. This would not be altogether bad, except for two glaring things:

1. The apparent heart and attitude of Pastor Wright.

2. The unscriptural approach to the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What brought this to light are some of the statements made by Pastor Wright during his messages delivered from the pulpit. Now, to be certain, the pulpit is not the place for personal opinion. It is the place where one is to expound upon the subjects the Lord has for His people to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort them to serve Him better; and to clarify His doctrines in accordance with His word, which is the Scripture. For one to go beyond that and put words in the mouth of God, or to demand God’s wrath upon a nation is egregiously wrong and tantamount to blasphemy.

The following was reported as direct quotes made by Pastor Wright from the pulpit. I will leave blank the offending portions of the statements made.

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, G__ ___ America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “G__ ____ America for treating our citizens as less than human. G__ ____ America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”¹

You know, I don’t find this attitude anywhere, in any of the prophets of the Old Testament, and I certainly do not find this attitude in the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Remarkably, though the apostle Paul was arrested, beaten, imprisoned unlawfully, I do not find this attitude in him either. Do we find condemnation of the nations of ancient time in the Old Testament? We certainly do. But not with this kind of heart and attitude.

Moreover, no one, but no one, tells the LORD God who He is going to condemn, and who He is going to bless. All we can ever do is ask. We are told expressly to ask for the LORD to bless, but conversely, we are not told to ask for condemnation of someone, or some nation:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

What the Lord Jesus Christ instructed on the mount is a far cry from the attitude and heart expressed by Pastor Wright. It does make one wonder who Pastor Wright is following doesn’t it? After all, his attitude is more akin to the attitude expressed by James and John, which was rebuked by the Lord Jesus Christ:

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)

Of course, that Pastor Wright should have such an attitude is not surprising as he has turned away from the Gospel of Christ as the focus of his ministry, and replaced it with something else – social justice. In a statement from John Thomas, the General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, the promotion of “social justice” is prominent:

“But on the gritty streets of Chicago’s south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly?”²

You know, when you abandon the gospel in favor of social justice, don’t expect the LORD to bless, and don’t expect the hearts of individuals to change. When you go further and demand that God condemn a nation, you are of another spirit, which is not of God. It is sad that the President of UCC attempted to paint the prophet Jeremiah with this heart and attitude, and then identify with him in an attempt to justify the words of Pastor Wright. What is missing here is the distinction between acknowledging the judgement levied by the LORD God, and the demanding of God’s judgement upon a nation. Plainly, Pastor Wright would be happy if God judged America and destroyed her. What he seems to have missed is the fact that the LORD God is unhappy with him as well, and Pastor Wright’s anger at America for social injustice may bring about the opposite effect.

Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18)

It makes one wonder who is the head of the UCC and Trinity Church of Christ – the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Devil. After all, they are interested in social justice, and not the gospel of Christ.

1. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788↩
2. http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html↩

I don’t usually make political comment. However, when certain events occur, which have bearing on, and reflect, certain modes of thinking, I do like to use them to point out flaws in the way we (by that I mean particularly fundamental Baptists) think. This is not to say that all the thought processes are wrong, but it is to say that we don’t often “think through” and take the long view when we advocate certain things, and take certain positions regarding political candidates and issues.

It is no secret that this country has fallen a long way from what it used to be. It is no secret that all levels of government in this country, from the Federal level on down to local offices routinely violate the trust reposited in them by virtue of constitutional authority and election to office. It is also no secret that many folks are frustrated by the fact that little seems to be done about it, and it only seems to get worse and not better.

Hence, many fundamental, unaffiliated Baptists have jumped on the bandwagon of openly supporting and campaigning for certain candidates and issues. This, in itself, is not necessarily wrong if — and this is a big if — the candidate actually and totally supports Scriptural doctrine. Otherwise, we end up tying the name of Christ to someone who ultimately reflects badly upon Christ, and tarnishes our witness and testimony. Additionally, it is difficult to witness to someone who supports the opposing candidate if they know that we are openly opposing the person they support. What will happen is that they will focus on our opposition to their candidate and not hear the gospel they so badly need. We must ask ourselves which is the more important — the soul of the person we are speaking to, or winning the vote of that person? I should think the answer is obvious.

