On the 11th of September 2001, nineteen Muslim terrorists hijacked four American civilian airliners, and crashed one into each tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, and one into the Pentagon. The Fourth, United Flight 93, crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, when the passengers - who had by then heard of the fates of the other flights - heroically attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the Muslim terrorists. In all, 2,977 people were murdered, and more than 6,000 others injured by the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. You knew all that, of course. But, do you know the reason why Osama Bin Laden chose the 11th of September as the date on which to attack the United States of America? On the 14th of July 1683, the Muslim Ottoman Empire, with its capital in Istanbul, Turkey (which used to be Constantinople, the capital of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine - or Eastern Roman - Empire), besieged Vienna, Austria with an army of 300,000 men. This was the second Muslim Ottoman siege of Vienna (the first was in 1529), and it arguably marked the zenith of 1,000 years of Muslim conquest of Christian lands, including the entire middle east, all of North Africa, much of Eastern Europe, and the Iberian Peninsula (which was liberated in 1492, after 780 years of the "Reconquista"), Sicily, Malta, etc. Understanding that the Ottoman incursion into Western Europe threatened them all, the European powers mobilized forces to assist the besieged Austrians. On the 12th of September 1683, the siege was broken by the largest cavalry charge in history (18,000 horsemen), led by King John III Sobieski of Poland, whose heavy armored cavalry tore through the exhausted (from failed attempts at undermining Vienna's walls) Ottoman forces downhill. The 1683 Battle of Vienna is considered one of the battles that saved Western Civilization, and it marks the decline of the Ottoman Empire - the greatest Muslim empire in history. From that point, though it remained powerful for hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire gradually shrank, until it was finally dissolved after fighting on the losing side of World War I.
And that is why Osama Bin Laden chose the 11th of September. The symbolism is unmistakable. Bin Laden wanted to take the world back to the 11th of September 1683. He wanted to take the world back to a time when Muslims reigned supreme, and Christians were fighting for their very existence, and he perceived that the greatest obstacle to his goal was the United States of America. Now you know. What now? Well, there's a part of the story that I believe to be true, and though I don't know that for sure, I'm going to tell you anyway. The story goes that, when the victorious Christian troops looted the abandoned Muslim Ottoman camp, they found something of which they'd only heard rumors. They found sacks of a drink that supposedly gave the Muslim Ottoman troops energy to stay up all night on guard duty. They found coffee.
The story continues that a civilian baker that had volunteered to stay in Vienna to help feed the troops (many civilians evacuated as the Muslim Ottoman army approached) requested to commemorate the victory with a special pastry. He created a pastry shaped like the crescent moon on the Muslim Ottoman flag. He created the croissant.
So, on this 11th of September, and on every 11th of September, by all means, let us mourn the dead. Then, on the 12th of September, let us celebrate past victories, and commit ourselves to never bend the knee to anyone but Christ, by feasting on coffee and croissants.
By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.
I don't know what that means, because it's so vague, probably deliberately so. But, here's what I think. I think Mr. Harris will eventually settle on his own version of Buddy Christ.
Buddy Christ is the counterfeit Jesus most modern Christians believe in, and most modern churches preach.
Buddy Christ is not your Lord. He's your buddy. Buddy Christ demands nothing from you. He gives you no commandments. And he absolutely, positively, never, ever judges you. Buddy Christ is "spiritual, not religious". He doesn't dwell on antiquated concepts like sin, except for racism. Buddy Christ doesn't care if you're sexually promiscuous, practice homosexuality, mutilate your body to make it look like that of the opposite sex, or murder your baby in womb. But, if you're a racist, or a Republican (same thing, right?), you're in big trouble with Buddy Christ.
Wait... didn't I say that Buddy Christ never, ever judges you? Doesn't accusing someone of racism sound judgmental? Isn't that a contradiction?
Well... sure. But reason is a racist, sexist tool of the white patriarchy, and Buddy Christ ain't down with that, man.
Buddy Christ is a Socialist, because Socialism is compassionate. Buddy Christ is basically your dope smoking, hippie, dorm resident adviser from college, who's been in college for eight years because he keeps changing his major, and never studies.
Buddy Christ is inclusive. Unless you're a racist. Then he excludes you, which would make him exclusive, if we were using reason, which is a racist, sexist tool of the white patriarchy, which is why Buddy Christ never uses reason.
The Jesus of the Bible says things like;
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)
There are six absolute statements in that one sentence, and absolute statements always exclude everything that does not fit within the statement.
I am (no one else is)
the way (no other way)
the truth (no other truth)
the life (no other life)
No one comes to the Father (self explanatory)
except through Me (through no one else)
If you want to get to God the Father through anyone but His Son, Jesus Christ (the one in the Bible, not your buddy); tough luck. You won't get there. You'll end up in the one place where God's presence cannot be perceived. In case you didn't know, that place is known as Hell.
Don't believe me? That's probably because you've been listening to Buddy Christ, because Buddy Christ does say things that the Jesus of the Bible says, like;
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Awwwww..... isn't that sweet? Jesus didn't come here to condemn the world! Jesus is all about love.
