OUT OF MANY ONE

"Out of many one!" This was a famous saying at one point in time in our history. That was the anchor of our inclusive diversity 200 years ago. Now it's twisted out of any reasonable semblance of what it was by today's culture. Today out of many equals none. It's not diversity if there's obligation or responsibility attached to it. Our ancestors were offered opportunity accompanied with allegiance to a republic and it's law. Nationalism was alive and well.  It's been reduced now to just entitlement without strings attached. The only opportunity desired is for benefit without obligation. As I watched the immigration debacle on the news I became distracted from what a new young lady was saying about her severe poverty by the braces she was wearing. Of course there's no begrudging on my part as far as her getting a treatment she needed. It is, as most of the left's remedial solutions to our societal problems, flip flopping way across the line of fair and unbiased treatment. Like affirmative action and hate crimes legislation, all that is accomplished is reverse racism and unfair bias transferred from one side to the other side. It buys a voting block but does nothing to preserve equal standing in collegiate competition or equality under the law. I listened to a young black man tell how he admittedly slid by in his study knowing he'd have the edge for being accepted into Yale because of his color. He was left with a sense of regret, and acknowledged that the unfair advantage only hurt him in the long run. Winning a race with unfair advantage certainly dampens and undermines any sense of accomplishment just as a court with two sets of penalty for the same crime is nothing more than an egregiously blemishing assault on our constitution. Immigration, a right instead of a privilege, stripped of a common consensus of allegiance to the law and our country, is a path to dis-unity not diversity despite the temporary advantage of a voting block. Opportunity, equal in all it's aspects reaps real reward, impacts real self esteem, and always trumps entitlement and the handing of a bigger stick to the guy on the other side. And contrary to popular belief the victims of these policies are the ones that thought they won. The end justifying the means, once again, becomes the cancer that destroys the soul, and sends us spiraling towards the gutter.

Just a sideline observation, but under Shariah law, equality, is only obtained by being Muslim, and the rest of us are on the outside. It's already making it's in roads into our courts. In a recent survey of the major Islamic nations, residents were asked just two questions. Would they like to see the caliphate restored and Shariah law imposed. 77% said yes. Why gay people support the unchecked immigration of Muslims boggles the mind. They have zero tolerance levels for that behavior. That 77% is mostly moderate. Do some homework. I highly recommend Dr.Mark Gabriel's book, Islam and Terrorism. He was able to quote the entire Quran by the age of twelve and acquired a PH.D. at Al-Azhar University in Cairo Eygpt and was a professor of Islamic History. Easy read and necessary resource for understanding the Islamic faith.

 For the record I'm not a muslim hater, just concerned about irreconcilable differences with our constitution and their Shariah law. I'm not against immigration. I'm pro-law, pro- republic not democracy as we've been duped into believing we are, a nationalist, and an American,still clinging to the belief of our founders that "Out Of Many,One" is still feasible and could be a reality again.

SCRATCHING THE SURFACE

The election is over and the fun has begun. From the reaction of the left, you would have thought we elected Lincoln and were going to take away their slaves again. Assassination threats, along with a little prodding from our friends at cnn, rioting and destruction of peoples property [ I wonder if they cared if the property destroyed was right or left-wing],and our ever so popular "women's rights" marches [remember it's their body, just not the one they're aborting]. It really makes me wonder how they could possibly think I'd be interested in paying for their terminating the life of their child for convenience sake [Remember now I didn't call it murder].

Tolerance is now being shown in a whole new light, and of course we're still the intolerant ones. I really tried to resist the temptation to vent because I realize there are less than polite people on both sides and this usually devolves into a contest of who has the basest contingency of mouth molestation. Personally, I think the end justifies the means crowd is winning hands down, although  I hope not to be tipping the scales back the other way. Still, I like many others, feel like a response will not put us into the sights of the IRS again with their unexplained tax charges prior to fine time, with no time to resist. I could go on about that for awhile, but I won't [Just don't let the tea party list your blog sight ,actually it was my wife's].