However, the above cited issues are not the most egregious of errors in seeking a political solution to this country’s problems. Rather, it is the way of thinking that seeks a political solution, that is the problem. That way of thinking is actually well-encapsulated in the following quote by one of the current Presidential candidates. Mind you, it is an offensive quote to anyone who truly understands what the U.S. Constitution is all about.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blindspot in this culture that carries on until this day, and the Framers had that same blindspot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also it reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”¹

Now, this quote first appeared on the internet on YouTube, and is a snippet of some interview, or answer to some question Barack Obama was asked. However, unlike many quotes that are snippets, there is virtually no way to take this comment out of context. It uses terminology that is far too broad with reference to the subjects at hand to be taken out of context. The use of phrases such as “enormous blindspot” and “fundamental flaw that continues to this day” with reference to the U.S. Constitution and American society are far, far too encompassing.

The problem with this quote is not that it states there is an error in the Constitution. Indeed, many of the anti-federalists thought there were many flaws in the Constitution. It is not that Obama thinks that the flaw is still there. For there are some issues that could be dealt with more firmly by the Constitution. No, the problem with this quote is its inherent misapplication of the Constitution to American society and the problems in society.

While I do not know the context of the remark, I do know the U.S. Constitution and its purpose. The Constitution is the law for the government — a cage if you will. It was not, and is not designed for any other purpose. The Constitution was never designed to reform society, nor can it. The Founders knew that society is not reformed from the “top down,” but that society changes when the individuals in society change their views and consequent values.

Herein lies the problem: this statement by Obama reflects a view that is socialist/communist, in the which government can impose reforms on society, and change the fundamental thinking of individuals by external force, be it by law or otherwise. This kind of thinking was evident in the French Revolution and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. And, this mindset is endemic to every socialist/communist government and has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions over the last century.

Granted, there are ills and disparities in this society, as there are in every society, but the “top down” approach is not the way to fix them — no matter how appealing and expedient it appears to be. We are warned in Scripture about such appealing, expeditious methods and their result.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverb 14:12)

Funny how the LORD gave us that warning, not once, but twice, for it appears again two chapters later in Proverbs 16:25. Hence, it is significant that the easier road, the more expedient path, is not the right one.

This is where we must make application to ourselves. Just as Barack Obama thinks that the ills of society should be resolved using the U.S. Constitution, there are many fundamental Baptists who think that simply electing the “right people” will resolve the issues we have in this country and society, and put us back on the right track.

Like Obama, they could not be more wrong. As stated earlier, the Founders of this nation understood that societies are not changed from the top down, but from the bottom up. They understood that government is only a reflection of the society it governs, which is a very Scriptural concept and understanding of the way the LORD God deals with man. We should understand that nations are the embodiment of societies, and societies are composed of individuals, and individuals act outwardly based upon what is within their hearts. Thus, we should know that the operative principle here stems directly from Jeremiah, chapter 17:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

So it is that electing the right people to office is not really the answer. The real answer to restoring the rule of the Constitution over government, and restoring respect for the law in this country, begins in the heart of every individual. However, that is not going to happen until the LORD’s people decide to follow what the LORD commands them, and have a proper witness and testimony so people see a true difference and distinction between those who claim Christ, and the rest of society. Otherwise, what is claimed is just so much hot air and wishful thinking.

Nonetheless, that also is not going to happen unless and until the LORD’s people change their thinking. Sadly, it is far too evident that many who claim Christ, and name themselves fundamental, unaffiliated Baptists, don’t bother to even learn how the LORD looks at things, let alone how He knows them to be — and thus, how we should think about them.