Well... yeah. But, why do Christians always stop reading at verse 17? In verse 18, Jesus said;
John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Sounds awfully judgmental, and exclusive, doesn't it? In fact, if you'd like to know if your church preaches a version of Buddy Christ, ask yourself; whenever your pastor preaches from John 3, does he read John 3:18, or does he stop at John 3:17?
But wait, it gets better. Because Jesus also told The Parable of the Minas in Luke 19. Please read the whole thing, but I'll summarize it for you here.
Luke 19:11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’
Who is the nobleman who leaves to receive a kingdom, and will return? Obviously, that's Jesus - the Jesus of the Bible, not Buddy Christ. Let's skip ahead.
15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
........
22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant.....
.......
27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? Not at all like Buddy Christ, is it? But, that is the Jesus of the Bible. In fact, that's Jesus speaking about Himself, and how He will behave when He returns. Note that He will have those who refuse to be ruled by Him slain before Him.
Jesus is not your buddy. He is your Lord. In fact, He is your Lord whether you recognize that fact, or not.
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
You will bend the knee. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and atheist, an agnostic... it doesn't matter. You will bend the knee. And you will confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord.
What does it mean to confess? To confess is to admit something that is already true. It's already true that Jesus Christ is your Lord, whether you believe it or not.
You can either bend the knee, and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord now, voluntarily, or you can bend the knee, and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord at the judgement, involuntarily, like the enemies in the Parable of the Minas, who were slain before Him. The choice is yours.
Now, back to Josh Harris.
Jesus Christ is Josh Harris's Lord. That has always been true, and it will always be true. It was true back when Josh Harris believed it, it's true now that Josh Harris has repudiated faith in Jesus, and it will still be true no matter what Josh Harris does in the future.
Josh Harris wrote;
By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.
He's "not there now", but he can get there. How? By creating his own version of Buddy Christ.
You see, Jesus Christ is your Lord because He's your Creator, who created you in His image. Buddy Christ, by contrast, is your creation, whom you create in your own image. That's why he doesn't judge you. Josh Harris will likely create his own Buddy Christ, who believes everything that Josh Harris now believes, and changes his beliefs to match Josh Harris's beliefs as Josh Harris's beliefs change.
This is how the Bible describes a man who creates something, then worships it. Again, read the whole thing.
Isaiah 44:9 Those who make an image, all of them are useless,
And their precious things shall not profit;
They are their own witnesses;
They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed.
10 Who would form a god or mold an image That profits him nothing?
........
14 He cuts down cedars for himself,
And takes the cypress and the oak;
He secures it for himself among the trees of the forest.
He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it.
.......
16 He burns half of it in the fire;
With this half he eats meat;
He roasts a roast, and is satisfied.
He even warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm,
I have seen the fire.”
17 And the rest of it he makes into a god,
His carved image.
He falls down before it and worships it,
Prays to it and says,
“Deliver me, for you are my god!”
Don't be a useless fool who worships a false Christ you created for yourself. Worship Jesus Christ, your Lord, the way, the truth, and the life, the only one who can take you to God the Father. You're going to worship Him eventually, whether you want to or not. You may as well worship Him voluntarily now.
Pastor Doug Wilson recently wrote an article titled 7 Reasons Why Submission is not a Dirty Word. The usual, predictable protestations ensued. I won't address most of them, only the ones I assume to be offered by people who sincerely desire to obey the Word of God. Here we go.
1. "Yeah, well, Ephesians 5:21 says, 'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.' You're taking the commandment to wives to submit to their husbands out of context!"
Of course Ephesians 5:21 says what it says. No one denies that. In fact, those who fixate on Ephesians 5:21 take Ephesians 5:21 out of context.
First, let's look at the definition of the word "submit". The word translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:21 is hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). Its definition is:
to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience (obedient)
Now let's look at the root words: hupo and tasso.
hupo (ὑπό): properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).
tassó (τάσσω): properly, arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order, appoint. Commonly used in ancient military language for "designating" ("appointing, commissioning") a specific status, i.e. arranging (placing) in a deliberate, fixed order.
Got that? To submit is to obey, to be under obedience, to work directly as a subordinate to someone else after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order, analogous to a military unit.
Given the definition of the word hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω), and its military roots, it's obvious that Ephesians 5:21 precedes a set of verses (Ephesians 5:22 - 6:9) that establish a deliberate, fixed order that explains which members of the Church are supposed to submit to which other members of the Church. Wives submit to their own (i.e., not someone else's) husbands (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33). Children obey (submit to) their parents (Ephesians 6:1). Servants obey (submit to) their masters (Ephesians 6:5-6).
Why does Paul begin with wives? Because the family is the foundation of everything else. Rebellious wives raise rebellious children who become rebellious adults.
