Take It from an Old Debater

Since I’m a veteran of a high school varsity debate team, I have a perspective on debates that many may not have. It doesn’t make me an expert, but it does qualify me to have an opinion. Here’s how I saw it.

A commanding, personal presence counts for far less in a real debate than the ordinary person may think. This may be a primary reason why the U. S. Supreme Court requires parties to file written brief, called certiorari before hearing oral arguments in front of the nine justices. According to Wikipedia, “When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. At this point, both parties file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from reasons the parties may urge for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae may also file briefs.”

Because of this, I pay little attention to the looks, the demeanor, the composure or even the eloquence of a debater. I was trained to tune out these extraneous factors and listen very carefully to the definition of terms, the logic of the arguments advanced, the specific relevance and credibility of the evidence cited and the force of the overall case made. I ask these pointed questions: did the debater prove the need, did he present a workable plan, did he prove the benefits of his plan, and did he convince me that he absolutely knew what he was talking about?

First, as to my general sense of the exchange, I came away from the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama with a clear conviction that one knew what he was talking about and the other knew how to make a good impression. I feel secure with one being at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world, but I have deep reservations and nervousness about the other operating as my Commander-in-Chief. I felt my trust solidified as one put the building blocks of his case together; I felt my mistrust growing as I heard the other piece together his talking points with smooth bridges and contrived connections.

One gave convincing arguments that made sense. The other used all the right terms, but spliced them together in hollow and scripted ways. One cited evidence with great detail which demonstrated his familiarity with his material and his insight into the real situation on the ground. The other handled his material as though he were reading from a hastily acquired library book or an encyclopedia article. The one spoke from experience of visiting foreign countries and interacting with heads of state. The other…well, the other didn’t.

I will not parse the particular arguments—such a treatment may be found in a plethora of blogs and newssites around cyberspace. I listened and I listened hard. I heard what I needed to hear from one. I did not hear it from the other. My confidence soared to new heights in the leadership ability of one. I gained no such confidence in the leadership of the other. In fact, this is what the evening came down to for me. Two speakers did an adequate job behind their lecterns tonight. There was only one leader. I will leave it to the reader to decide which man I had in mind.

Justifying Fools

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Proverbs 26:4.

The mindless justification of the insanity of sin represents the ultimate conundrum in human discourse. Practitioners of sin advance arguments that make no sense, and when the vacuous nature of their reasoning becomes apparent to any thinking person, they ratchet up the volume and press more bizarre ways of thinking times ten. Even this doesn’t measure the pervasiveness of the situation. I contend that the entire fabric of the contemporary pleasure and entertainment industry exists as a secondary and tertiary market to produce and package stupidity. Witness the delight of the fans at the fakery of the WWE, for example. Or the dizzying success of American Idol. Or the compulsive gamblers who break their necks to lose money in casinos, despite their knowledge that they are likely to lose 99% of the time! Or the fanatical followers of the outrageous and perverse make-believe plots on soap operas.
 

Give a pass to entertainment if you want, but there is no justifying the foolishness of our modern university education. This rundown of scandalous courses offered in schools today is given below, compliments of Young America’s Foundation:

1. Princeton University’s The Cultural Production of Early Modern Women examines “prostitutes,” “cross-dressing,” and “same-sex eroticism” in 16th - and 17th - century England, France, Italy and Spain (emphasis added).
2. The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States at Occidental College in California explores ways “which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism.”
3. At The John Hopkins University, students in the Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt class view slideshows of women in ancient Egypt “vomiting on each other,” “having sex,” and “fixing their hair.”
4. Like something out of a Hugh Hefner film, Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania offers the class Lesbian Novels Since World War II.
5. Alfred University’s Nip, Tuck, Perm, Pierce, and Tattoo: Adventures with Embodied Culture, mostly made up of women, encourages students to think about the meaning behind “teeth whitening, tanning, shaving, and hair dyeing.” Special projects include visiting a tattoo-and-piercing studio and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding film, Pumping Iron.
6. Harvard University’s Marxist Concepts of Racism examines “the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality” (emphasis added). Although Karl Marx didn’t say much on race, leftist professors in this course extrapolate information on “racial oppression” and “racial antagonism.”
7. Occidental College—making the Dirty Dozen list twice—offers a course in Stupidity, which compares the American presidency to Beavis and Butthead.
8. Students at the University of California—Los Angeles need not wonder what it means to be a lesbian. The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience reviews “various aspects of lesbian experience” including the “impact of heterosexism/stigma, gender role socialization, minority status of women and lesbians, identity development within a multicultural society, changes in psychological theories about lesbians in sociohistorical context.”
9. Duke University’s American Dreams/American Realities course supposedly unearths “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character” (emphasis added).
10. Amherst College in Massachusetts offers the class Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?” Students in this course are asked to question if Marxism still has any “credibility” remaining, while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.
11. Brown University’s Black Lavender : A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays “address[es] the identities and issues of Black gay men and lesbians, and offer[s] various points of view from within and without the Black gay and lesbian artistic communities.”
12. Students enrolled in the University of Michigan’s Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality have the pleasure of reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.”