On a final note: we should understand that, historically, the top down approach to changing society has never worked. Without going into detail, there is no instance in the history of man where any society has ever been permanently changed by imposition of massive, intrusive government control over individual behavior. Rather, every government that has attempted such action has found itself consigned to destruction — usually within a generation or so of attempting to impose such change. In contrast, the LORD’s approach of dealing with the individual, their heart and where they stand before God, changed an entire civilization. We would not know Western Civilization were it not for the influence of the gospel and the Scriptures.

The evidence is pretty plain; it is just sad that of all people, the LORD’s people cannot see it, and thus elect to take a different road — the end of which will be no different for them than it has been for all others who have thought to change society by force of law.

Oh, by the way, Obama is a communist. So I ask: Should fundamental Baptists think the same way communists think?

1. Barack Obama, date not cited↩

The is a rather large bruhaha over the remarks of one Dan Savage, who, in an incredible moment of rank hypocrisy, attacked the Scripture (and thus the LORD God who is the Author of it) at a journalism conference. Mr. Savage is supposed to be the leader of an anti-bullying organization, but when students walked out on him for his remarks about the Scripture, he rather hypocritically bullied them.

According to the CNN report the following is what Mr. Savage stated:

Columnist and gay-rights advocate Dan Savage is standing by his comment that “we can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people” at a recent conference for high school students, a line that prompted some to walk out and spurred intense online debate.¹

When some of the students walked out, the following is what came next:

Some Christian students walked out of the Seattle speech, prompting another controversial line from Savage: “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya**ed people react when you push back.”²

The problem here is that “anti-bullying” as defined by Dan Savage is not about opposing and preventing all forms of bullying. Rather, it is about preventing anti-gay or anti-homosexual bullying. Hence, it is unsurprising that the veneer disappeared for a few moments and the true feelings of Mr. Savage came out. What it also reveals is the incredible ignorance of Dan Savage when it comes to the Scripture. However, we should not be surprised by this ignorance as the vast majority of individuals are ignorant of the Scripture. Sadly, this includes an awful lot of Christians.

Does the Scripture condemn the “gay lifestyle?”

Absolutely. Beyond question, for one to engage in homosexual behavior is to engage in that which is an abomination to the LORD God.

What Mr. Savage and others have failed to do, is ask “Why?”

1. Why does the LORD God so vehemently condemn homosexual behavior?
2. Why did the LORD God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for that sin?
3. As a matter of fact, why has the LORD God destroyed every single society that has turned that way throughout history?

All it takes to understand why, is a little bit of reason. Think about it for just a moment: What is homosexual behavior?

Now, what if every single person on the earth engaged in that behavior. Just where would the next generation come from?

The short answer is: There would be no “next generation.” Within one generation man would be extinct – gone forever.

Do you even want to guess where the encouragement for homosexual behavior comes from?

Try Satan.

Why?

Because he hates man. He hates man because man is made in the image of God, and he is not. He hates man because man will judge the angels — of which he (albeit fallen) is. And, if he can get man to destroy himself, he can thwart the plan and purpose of the LORD God — thus making the LORD “unrighteous” and himself the “victor.” All at the expense of man.

Does this mean that those deceived by Satan are guiltless? Not hardly. Each of us are solely responsible for the choices we make. We are under no compulsion to believe Satan’s lies about who and what we are.

If we forget that we are involved in a spiritual war, we will not understand what is happening and why. Unfortunately for Dan Savage, being raised Catholic did not help him (not that being raised anything else would have particularly helped him – you do have to want to know the truth), as Catholics do not, as a rule, read the Scripture. In fact, the Catholic Church does not encourage any reading of the Scripture. Moreover, like most denominations, Catholics are not taught to reason about what the Scriptures state. Rather, they are taught to just “have faith and believe.”

Hence, in all Mr. Savage’s experience he has never been exposed to any real truth about the Scripture, and never been encouraged and challenged about what the Scripture states and why. In short, he is an excellent tool for the Devil.