Obviously, Paul wasn't stupid, or unrealistic. In fact, he wrote the best treatise on human nature in his Epistle to the Roman Christians. He knew that it's human nature to abuse ones authority. He therefore (inspired by the Holy Spirit) tempered the commandments to submit to authority by commanding those in authority to love their subordinates. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33). Fathers, don't exasperate your children (Ephesians 6:4). Masters, treat your servants well (Ephesians 6:9).
2. "But... but... but... what about when we submit to our friends? What about the kind of submission between equals that we would characterize as amiability and good manners?"
That isn't submission. It's not hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). It's a form of loving ones neighbor.
3. "But... but... but... what about Jesus washing his disciple's feet? Wasn't that an act of submission? Didn't he teach that we should all submit to one another by washing each other's feet?"
No, and no. Let's look at John 13, the scripture that details that event.
John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power [note the hierarchy and authority in that statement ~ O], and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” 9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” 10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience.
Who was the disciple (hupo [ὑπό]: under authority, subordinate) and who was the teacher in that scenario? Who obeyed whom? Under whose authority did God the Father place all things?
Clearly, Peter was the disciple, the subordinate, the one under authority. Just as clearly, Peter obeyed Christ, not the other way around. Christ wanted to wash Peter's feet. Peter didn't want Christ to wash his feet. Christ told peter that unless Christ washed his feet, Peter had no part with Christ. Peter, then obeyed - submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - Christ, and Christ washed his feet.
Christ did not submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Peter. Peter submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Christ. When Christ washed His disciples' feet, it was an act of service and love, not submission. They're not the same thing.
My two-year-old daughter is potty training. She still has potty accidents. Sometimes she wants Mom to wipe her poopy butt when Mom is busy with our six-month-old baby, so I have to wipe my daughter's poopy butt even though she wants Mom to do it. My daughter, then, obeys - submits (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - me and I wipe her poopy butt.
Wiping another person's poopy butt is just about the lowliest, most servant-like act one human can perform for another, yet when I wipe my daughter's poopy butt, it's not an act of submission on my part. It's an act of service and love on my part. It's an act of submission on her part. They're not the same thing.
Love and service are not submission. Obedience is submission.
Christians who claim that Ephesians 5:21 commands all Christians to submit to all other Christians misunderstand the definition of the word submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]), or they confuse love and service with submission, or they're simply not thinking logically.
How can two objects be simultaneously "placed under" each other? How can two peers "rank under" each other? How can they be "under authority" to each other? How can they "work directly as a subordinate to" each other? How can they "obey" or be "under obedience" to one another? What if they take turns submitting to each other? Doesn't that violate the concept of working directly as a subordinate to someone else (hupo [ὑπό]) after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order (tassó [τάσσω])? In fact, isn't that the opposite of a deliberate, fixed order?
One has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to misconstrue Ephesians 5:21 as a commandment for all Christians to submit to one another.
4. "But.. but... but... isn't wifely submission just a cultural construct? Couldn't one argue that this is the position of the culture at the time and therefore Paul's admonishing so that the word of God may not be blasphemed was how the outsiders would have understood the ideal household?"
Sure, one could argue that it's a cultural construct, but that doesn't make the argument valid.
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Is that hierarchy - which includes God the Son and God the Father - an eternal, God-created deliberate, fixed order, or a temporary, man-made cultural construct?
Why do sincere Christians go to such absurd lengths to deny that the Bible says what it so obviously says? Because what the Bible says violates their feminist sensibilities, and therefore embarrasses them. Lest you think that conservative, Bible-believing Christians can't be feminists, remember the quote I keep repeating.
“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture
American culture is thoroughly feminist, and has been for decades. The vast majority of modern American Christians - even conservative ones - have marinated in feminism their entire lives, and don't even realize it. They're fish who don't know they're wet.
Let's stop pretending that the Bible says something other than what it actually says. And let's stop being ashamed of it.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Joining in on the fake outrage over Donald Trump's lewd comments, many Republican politicians released statements condemning Trump's immorality - of which they were well aware from the start. That's only a springboard to this post's subject. Here are two of the stupidest statements I read.
“Mr. Trump’s comments were offensive and disgusting. There is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect.” ~ Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
“I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)
Shockingly, police accused the child’s mother, Michelle Martens, 35, of arranging for her boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, 31, to rape her child. Police also accused Martens of helping to stab the child to death and dismembering her. Gonzales’s cousin, Jessica Kelley, 31, was also arrested for participating in the horrific crime.
Michelle Martens (left), murderous mother of the late Victoria Martens (right, 10 years old).
Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.
.....
But ultimately the records show Martens gave up her claims of being a victim and admitted she had allowed several men to have sex with the child and named at least two men who did so.
Have you ever heard anyone say that all men "deserve to be treated with respect", or that men "are to be championed and revered"? Me neither. Why? Because no one believes such nonsense. Everyone understands some men earn respect and reverence through their respectable, reverential behavior, while others don't, and that we should treat them accordingly.
But, for some bizarre reason, few apply that same standard to women.
Does Michelle Martens "deserve to be treated with respect... championed and revered"? Is pimping out her daughter to various men in exchange for drugs, watching them have sex with her daughter, watching one murder the 10-year-old girl and then having sex with the murderer respectable, reverential behavior that we should champion?