The picture should be getting clear. Modern academe idiocy owes its existence to passive and indulgent overseers of the culture, paying attention to quarterly financials and golfing vacations, while letting the children get away with murder. I liken it to Mom’s and Dad’s preoccupation with real work while the kids are out behind the garage torturing cats or experimenting with stolen cigarettes. The kids don’t have a clue why they have the freedom and opportunity to fully engage in stupid (albeit fun for them) endeavors. Leisure is their work! This is what they do for a living. The stupider, the better! While their immaturity prevents them from a thorough analysis of their activity, one might say that they take their play extremely seriously. Play is life for kids. There is a simple reason why they have this option—their parents ENABLE them. In fact, most parents take measurable pride in the entire setup. “We work so you can play,” they beam. “We are such good parents!”

One hundred years ago, in rural America, playtime was limited, and therefore precious. (I also venture to guess that it was more supervised.) Kids had chores to do along with the rest of the family, just so the family could survive. There was no disconnect between the kids activities and the parents livelihoods as there is today.

Back to twenty-first century culture. The kids in the above example are university professors, bureaucrats with self-determined job descriptions on guaranteed incomes paid by taxpayers and the elite sophists that our society seems to grow in abundance. They can plunge headlong into absurd and inane activities because Mom and Dad (we taxpayers) enable them to do so. We pay the food, gas, electric, housing, car, insurance and clothing bills so they can amuse themselves in asinine pursuits. We keep the terrorists out of the neighborhoods, the enemies out of our country and keep the economy hiccoughing along so they have the privilege of profligacy. And, like typical kids, they get mad at the parents for not giving them enough money, not granting them permission to do even more stupid things and making them do ignorant tasks like hanging up their clothes and taking out the garbage.

You cannot justify sin. Rename it, redefine it, whitewash it, pet it, coddle it, give it deference and space, embrace it…do whatever…and you will not change its basic nature. We now witness a Herculean attempt in our culture to do undo every denigration, every denial and every proscription of sin ever held by society. Is it true that black is now white, that up is now down and that left is now right? Of course not. It’s the kids talking. Insulated from the real world, they spout off illogical and unthinkable assessments of their wild imaginations. When they make a mess, they blame it on someone else. I did it as a kid. You did too. But, on a grown-up, society-wide scale, the repercussions are not cute. They become devastatingly wicked. Perversity may dress up in university language, professorial mannerisms and long lists of accreditations, but it remains perverse. Sin may look more appealing, more popular and more acceptable than ever before, but IT IS STILL SIN!

Mainstreaming pornography. Yes, that’s what we now see in the entertainment industry. Disgusting acts and displays of skin now get regaled with laughter. Audiences shriek with delight at shocking indecency and immorality. They can’t make it vile enough. Everything is a joke. The resulting message, however unintentional the writers and producers thought it to be, is that pornography is fine. In some shows, porn stars now have been given legitimate roles, not because they have renounced their former ways, but because they have the chutzpah and brassiness to be in porn and be proud of it. The laughter is small and hollow. Pornography cannot be justified because it cannot escape its involvement with rape, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality and sexual abuse. Tell the rape victim that images that elicit animalistic behavior in people are fine. They know better. Tell mothers and fathers whose children have been sexually assaulted by a sex-crazed individual who traffics in porn that pornography is innocent entertainment. Tell victims who have emerged from the ravages of sexual promiscuity and have regained their lives that the magazines and DVD’s of the porn industry are legitimate businesses which have every right to exist. All of them know you are justifying the fool.

Alcohol and drugs. The clink of the crystal-stemmed glasses with the sloshing around of the amber-colored liquor, accompanied by a subtle smile playing on the model’s demure lips paints the picture for happy hour. Rich, full-bodied flavor, original taste and other euphemistic terms to entice consumers to drink alcoholic beverages have passed into the common vernacular. Social drinking purportedly enhances one’s life, opens up business opportunities, connects people with promising contacts and provides much needed diversion and relaxation from the day’s demanding duties. But the liquor advocacy industry gets even worse. Check this out. In answer to the question of whether restricting alcohol use would save lives, one “expert” says: Some lives would be saved from accidents now caused by intoxication and from health problems caused by alcohol abuse. However, many other lives would be lost from increases in coronary heart disease. For example, estimates from 13 studies suggest that as many as 135,884 additional deaths would occur each year in the US from coronary heart disease alone because of abstinence. 21 [see Alcohol & Health]. Running the reference used by the foregoing writer leads to this quote from his source, Thomas A. Pearson, MD, in an article he wrote for American Heart Association in 1996.