However, that is not the end of it: It is also apparent Mr. Savage cannot reason out the end of his behavior and see the destructive nature of it. It is quite apparent that Mr. Savage does not know how to be decent, and pen anything suitable for any mind, let alone young, impressionable minds. The utter vulgarity Dan Savage uses is corrupting of society and debasing of everyone who reads his words or hears his voice. Without having to actually read what he writes, or hear his voice, just a basic search of the internet and you will get a very clear understanding of how vile and vulgar this person is. Moreover, for someone who is supposed to be “anti-bullying,” he does enough of it for two or three individuals in his attacks on Rick Santorum.

In all, it truly is unbelievable how ignorant (and willfully so) Dan Savage is. If he weren’t so bent on remaining ignorant, perhaps he could see how the LORD God desires to save him from himself (just like the LORD has to save each of us from ourselves), and save him from an eternity of suffering in the Lake of Fire.

1. Columnist Dan Savage stands by comments on ‘bulls**t in the Bible’↩
2. Ibid↩

Yesterday, while out and about, I observed a bumper sticker on a car that stated the following:

“Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong”

Now, it should not surprise anyone that I saw this in Fayetteville, and immediately outside the confines of the University. Immediately I thought of the lack of understanding that accompanies this question as framed. I would expect this from a child with no background in history, or knowledge of society. Particularly, I would expect this of a child who had never read the Scripture.

In addressing this, first the rather simple logic of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and the respect of the rights of others will be touched on. After that, we shall see what the LORD God has to say about the death penalty.

I did a Google search on this question as that would likely yield the best results. After all, if it’s on a bumper sticker, its probably on the internet too. I was not surprised to find that it was indeed on the web. What I was surprised to find were sites that had this question, and the answers given in response to it. To say the least, the answers reveal a lack of depth in the thought processes of the respondents. Need I say this does not (more…)

“London, England (LifeNews.com) — A trio of economists have released the results of a new study disproving the supposed link between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime. John Donohue and Steven Levitt first introduced the repeatedly-criticized theory in 2001 and another report shows it’s untrue.”¹

“The economists also note that US crime rates fell in the 1990s but that the rates fell not only among younger Americans born after Roe v. Wade, but fell among older Americans as well – indicating abortion likely had no effect on crime.

“Given all this, it seems highly unlikely that the legalization of abortion can, as Donohue and Levitt hypothesized, explain the dramatic drop in crime observed in the US in the 1990s,” the economists write.

The authors also reject the hypothesis that abortion reduced the number of unwanted children who were more likely to commit crimes.

“Prior to the legalization of abortion, unwanted babies did not necessarily become unwanted children,” they wrote.

The authors point to data showing adoption rates in England were significantly higher before abortion was allowed than afterwards — showing many so-called unwanted children were adopted by loving families who wanted them.

“The rate of infants under five who had been adopted at birth decreased from 16 per thousand in the mid-1960s to about 5 per thousand just 10 years later,” they said.

“Rather than just reducing the number of unwanted children, abortion legalization appears to have reduced the number of unwanted infants who would have ended up (through adoption) being wanted children,” they write.”²

You know; we didn’t need a study to prove that. That apparently rare thing, “common sense” dictates that abortion would not decrease crime, and would actually increase it. How can that be? Let’s look at the logic behind abortion and see what is actually there.

The advocates of abortion claim abortion is necessary as the child is unwanted, and therefore would be a burden upon the mother and/or the family into which the child would be born. Moreover, since that child is unwanted, it will not be treated well and will grow up in an environment that would cause it to become a social misfit, and would be more likely to commit crime. The child would be a particular burden upon poor, unwed women who cannot provide properly, and would drag that family further down into poverty. We can even go so far as to say that the child, who is unwanted and not aborted, would themselves be far more likely to become a burden upon society as they, being raised in a poverty-stricken home, would also end up on welfare.

In all the justification given above, and I have read and heard all the above-mentioned justifications, it all starts with “the unwanted child.” You know, that’s funny, and not in the ha, ha sense either; it is funny in that the reason the child exists in the first place is ignored. Last I knew, children didn’t just suddenly appear in the womb. No, there is always a cause, and that cause demands the actions of two individuals. Otherwise, children simply don’t exist, and cannot exist. A child comes about as a result of a deliberate act committed by two individuals. Generally speaking, this act is freely engaged in, and usually without thought to the consequences. In other words, the child did not ask to be here, yet now it is here, as a result of the deliberate behavior of two other individuals.