If you answered "yes" to either question, please leave my blog.
If you answered "no", please ask yourself; why is it acceptable to say that "all women deserve to be treated with respect", and that "women are to be championed and revered"? If those statements are true, that means that Michelle Martens "deserve[s] to be treated with respect... championed and revered".
The truth is that women who've earned respect and reverence through respectable, reverential behavior deserve to be respected, championed and revered. Those who haven't, don't. If you think otherwise, you're sexist.
Think about it. Judging a person on the basis of his/her sex instead of his/her individual behavior is sexism.
Furthermore, people who treat women who've never earned respect as though they have are basically treating women who have earned respect like chumps. After all, if you can receive respect without earning it; why go through the trouble of earning it?
Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
...
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
Note the repetitive use of absolute terms like "no one", "not even one" and "all". There is only one exception, and it's not your wife, your daughter or your mom. It's Christ. That's it.
Now, I realize that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are politicians, and as such they are craven opportunists who'll say anything to give their political party an advantage. But, precisely for that reason, they would only make such statements if they knew that such statements play well with their constituents. Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch probably aren't stupid enough to believe those statements, but they probably know their constituents are.
It's far worse when pastors - who really should know better since, presumably, they know the Bible - engage in woman worship.
I don't have time to get into that now, but I will.
Maaloula is a special place. It has been a safe haven for Christians for 2,000 years - until now. It was a place of refuge so secure in its rugged mountain isolation that a dialect of the language of Christ, Aramaic, is still spoken here. But not today.
Its Christian community of 2,000 has fled. In the tight alleyways and streets that wind up the Maaloula's mountainside their language has been replaced by the Arabic of two bitter enemies: rebels from three Islamist groups and the soldiers of President Bashar al-Assad. Some 70,000 tourists a year used to come here from all over the Middle East, Europe and America to marvel at the Christianity carved into its rock. But the "Welcome to Maaloula" sign as I drove in seemed almost laughable.
There was hardly time to notice the white statue of Christ the Redeemer on the hillside before we were fired on, bullets aimed at our van, blowing our tyre and holing the chassis. We screeched to a halt and scrambled clear.
Lee Stranahan, one of the few American reporters in the area, has details of the attack.
For weeks in early September, the world got sketchy reports on the back and forth fighting in Maaloula, as combined Syrian rebel forces consisting of U.S. backed ‘Free Syria Army’ fighters battled next to al-Qaeda backed al-Nusra troops against Syrian goverment forces for control of the town.
The Maalourla survivors, speaking out for the first time, said that the Free Syria Army troops were as one with the al-Nusra warriors. They described in heartbreakng detail how Maaloula’s townspeople were terrorized and some killed for being Christian.
The attack began with a suicide bomber attacking the local checkpoint. One survivor said that armed Muslims were inside her house almost immediately, and held a machine gun to her husband’s head. The Islamists bragged about smashing a statue of Mary and taunted the family for their Christianity. The survivor broke down in tears describing her fear that her daughter would be raped by the men and that the family would be killed.
When the Maaloula witnesses was told that U.S Sec. of State John Kerry had referred to the FSA forces as ‘moderate’ in Senate testimony, she closed her eyes, shook her head both and forth and said “No no no no no.”
She said that she didn’t trust the press after seeing their reporting on the situation in Maaloula, which deemphasized the Islamist elements of the attack.
Stop me if you've heard this one. A wise, celestial being sends his only begotten son to Earth, telling him, "You will give them an ideal to strive towards. They'll race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun", and "You can save them all". The son is raised by an ordinary, yet noble, hard working man. At the age of 33, the son reveals his identity and origin to the world, performing works of wonder to save humanity from an enemy they couldn't possibly fight themselves.
Sound familiar? Of course it does! I'm referring to Superman!
I don't want to give too much away, but a few things really stood out to me. First, the writers changed some details of Superman's origin, though not the overall story. It should still satisfy most comic book nerds.
Second, Superman's Kryptonian parents play a much bigger role in this movie than in previous iterations of the story. Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El, Superman's father. He was back in "Gladiator" mode. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, as his Earthly parents, didn't have as much to do, so they really didn't have an opportunity to shine.
Third, there's a strong theme about the influence fathers have on their sons running through the script. I've noticed a lot of that in superhero movies lately. Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man and Wolverine all have "daddy issues" in their current movie incarnations. Some are straight out of the source material, some are new. I don't know if that is a case of lazy writing, or a real reflection of current cultural issues.
Fourth, Superman's Kryptonian enemy, General Zod, is far superior in this movie to his previous appearance in Superman II. His motivations are clearer and make more sense, and Michael Shannon was excellent. He was intense and menacing without being cheesy.
Zod and his henchmen are the perfect foils for Superman. Together, they're more powerful than he is. They can actually threaten him. I really don't see how other villains will stack up (with one exception I'll discuss later).