“It is unlikely that a randomized, controlled trial of alcohol consumption will ever be performed to establish a direct link between alcohol consumption and reduction in CHD and to define the risks and benefits of encouraging consumption of alcohol. In lieu of this scientific base, a number of scientific facts can be brought to bear on the development of recommendations about alcohol consumption. First, the beneficial effects of alcohol are limited to one or two drinks per day. Second, heavier consumption is related to a number of health problems. Third, it is clear that persons with medical and social conditions made worse by alcohol should not consume any alcohol whatsoever, including persons with prior diagnoses of hypertriglyceridemia, pancreatitis, liver disease, porphyria, uncontrolled hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Pregnant women and persons on certain medications that interact with alcohol should also refrain from consumption. Persons with a personal or strong family history of alcoholism are at risk for alcohol addiction and should avoid all alcoholic beverages.

These facts preclude widespread public health recommendations to either encourage or prohibit alcohol consumption. In the United States 100 000 excess deaths can be attributed to alcohol-related diseases each year.¹¹ On the other hand, if current consumers of alcohol all abstained from drinking, approximately 80 000 excess deaths would occur.² Most of the excess deaths due to alcohol occur in people younger than 45 years, whereas deaths reduced by alcohol are generally in age groups with high CHD rates, ie, 45 years or older. In either case, general public health education messages about alcohol may be difficult to develop, so that they target only persons for whom moderate consumption of alcohol would have a positive cost-benefit ratio.”

How might we gauge the impact of drinking alcohol on the population, especially the under-45 segment? Let’s start with carnage on the highways, scraping up body parts smeared across the pavement, extricating dismembered victims from vehicles twisted around trees. We could go on to talk about the innocent victims in the other car, you know the one with all the children whose lives are now lost due to an idiot who believed the beer commercials. An entire family of five was wiped out in Toledo this past Christmas by a drunk driver heading up the down ramp on US-23. Where is this tragedy spelled out in the glib statistics flung out there by an obviously paid alcohol industry spokesman?

Illustrations abound from the culture that reinforce my point over and over. Why do we pass tough DUI laws and yet laugh at people who drink themselves out of their minds? Why do we permit half-naked people to prance across magazines, catalogs and billboards and then crack down on the poor rubes who give into the temptation? Why do we rail against arsonists on the one hand and then supply them with the matches and kerosene on the other?

Fools are not worthy of reasoning. People will justify sin, not because they stand on solid footing, but simply because they want to commit the sin. Few murderers inhabit our prisons who did not claim some justification for their crime, regardless of how irrational and fatuous their deed may have been.

Some things do not bear reasoning. Paul admonished Timothy, “Flee youthful lusts.” In other words, don’t think you can subject raw emotion or carnal instincts to intellectual vetoes. It won’t work. Get out of the situation as fast as you can.

Don’t insult the intelligence of Bible believers that sin is good, that evil is righteous, that transgressing against God’s commands actually draws one closer to God, or that the teaching of the scripture can be followed by disobedience. Pure poppycock. Take your specious argumentation somewhere else. I will not answer a fool according to his folly. It will make me equally foolish.

Election Opportunities

I have been paying close attention to presidential elections since John F. Kennedy defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960. This year takes the cake. No election season has ever been more volatile, more polarizing or more provocative, at least in my memory, than the 2008 race for the White House. But, the explosive nature of the contest only marginally involves the traditional warring between the major political parties. Much more ominous, and therefore more riveting to me, have been the cultural issues that have dominated the campaign. Gay marriage, abortion issues, racial strife, gender rights, terrorism, financial collapse—issues that hold apocalyptic implications for the qualities of our lives—are all in the mix. I have always advocated that Christians, handling their sacred constitutional rights in the fear of God, have an obligation to pull the levers according to their righteous conscience.

The tragedy of the situation, however, is that far too many professing Christians do not take a position on anything they consider to be a political issue. If their favored candidate’s comes up short against a list of moral criteria, some get very nervous and drop out of the process. They have no heart for bucking partisan tradition. But, even within a political party, room exists for righteous influence. The opportunity that an election brings to every citizen—at the very least—is to learn, understand and shape a personal opinion about moral matters. Let this solemn truth guide you: our eternal judge will not hold us accountable to a political party or to some long-coddled personal bias. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords will judge us out of those things written in the book, the Word of God.