So then, according to those who advocate abortion, the proper response to that is to relieve the responsible parties of their deliberate actions, and make the child pay for what its parents did. An analogy to this would be making the victim of a crime, pay for the criminal’s actions. It seems to me that this is turning justice on its head.

However, not to be deterred, the advocates of abortion have a rejoinder that goes somewhat like this: ‘It’s not really a child as it’s not viable while in the womb. It requires special conditions to live, and thus is not really a person, particularly under the law.’

Really? I suppose then we have had instances of women giving birth to snakes, turtles, pigs, ducks and the like? No? Why is it that every time, all throughout human history, women always give birth to little humans that look remarkably like their parents? Just why is that?

Perhaps it is because that fertilized egg in the womb is actually a person after all, and has all the processes of life occurring in it from the moment it was fertilized? Or is it that all our biology books, and the decades of biological research are in error? And as for special conditions for life, I would tend to think that needing an adequate amount of water every day is a special condition for life. I think that one ought to be able to subsist on coffee, and anyone who drinks water requires special conditions for life. Silly isn’t it? The reality is that determining what special conditions for life are, is very much like beauty — it is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, if the life of a person you love is at stake, no condition required for them to live is special. On the other hand, if it is someone you hate, well, simply allowing them to breathe air is too much to ask isn’t it?

Perhaps it really all boils down to this: we don’t want to be held responsible for what we do, and the activities we engage in: no matter the consequences.

Isn’t that the logic of criminals? It certainly is utterly selfish isn’t it? It is the “I don’t give rip about anyone else, I want what I want, and I don’t care who it hurts.” attitude.

It seems to me that this kind of attitude fosters and engenders an increase in crime, and not a decrease. It also fosters the abdication of personal responsibility, which is precisely what we have observed since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Moreover, that attitude of ‘I’m not responsible’ permeates throughout all society and affects every portion of our life.

Additionally, we do know, whether we consciously admit it or not, that we are making the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty. You know, we are outraged when a criminal sues the victim of his or her crime because the criminal was injured either on the victim’s property, or by the victim, and the criminal wins the lawsuit. But we think nothing of the woman who aborts her child because it is “unwanted,” or she “can’t afford it.” At least when the criminal brings a civil lawsuit, it doesn’t result in the death of the victim of their crime. This not to say that I think criminals should be allowed to sue victims of their crime — they shouldn’t. It is merely to point out a dichotomy in our thinking. We are outraged by one, but not the other — wonder why?

No, if we really sit down and look at our society and the changes it has undergone since 1973, we can see the outworking of the underlying attitudes and thought processes present in the whole concept of abortion. Common sense dictates that not only would crime not drop as a result of abortion being legalized, but would actually increase. Even if the way crime is reported is changed so that the statistics don’t seem so bad, we can still see the degradation of society and the loss of respect for the rights of others.

We all know, whether we are willing to admit it or not, that abortion is taking an innocent life. We have codified the ability of the guilty to take the life of an innocent, and that taking of life is entirely without consequence under the law. In short, we have said that certain innocent parties have no right to life under the law. Just how do you think that impacts the rest of our rights, since all other rights must have the right to life to be effective?

Think about it: what an oxymoron to say that we can reduce crime by killing innocents.

Wonder what the LORD has to say about that . . .

1. http://www.lifenews.com/int692.html↩
2. ibid↩

Over the last week or so the issue of Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s remarks from the pulpit have dominated the coverage of Barack Obama’s campaign for President. While it has come to light that the controversial remarks of Pastor Wright were quotes from U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, they were not condemned when Wright used them in his message.