That brings me to another point. This Superman is less powerful than previous ones. He gets fatigued, hurt, even injured. He strains against huge weights to the point of exhaustion. I see that positively. Previous Superman stories make him too powerful. Nothing can hurt or threaten him (except for Kryptonite). Where's the drama in that?
The one theme that runs most prominently through the story, however, is that of Superman as a Christ figure, as I detailed at the beginning of this post. I read one review that claimed this wasn't so, since Superman does not sacrifice himself in this movie. However, Christopher Nolan, who produced "Man of Steel", directed the latest Batman trilogy with a clear story arc linking all three films. I suspect this will be a similar case. I predict the next movie will feature Lex Luthor, and the last will feature Doomsday.
Speaking of directing, the special effects were astounding, the fight scenes were exciting and the story never really let up, all of which we expect from director Zack Snyder.
What's not to like? Well, the excessive amounts of unnecessary shaky cam and weird close-ups. Also, Aimee and I both thought Amy Adams was miscast as Lois Lane. She's an outstanding actress, but she just didn't pull off the part of a hard-nosed, tenacious reporter. Other than that, not much.
"Man of Steel" is a fun, exciting, entertaining, intergalactic slug-fest. But it's much more than that. The best superhero movies use the outlandish fantasy inherent to them to convey universal themes found in the best stories, from Homer to today. The "Dark Knight" trilogy did that better than any other, but I suspect a "Man of Steel" trilogy may surpass it.
First, let me be clear about what I’m not talking about. I am not talking about external beauty. I’m talking about our health and fitness. I’m talking about how we treat our bodies. Our bodies do not belong to us; they belong to God (1 Cor. 6:19-20). But we are stewards of our bodies. Are we – as we are supposed to be – in charge of our bodies? Or are we slaves to our bodies’ whims (I don’t feel like exercising. I feel like eating a donut, instead of an omelet)?
Here's my favorite part. One might think the Bible never mentions anything about physical exercise, but one would be wrong!
Note the little girl. Start strength training young!
Most wells back then were a type of cistern, and drawing water was women’s work. She had to physically walk down stairs into the well, draw water to fill her huge clay jar, and walk back up the cistern with it. She typically carried these huge jugs or jars on her head or shoulders and they weighed about 50 pounds or more when full. So in the story it was no small feat for Rebecca to water Eliezer's camels. He had 10 camels and a thirsty camel can drink up to 30 gallons of water in one sitting. That means Rebecca carried about 300 gallons of water (2,504 lbs, not counting the jug!) up from the well into the trough. Do you think she was a frail, skinny thing; or 100 pounds overweight? Probably not.
God did not design women to be weak. He even tells us that strength is an ideal feminine quality (Prov. 31:17).
Anyway, read Aimee's entire article. It's good stuff!
“But I discipline my body, and make it my slave for fear that, having proclaimed the Gospel to others, I should be rejected as a counterfeit.” ~ 1 Corinthians 9:27
You've probably heard the saying that "all dogs go to Heaven", but did you know that all white people go to Hell? That's what the "Rev. Dr." James Lowery preaches. Who, you might ask, is the "Rev. Dr."* James Lowery, and why should I care? Oh, he just happens to be the pastor who Pres Barack Obama selected to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony, 20 January 2009, and to whom Pres Obama awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom on 30 July 2009.
Rev. Dr. James Lowery spoke at St. James Baptist Church as part of a Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) tour across Georgia to encourage black voters to cast ballots for Obama.
"I don't know what kind of a n----- wouldn't vote with a black man running," said Lowery. "All that he did with the stimulus was genius. Nobody intelligent would risk this country with Romney."
Classy. Use racial epithets against people of your own race who disagree with you.
he urged individuals to look at their own character and conduct.
I seem to recall a sermon I read somewhere about beams and slivers.
Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.
Remember, ladies & gents, the "Rev. Dr." Lowery spewed his hatred inside a church, with multiple local pastors present, using the cross of Christ as a prop for his message. If your pastor invited someone to speak at your church, and that person spewed this kind of racism, would you sit there and listen? Would you continue to attend that church?
Forsyth Mayor John Howard, a member of St. James who opened Saturday's program, said he was "pretty shocked" by Lowery's comments. He said if a speaker had made the same comments about black people, he would have gotten up and left.
He said the Bible gives set instructions on how to go to heaven and it doesn't say anything about skin color. Hearing the comments he said he looked at the face of his pastor, the Rev. Antonio Proctor, and could tell he was real shocked too. Howard said he and Proctor talked about putting a video of the event on Forsyth Cable TV but decided after his comments that it wasn't a good idea.
I see. The mayor knows Lowery's message contradicts the Bible, but he sat there and did nothing anyway. And why, exactly, wasn't it "a goo idea" to put a video of the event on TV, Mr Mayor?
But wait, there's more.
Rev. Antonio Proctor, pastor of St. James Baptist Church, closed the program by saying, "I am grateful for your stopping here with words to challenge us to hold onto this responsibility."
Seriously? Hang on; here's the best part, from Lowery's invocation at Pres Obama's inauguration.
“And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance,” he prayed in 2009. “And as we leave this mountain top, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.”