To understand their thinking process, you have to acknowledge the base from which their philosophy birthed.
 For a large percentage or not, it comes from a materialistic world view. "If there is no God," people live and die and that's the end of it, so live in a manner that's expedient to the greater good. The greater good for who, is my question. Surely not for the unwanted unborn child. Their solution is to call the child not "viable" via the court system much the same way Hitler used the German court to pronounce Jews as non human. You make it right in your own eyes because you determined that morality is based on popular opinion, and all the while acknowledging how necessary it is for the collective welfare. This is the reasoning that gives them their high ground for forcing our part in funding abortion via our tax dollars. The end once again justifies the means. The baby's are still dead though, millions upon millions. The good news is that some are accounted as murdered in their eyes, but only if they were wanted. Vengeance can be had if the circumstances are right. If a mother is pregnant and attacked then the fetus [child] miraculously becomes viable if it dies, especially if the mother dies also. Now we can use the word "murder". Now it's an outrage. I know I'm spending a lot of space on the abortion issue, but it's demonstrative in an overly apparent manner of clarity. Christians aren't afforded the flexibility of a floating crap table of morality. Life is sacred. The effectiveness of prevention for pregnancy comes merely from restraint and true planned parenthood. Failure to restrain oneself involves consequences that do not include victimizing the only innocent party, the child, or as what is biblically defined as "innocent blood." If the Christians are right and their is a righteous creator God that is just, then the outcome for the unrepentant may well be much the same as for the German war criminals as they were judged for the extermination of the Jews.            

  In summary, I know their are many professing Christians that have fallen into a position of supporting many, not all, of these socialist agendas out of a concern for the collective, which is unavoidable to an extent. But the societal conditioners or purveyors of this philosophy are rooted in the atheistic belief system through a Marxist system of gradualism over the last 100 years. They can easily justify and construe an argument for abortion by the mere fact that it's the pragmatic thing to do for the good of the world and of course the economic security of the woman about to be inconvenienced, and to do so in a seemingly sound manner if we are a non eternal being. To the Christian, who believes we are eternal, this will not do. There is the matter of treating life as sacred and therefore eternal while still not neglecting the good of society. And, there's the rub. To fulfill that obligation to a God and Creator, we must believe that our behaviors align with God's will. The path divides at this juncture. For the left minded, Marx rightly concluded that Christianity is the enemy. There's a war going on whether you acknowledge it or not, or is it just the same old story with a new name, or are we just scratching the surface?

 Where'd I leave my pick?

The Fruit Of Understanding

As a musician, with a wide range of musical tastes, I happened upon a verse in the Psalms that for me sums up best my prerequisites for writing. Understand that I'm not writing worship songs per say, but never the less  I adhere to standards I hopefully deem acceptable to my christian values. This psalm, simple at first glance, yet surprisingly profound, for me, is a guide to maintaining a level of integrity in my music regardless of style. 

Sing praises to God sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises. For God is the King of the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.  Psalm 47:6-7

To understand understanding, my bible referenced 1 Cor. 14:15 where Paul is speaking about tongues and their fruitfulness or lack thereof. Verse 14 begins with "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful." Verse 15 follows with the example, " What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Sounds simple enough! I've heard songs before that I not only didn't get but wondered if the guy's doing it got it. I need the understanding that my music, regardless of subject matter, adhere's to my Christian ethics. Also, on the flip side, I don't want misunderstanding to be a byproduct. Anything presentable to anybody through any means, and this goes way beyond music, I want to reflect my relationship to the Lord, or in the words of Paul, to be fruitful.

SPOONFED [A Liberal Portrait]

Well, I guess you've all heard by now. Another woman fell victim to to an unwarranted ten pound weight gain assault. Armed with a super-sized assault spoon, she fell victim to a three and a half quart of chocolate chip, chocolate syrup topped, mega sized bowl of ice cream fed by an unconscionable life robbing spoon. Forgive me, but just how stupid can people be. Spoons have to be banned now. DUH! This blatant assault of rhetoric from spoon loving hillbilly ignoramus's claiming they need them to eat their peas with is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. SPOON'S ARE MAKING PEOPLE FAT!!!!! They're living in a dream world. Ice cream was never invented when we granted people the right to bear spoons. Spoons make innocent people fat. 

Wake up you morons. Spoons are dangerous. Do you want your kids to be fat! 

BAN SPOONS NOW! BAN SPOONS NOW! BAN SPOONS NOW! BAN SPOONS NOW! BAN SPOONS NOW! BAN SPOONS NOW!       

THE VAIN NAME

This isn't breaking news, just  a reminder for most of us. I believe everyone knows how to take the Lord's name in vain [duh!].  No, It's not duh! The "duh!" is for us --- His creation. The use of his name inappropriately is a big no no, although you wouldn't always know that from listening to some of us, referencing we the ones that have taken His name [christian]. Actually, that's what we need to bring to remembrance. We took His name and the implication is simple enough. We are His ambassadors. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be more advantageous to the gospel if we kept that under our hat. Take some time to consider this proverb.