It is well known in advertising that the strongest advertising method existent is personal favorable reference. The next strongest is impersonal favorable mention, and negative mention follows shortly thereafter. The best way to not advertise, or validate something is to not mention it at all. Thus, when someone is referenced in a message, the speaker has basically three options:

1. They can state they agree with the person quoted.

2. They can state they disagree.

3. They can remain silent and let everyone guess.

However, it is implicitly understood: unless you specifically state your level of disagreement with the person you are quoting, it means that you agree with them to a certain extent, even up to and including total agreement. Otherwise, why do you find their statements valuable?

So it is with Pastor Wright and his quotation of Edward Peck. The pastor did not see fit anywhere in the sermon to specifically distance himself from Edward Peck and his statements. Instead, according to a blog that supports Pastor Wright, the Pastor’s comments were:

“We are indignant that the stuff that we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”¹

No, whether America is doing everything right or not, there are some specific things that the ambassador stated that are strictly unscriptural and should have been qualified in some way. Instead, the statement “And we need to come to grips with that.” does indicate an approval of all the statements quoted. However, the greater problem is this: Pastor Wright’s concern was not that Americans are not obedient to the gospel and should be, as that would radically alter this nation for the better. No, Wright’s concern was for “social justice.” The clarion call was for this nation to fight racism, AIDS, provide better healthcare, etc.

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said. He then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He then said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice and greed, instead of war on other countries. “Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”²

As I pointed out in the first post, this is the specific problem with Pastor Wright and the UCC in general. Where, just where in the Bible does it state that we are to focus on social issues? Feeding the poor, caring for the sick, infirmed and elderly are all adjuncts to preaching and teaching the word of God. After all, even a well-fed, healthy person dies, and when they die, if they are not prepared to stand in judgement before God, they end up in Hell – for all eternity. Plainly, unless one is born-again in Christ, through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, all the “social justice” in the world won’t do them one iota of good.

What we have here is a clear intent to advocate for things that really don’t change hearts, and thus the behavior of men. Rather, it appears that the reason the social issues are used, are for the specific and express purpose of bludgeoning those who appear to be enfranchised and demand that the playing field be leveled. Plainly, this is what Ambassador Peck is about as his name appears prominently in socialist circles. In searching further, it is also plain that the UCC is deeply involved in the socialist movement as well. This comes as no surprise as a blog article from UCCtruths³ highlights the successful efforts of the United Church of Christ to obtain pardons for two FALN criminals who were convicted of carrying out bombings in New York and Chicago back the late 70′s and early 80′s. The UCC is also deeply involved in the Interfaith Alliance, which is a left-oriented (socialist) political organization wrapping itself in the guise of religion.

The real problem with this whole mess is the deception that continues daily within the UCC about its true intentions. Whether the average UCC member realizes it or not, the leadership of that denomination is really not interested in promoting the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, what they are interested in is the promotion of Communism, all the while wrapping it in the banner and blanket of Christianity. Otherwise, they (including Pastor Wright) would be far more concerned with the state of men’s souls than they are. I am hard pressed to find anything that solidly preaches the gospel in the writings I have seen. Rather, what I do find is the usage of some (one or two verses) scripture to front a rant about the unfairness in American society, and how the “government” ought to be used to make everything more equal. The evidence of this is plain in the partial transcripts of Pastor Wright’s sermons posted on CNN’s Anderson Cooper Blog:⁴⁵ and in the continuing focus of his messages until his retirement.

Unfortunately, Pastor Wright and the UCC are not alone in this endeavor, and neither is it restricted solely to the liberal “churches” and denominations that exist in this country. No, there are a considerable number of conservative, even fundamental, Bible-believing churches that have allowed themselves to be caught up in the political and social issues of the day, much to the detriment of preaching the Gospel. We would all do well to heed the apostle Paul’s stated focus, as it really is the only way any society ever changes for the better. What is amazing is that history does attest to this fact, if only we care to look. What was the apostle Paul’s focus? It’s quite impossible to miss:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:1-2)

After all, why validate what you don’t agree with?

1. http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=144↩
2. http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=144↩
3. http://ucctruths.blogspot.com/2008/03/united-church-of-christ-and-faln.html↩
4. The 9-11 Sermon↩
5. The G___ ____ America Sermon↩