Ah, yes, because nothing "help[s] us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family” like stating that all white people go to Hell.
I also like this part.
Speaking to the group at St. James Baptist, Lowery said he liked giving the benediction because it gave him the last word. The only thing that followed him on the program was the "Star Spangled Banner." He said it was the first time in his life he enjoyed the national anthem
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.
Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies.
Such is the sad state of the Civil Rights movement today. We've gone from...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
to all whites go to Hell.
Speaking of which, I have a few questions for Lowery. If all whites go to Hell, then...
What happens to those who are part white?
Does one drop of white blood condemn them?
Does one drop of black blood redeem them?
Do you realize that Pres Obama is half white?
Lowery is a racist nut job, so I'd never expect a coherent answer from him (not that I think he'd read my blog). But here are a couple of serious questions for the reasonable people out there.
Why do so many Americans, including whites, tolerate racism directed at whites?
Is racism always wrong, or is it only wrong when directed toward certain races?
*If you're wondering why I placed "Rev. Dr." in quotes when writing "Rev. Dr." James Lowery, the reasons are that...
"Reverend" derives from the word, reverence: "afeelingorattitudeofdeeprespecttingedwithawe;veneration". A person who twists the Scriptures to fit his/her own racist agenda does not revere the Scriptures or the God revealed therein.
The term "Doctor" is one of deep respect of which James Lowery has proven himself unworthy.
The Church was born in persecution. Its founder, Christ, was its first martyr (though he didn't stay that way). He was soon followed by Stephen, all the Apostles (except for John, who died on the prison island of Patmos), and unknown thousands of others. And that was just the first century.
Most people tend to think of Christianity as a Western religion because it survived in Europe, while the expansion of the Muslim empire all but eradicated Christianity from the Middle East and North Africa. Today, however, the vast majority of Christians live in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The rise of non-Western Christianity has come as a huge surprise [to those who don't read and/or believe the Bible ~ OS]. Christianity outside of the West was thought to be a product of European imperialism, and it was expected to wither and die in the post-colonial era. Just the opposite happened. Consider the huge change in Africa. There were only about 9 million Christians in all of Africa in 1900. Today, there are an estimated 397 million African Christians. Says historian Philip Jenkins, the Christianization of sub-Saharan Africa is probably “the largest religious change in human history.”
The spread of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America began with Western missionaries, but it's long been driven by local missionaries and pastors. Most of our Christian brothers and sisters in these lands live much like their neighbors - desperately poor, never knowing if there'll be enough to eat the next day, much less how they'll send their kids to school.
Imagine the unspeakable fury that would erupt across the Islamic world if a Christian-led government in Khartoum had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Muslims over the past 30 years. Or if Christian gunmen were firebombing mosques in Iraq during Friday prayers. Or if Muslim girls in Indonesia had been abducted and beheaded on their way to school, because of their faith.
Such horrors are barely thinkable, of course. But they have all occurred in reverse, with Christians falling victim to Islamist aggression. Only two days ago, a suicide bomber crashed a jeep laden with explosives into a packed Catholic church in Kaduna, northern Nigeria, killing at least eight people and injuring more than 100. The tragedy bore the imprint of numerous similar attacks by Boko Haram (which roughly translates as “Western education is sinful”), an exceptionally bloodthirsty militant group.
Other notable trouble spots include Egypt, where 600,000 Copts – more than the entire population of Manchester – have emigrated since the 1980s in the face of harassment or outright oppression.
So, why do we in the West hear so little of this?
One result of this oversight is that the often inflated sense of victimhood felt by many Muslims has festered unchallenged. Take the fallout of last month’s protests around the world against the American film about the Prophet Mohammed. While most of the debate centred on the rule of law and the limits of free speech, almost nothing was said about how much more routinely Islamists insult Christians, almost always getting away with their provocations scot-free.
That's a good start, but doesn't quite cut it.
One reason why Western audiences hear so little about faith-based victimisation in the Muslim world is straightforward: young Christians in Europe and America do not become “radicalised”, and persecuted Christians tend not to respond with terrorist violence.
Bingo! Christians don't blow things up and chop people's heads off when insulted or persecuted, therefore they deserve only mockery and scorn. When Muslims feel offended, they riot, burn embassies, kill nuns, etc. Therefore, they deserve respect.
The average Christian in the world today, historian Dana Robert reminds us, is a woman from Africa or Latin America. Her family has little money. Her husband farms, and he scrounges up short-term cash jobs when he can. She tries to sell a few things at the market. The children haven’t had their shots, and they get sick. She struggles to keep them in school, where there are no textbooks. The political situation is fragile, and the national government doesn’t get much done, while local officials demand bribes. Our sister reads her Bible, and its accounts of famine, plagues, poverty, displacement and exile, tyranny, cronyism, and corruption — which seem distant to most of us in the global North and West — are immediately relevant to her. The Bible is her book.
How, exactly, does this fit with the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel" most popular in the modern American Church?
It doesn't.
I contend that most American Christians don't want to hear about their persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ because those facts expose the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel" they hold dear as a sham.