Two things have I required  of thee; deny me not before I die: Remove from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee,and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.                             Proverbs 30:7-9

My goodness, my actions can cause me to take the Lord's name in vain? It has actually been a common practice from the beginning of history for a person to act as an ambassador for a king, kingdom, institution, or anyone representing a higher position to send out ambassadors in his place. Naturally, there were or are always consequences for blatant misrepresentation. We don't think on that too much because God has forgiven all our sins past and present. Kinda like a blanket entitlement if you think too long about it. Sorry, I still have a mild propensity towards sarcasm. I'll still pick up my cross tomorrow like many of us do, and set it aside at my convenience like many of us do, shameless as the day is long.

Brethren, be followers of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.[ For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.] For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself.
                                                                                                   Philippians 3:17-21  

Shameful acts bring Shame to even the Shameless.

I used to play in a band called Shameless. There's my confession for the day. I probably should've left that one in the closet. Even Lewis said one should only revisit past sins only long enough to repent and move on, as dwelling on them may well do more harm than good. Well, we've managed to remove shame from our culture to the point, that, as with all sin, the act itself though always shameful, is shamelessly rendered an undeserved, archaic stigma from which we must free ourselves. This is where we are, after a generation of liberating psychology spawned from  godless dogma. The problem with this is sin still remains shameful and because we've eliminated shame we've created a god [in our own minds] of the same kind, removing reverence and diminishing holiness in our sight. We've become blinded by our own shamelessness and have built a barrier between ourselves and the Lord, imprisoned, snared, and impotent in our walk. I can hear a protest coming, after all He loves me as I am. That's exactly right, so why would you choose to hinder fellowship. If you're comfortable with crude, coarse friendships and feel no embarrassment, I'm not sure what to say to you.

Things that are different are not the same.

If you believe you are a new creation, and still wallow in the mire, it's time to re-examine yourself. 

For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates. 2 Corinthians 13:4-5

If you're seeing yourselves as I sometimes do, go ahead and feel the shame. I do, and then regroup. It's necessary, that's why God gave it to us. It's a check and a gift, and God is the only one that can remove it. Until you do, you won't see God as holy and you'll still be that old creation by your own choice. After all, things that are different are not the same. Take the name of Christ always, just not in vain.

A Bride and Groom Ephesians 5:21-33

How often do you feel like a bride? This question has a tendency, for me at least, of producing a naturally recoiling  reflex of indignation when it's seemingly  aimed at the core of my manhood. Yet, it is in actuality, the single most important  ingredient of not only my manhood, but of my marriage. As a Christian, I must share the role of bride with my wife, and as a Christian must take the role of groom in my marriage. It seems a strange union of roles, but the union is not only unique in view of today's societal norms,  or rather abnorms, but essential towards a God centered plan for marriage. I may need, at this point, a place of shelter or retreat before sharing that a woman does not share  the same dualistic role. Biblically she is a bride and again a bride.  Still, we both share the responsibility of submission to Jesus, our Christ and groom. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and they two  shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Ephesians 5:31-32 Not only is this a vertical submission, but a horizontal submission. "Submitting your selves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21." Before going to verse twenty two, it should be clear that the submission path runs both ways, not to mention that it should be and is a fearful consideration in God's eyes. Most of us will immediately align our own thinking of submission to the more common act of yielding to an authority, a bitter pill for not only women but also to men. We often forget that it is also an acknowledgement of inferiority or dependence; humble or suppliant behavior, a confession of a fault or error, or of obedience, compliance with the commands of a superior or how about a simple resignation or yielding of one's own prideful will to another. This is where I have to consider that I might not always be right.