I used to wonder where are the modern giants of the faith; the modern Paul, Peter, John, Silas, Stephen, etc.
Having traveled to the Middle East, central Asia and East Africa, I don't wonder anymore.
So, here's my challenge to Western believers in the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel". Use some of your wealth to buy a plane ticket to Pakistan, South Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Iraq, etc. find one of these impoverished, persecuted Christians (if you can... they may be in hiding) and explain to them that the reason they're not healthy, wealthy and prosperous is that they don't have enough faith.
Go ahead.
I dare you.
If, on the other hand, you want to help your persecuted and impoverished siblings in Christ, I recommend the following organizations.
If a transcendent God doesn’t exist and death is the absolute end then what difference does it make if a man spends his money on a wife and kids or on toys and escorts?
Anybody out there have an answer? I don't, but of course, I agree with him.
As a Christian, I believe fathering my seven children is the most eternally significant thing I could possibly do, and I can't do it anywhere near as effectively without my wife, Aimee, as I can with her. The eternal significance of raising children gives our marriage purpose, which motivates us to try harder to fix the inevitable problems that arise in married life.
But even if we had no children, our marriage would still have eternal significance, because the Bible describes marriage as an earthly picture of Christ's love for the Church. Our attempt - even if fallen, imperfect and ultimately inadequate - to model that love makes our marriage eternally significant.
If there is no eternity, then there is no eternal significance. And without eternal significance, there is no temporal significance either.
Presidents always receive some measure of hero worship. It's human nature, unfortunately. However, Obama worshipers take it to levels normally unseen outside third world dictatorships. Case in point; the Obama Spangled Banner.
“It’s a cult of personality to show his face, like Stalin or Mao,” said John Masterjohn, a former Marine and retired schoolteacher from Leesburg. “It’s despicable. They don’t realize how sick they are.”
Like I said, this is the kind of thing normally seen in third world dictatorships. Qaddafi, Assad, Hussein, the Kims - all of them actively cultivate(d) this kind of worship.
“It’s absolutely disrespectful,” Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told FoxNews.com. “It’s totally ridiculous. To put somebody’s picture there, to me, it’s a disgrace to do that.”
Amen, brother. It doesn't surprise me at all that fellow war veterans are the ones who called attention to this insanity.
Here's what I don't understand, though. People in Communist China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and every other Socialist utopia (i.e., hell hole) are forced to worship at gun point. They got (or get) sent to "re-education camps" if they fail to do so.
Obamaphiles do it voluntarily. In fact, they go out of their way to worship their god. For example, these people in Florida actually had to get these Obama flags specially made. Seriously; what's wrong with these people?
I don't know about you, but I already have a Savior. I don't need another one.
That brings me to another point. Christians; this is yet another reason to oppose bloated, morbidly obese government - it becomes a god - people's omnipotent, benevolent provider and protector. Look at Europe. It's not a coincidence that their atheism/agnosticism and government control rose congruently through the second half of the 20th century.
The worst part is that many of Pres Obama's worshipers are "Liberal" Christians who should know better.
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
It's all there in five short verses; confession, repentance, recognition of Jesus as the Messiah and complete dependence on Him. The thief had no time to make up for all the evil he'd perpetrated on others. He had no good deeds to his name. He couldn't possibly rely on his good deeds to outweigh the bad, and he knew it. In case you didn't know this already, neither can any of us.
Are human beings intrinsically flawed, or are we intrinsically virtuous? What do you think? Bill Whittle explains how these two views resulted in very different political ideologies.
In Federalist Paper #51, James Madison explains why government should be constrained by a system of checks and balances whereby separate branches of government with competing interests prevent each other from gaining excessive power they could use to oppress the people.
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Madison believed government is necessary because men are not angels. In other words, because people are flawed - imperfect. He also saw constraints on government (limited government) as necessary because the people who work in government are just as flawed as the rest of us!
Where, exactly, did James Madison get the idea that human beings are intrinsically flawed? It's no coincidence that Madison studied for two years under Reverend Thomas Martin, and thank God (I mean that literally) he did. He helped write the Constitution and pushed for - and drafted - the bill of rights, the most government-limiting document in history.
The idea that people are intrinsically flawed and therefore can never be trusted with too much power originates exclusively from the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Original Sin. The ultimate source of our liberty is Judeo-Christian doctrine.
An honest observation of history and the world around us makes the truth of Biblical doctrine obvious - people are inherently sinful and selfish, which is why any philosophy that assumes otherwise ends in unspeakable misery. Anyone, anyone, who promises Heaven on Earth - regardless what he/she calls him/herself - is either lying or deluded.
Christians, if you actually believe Biblical doctrine, you will stand, fight - and most importantly, vote - against excessive government, and for limited government.
Earlier I argued that "Liberal" Christians use shoddy theology to justify their love of bloated, morbidly obese government and force their Socialist policies onto the rest of us. Given their willingness to twist sacred Scripture, it should come as no surprise that they also twist the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's writings.
Rev. Al Sharpton: No, I think you have to have the reverse argument, and that is if I want to seek employment and have employment in a church but that I disagree with the dogma and theology of the church, do I have the right to be protected by law? And I think that what the Obama administration is saying that you do not have to follow the tenets of a church organization to be an employee of a church.
Scarborough: Do you think this is a good decision?
Sharpton: If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state. Whether I would personally agree with the decision or not, the question is do I have a right to make that law?
So, let me get this straight; in order to separate Church and State, we have to give the State the power to force the Church to violate its religious principles.
Are you serious?
Is Sharpton actually stupid enough to believe this argument, or has he cynically reasoned that MSNBC viewers - and "Liberals" in general - are stupid enough to buy it?
First, the US Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of Church and State". If you don't believe me, go a head and look for it yourself. All the Constitution states on the matter is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Do you suppose that forcing religious organizations to violate their religious principles might constitute "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
The phrase "separation between Church & State" originates from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
In other words, the purpose of the "wall of separation between Church & State" is to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church.
Think about it; if the State does something the Church doesn't like, what can the Church do about it? Who holds a monopoly on the police, the military, taxation and every other agent of force in society; the Church or the State?
justice is the role of government, charity, grace and mercy are the roles of the Church
Justice often requires the application of force, which is why government must hold a monopoly on the application of force in society, but that is also why it's crucial that we limit government, so it doesn't grow too powerful and abuse its power and our rights.
Christians; stop supporting bloated, morbidly obese government. Support limited government and do your job as the body of Christ on Earth; charity, grace and mercy.
"Living by the principle that we are our brother's keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need," Obama said before an audience of about 3,000 at the Washington Hilton. These values, he said, "They're the ones that have defined my own faith journey."
This isn't the first time Pres Obama used the phrase "brother's keeper" to justify his politics.
But Pres Obama doesn't just have some theoretical brother somewhere in the ether. He has a literal brother, literally living in Kenya. How well has he "kept" that brother?
George Hussein Onyango Obama
The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.
Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.
"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."
As you can tell from the mention of "the presidential candidate", the article quoted above is from 2008. "I live here on less than a dollar a month". That means all Pres Obama needed to do to double his literal brother's income, and therefore "keep" him in conditions twice better than they were at the time, was to mail his literal brother $12/year. So, why hasn't he improved his literal brother's situation?
Part of the reason is shoddy theology, which leads to erroneous beliefs. Back in 2010, Pres Obama stated that...
“I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me,”
In case you're not too familiar with the Bible, Jesus never said anything about being ones brother's keeper. That phrase only appears in Genesis.
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”[a] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Genesis 4:8-10
Please explain, "liberal" Christians; where in that passage do you read a mandate for bloated, morbidly obese government?
There are so many examples of Pres Obama's shoddy theology that I can't possibly cover them all, so I'll focus on this latest one from the National Prayer Breakfast.
The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’”
Let's look at the scripture where the phrase, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" originates.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:47-48
In other words, those who've received the Word of God, but refuse to follow it will receive a much worse punishment than those who haven't received it and therefore didn't know any better. Also, the text clearly states that it is God, and not anyone else, who does the demanding.
Please explain, "liberal" Christians; by what twisted logic does Luke 12:47-48 give government the right to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from rich people?
Therein lies the problem with "liberal" Christianity. "Liberal" Christians like Pres Obama twist the scriptures to justify their love of socialism, and absolve themselves of the individual responsibility to care for the poor.
That's why Pres Obama, and other "Liberal" Christians, create a false dichotomy in which one either supports bloated government, or cares nothing for the poor. It never seems to occur to them that private charity can take care of the poor, and in fact does it far more efficiently and effectively than bloated government bureaucracy.
Worse, as Mark Steyn states,
“This version of shared responsibility means the state should be your ‘brother’s keeper,’” he said. “And this is the point for the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is one thing, but big government means the state as church, the sole legitimate source of moral authority whether it’s on contraception or gay marriage or abortion or any of the rest. And that’s what you see in Europe. Big government drives out other sources of moral authority.”
Thus, "Liberal" Christianity renders onto government the responsibilities of the Church - charity and mercy - making the Church irrelevant and making "Liberal" Christianity suicidal. To be clear, justice is the role of government, charity, grace and mercy are the roles of the Church, and neither does each other's role remotely well.
Steyn’s comments are thought-provoking, as they usually are. His last statement, though, could easily be reversed: The decline of other sources of moral authority enables big government. It’s a chicken-egg dilemma: Did we first abandon a belief in the authority of church and family, leaving a hole for government to fill? Or did the government gradually usurp the authority of church and family, leading church and family to abdicate responsibility?
It's a death spiral. Shoddy "Liberal" theology leads to big government, which makes the Church superfluous, which leads to more shoddy "Liberal" theology, etc.
The solution?
14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
In the modern context, "my people" refers to the Church, not the United States of America. The Church needs to teach Biblical theology, not the "Liberal" garbage - and definitely not the "health wealth and prosperity" "gospel" - that passes for Christianity nowadays.