      "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour  of the church. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ , so the wives to their own husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:23-24

     This is where we lose most of the ladies. Still, regardless of today's modern version of womanhood, there it is. We teach our young ladies not only that they can be anything they want but that there are no limitations as to what they can attain. My question is, and this is for everyone, can I be whatever I want? Can I purpose my life in a fashion as to disregard boundaries or limitations? "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ?" I have to keep bringing it back to Jesus before I can address these questions. How have I, exactly, submitted my self to Him?   "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Does my wife have a groom as does the church? Have I given myself for my bride? Did Jesus promise a big paycheck and a big house with all the material  luxuries of the day or did he understand what his bride really needed? I don't know a woman that doesn't  want a Jesus groom in her life. Can I give myself for my bride like Jesus did for his? "That he might sanctify  and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having a spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."  This is the point where many men  willingly give up the ship. This is where many cease to be men, let alone the  groom. If submission doesn't come first to Christ, manhood disappears into the fashion of the day and becomes unrecognizable. Do I , first of all, love my wife as Christ loved the church? This is agape love, unconditional all encompassing love, and needs a bit of exploring, but hang in there. It's worth  the time. Remember, "For this a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church". 

Part 2

  Ephesians 5:25-26 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

     I could be wrong here, but I think every man that explores this portion of scripture is going to find himself wanting. I love my wife more than anyone in this world, and still I find myself wanting. This is going to be one of those "Not as though I had already attained, either were perfect" moments, but we still must press on. This scripture points to a tremendous amount of accountability. I love but do I sanctify, cleanse, present my wife as holy and without blemish? Do I forgive my wife as Jesus forgives, or is the dirt reserved for more opportune moments? Am I content with the "sin no more" but can't seem to follow through with the "as far as the east is from the west part." Do I cover my wife as Christ covers me? Am I her shelter and shield? Am I as private and personal and open as Jesus  is in her prayer closet? Can she trust me like she does Jesus? Do I pray over her like Jesus prays for his bride? If I fall short on any of these, can I present her as glorious, holy, and without blemish? Can I love her as Jesus loves his bride?

      "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies." It seems like the golden rule should be sufficient here, but it too falls short because we've brought self into the picture which falls miles short of agape love. I know it sounds like a trade, "he that loveth his wife loveth himself". After all one commonly thinks we always love ourselves, but that's rarely true. The more I try to separate myself from sin, the more the revulsion and the greater the disappointment in myself at my failures. And yet, to understand grace, is to know where we came from, and also to know who we are in Christ. I know myself and I know that until I can truly love my wife I can only have a self- love. That I can selflessly love my wife is essential if we are ever going to love our brother. The church is doomed to failure and stagnation, not to mention hopelessly superficial if we stumble from the outset.

       "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother , and they two  shall be one flesh." A man can crush his wife, but only to his own destruction, because we very much are, indeed, one flesh. If this concept is difficult for you, I recommend hitting your thumb with a hammer a couple of times or as many as needed to make the light come on.

      "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning the church. Nevertheless let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife that she reverence her husband."                   So, there's reverence at the end of the story? ............... I'll let my wife tackle that one. 

 Part 3

   If you read the first two segments and are thinking "What a spineless wimp, he passed on the "reverencing your husband", you're absolutely right. I did mention the submission thingy though, for clarification on the groom's part in reference to his being part of the bride [church], and feel confidant that that was enough to leave some howling. I wasn't silly enough to say something silly like estrogen running the church.

    The whole point of bringing up the dualistic role of men as bride and groom, church member and husband, is that we have so many dysfunctional marriages today, and an appalling lack of manhood, if not misunderstanding. A healthy, manly leadership is absent in the home turning the churches into a dumping  ground of societal relevance instead of biblical order. In point of fact, we the men, are at all points in our society being neutered and properly trained to tuck tail and step out the role God intended. If you're thinking church should fix that, good luck finding a pastor or board that hasn't already been neutered. It starts with submission, but in the right direction. God set the order, how about trying a proper submission to the real groom, our model, as hard as it may be to follow, and purpose to present our bride glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, holy and without blemish, joined unto our wives as one, humbled by Christ's example as shepherd, shield and protector, in the path of salvation to our Holy God.

     If my understanding is correct, not withstanding the many role's played out in the church, ours the fathers, are the ones to be held to the fire [accountable] before God for setting our order and will against His.

A Good Example

People look at me like I'm crazy when I bring up THE Communist  AGENDA at work here in our beloved land of the fee. First, here's the list of goals presented to our cONGRESS in '63 to review at Conservative Refocus.  And here is one of the numerous and all to common examples at Right Angles.  They're not doing this secretly and yet the most common reaction is " Yeah, things are really changing man, BUT you really don't think it's a conspiracy do ya? Actually, I do. It's built upon Marx's technique of graaaadualism [It's the slow boil,  Kermit!]. There does come a point when it's too late to get out.