Pardon my preachiness for a moment, but: I believe that Bible-believing Christians ought to have a rock-solid opinion about topics plainly spelled out in the scriptures. We ought to know when life begins and ends—and who should be responsible for ending it. We ought to know about the gender of the parties in a marriage and how the Bible teaches us to honor and revere it. We ought to know that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and seek to preserve it by continuing to trust in and practice those principles. We ought to know how to be good examples to our children and seek to protect them from the out-of-control evil influences in society. We ought to uphold family values in the home, the school and in our culture. We ought to fully appreciate our right to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience and fend off every effort to curb or deny that right to us. I could go on, but you get the general drift.

To secular combatants, elections are made for partisan rancor and trading insults. Bible believers, however, get the bigger picture. Any election, but especially this one, compels each of us to learn more about the Bible foundation for marriage, right-to-life, education, religious rights and all the moral issues that have become woven into the political landscape of our nation. It gives us an open door to find out the pros and cons of sensitive topics that we have ducked because of their political implications.

As our culture continues its precipitous slide toward moral poverty, all of these issues and more are working their way into the minds of our citizens and the laws of the land. It would be a mindless and irresponsible act to fling these critical issues under the bus and claim that we have nothing to do with them, or that we are powerless to act. Money, education and influence seem to be the standard by which we judge our political viability. Our greatest need is courage. True courage cannot be measured by political calculi. It arises from the pure heart of a patriot who yields no allegiance to prevailing winds of temporal powers. And when the big stage won’t permit our entrance, each of us has a private stage from which we can shake the earth. It’s called our closet of prayer. Your voice may never be heard in Washington , but it can be heard in heaven.

Take a moment right now and breathe a prayer for the safety and moral preservation of our nation. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” And, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” If a country isn’t important enough to pray for, what is? We ask for God to bless America . Let us now bless America with our fervent prayers.

The Liberal States of America

Initiation ceremonies are now in session. All those who have birth passes stating that your parents had permission to conceive and produce you may now stand. Have your papers ready and extend your right hand for scanning.

You, sir. What rights do you apply for?

What? Freedom to bear arms? <sigh> I take it you are something of a comedian. In this setting, your humor is not appreciated. You should know by now that you may only use state-owned and state-issued firearms if you are assigned to a body guard attachment to protect liberal bureaucrats. That takes years of training. Have you applied for this training? No? Well, step back in line and we will deal with you later.

Excuse me? What did you say? Second amendment? My patience is wearing thin. The second amendment was eliminated by the Supreme Court back in 2012, under his Lordship, Barack Obama. What planet have you been living on? It sounds like you have been corrupted by a war-mongering father or grandfather. Probably one of those Neanderthal Bushies. Do I need to send you back to training classes? Okay. Enough.

Ma’am. What rights do you wish to have? Freedom of speech, hmmm? Well, let’s see. Let me take a look at your papers here. Oooohh. This is a problem. Religion classes? Constitutional studies? And, AND…do I see here that you graduated from a private Christian school? Uh-uh. Nope. Can’t do it. You are going to be redirected into geriatric studies and be assigned to your choice of five nursing homes.

What do you mean we are restricting your freedom? Young lady, I told you I was giving you a choice of facility in which you could work! Consider yourself fortunate. Yesterday, I didn’t give anybody that kind of leeway.

Bailiff, where did we get this crop of rednecks today? Unbelievable.

Okay, guy. You’re next. Rights application papers, please. Freedom of the press, huh? So, you’re a writer? Well, let’s look at your credentials. Hey, I’m impressed. Ivy League. No military service…not even ROTC. Good. Students for Democratic Action. Get Out the Vote recruiter. Oh, what’s this? Arrested for disorderly conduct? Pro-Choice parade scuffle with police? Heh, heh. You little rascal. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Heh, heh! No problem. Happened to me twice when I was your age. Tell me, did you get a good crack on those pigs? You did? Good, good. Hey, where do you want to go? Openings at the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone…take your pick. Mother Jones? I think we can work that out. Write away, my little friend. Write away!

(Wow. Sometimes it’s hard for me to believe that everybody used to have all these rights and freedoms just by getting born in the LSA, formerly USA. How stupid was that? That little punk over there would have been able to pack heat anywhere he wanted. Turns my stomach to think that people like that were running around the country a few short years ago. It was total chaos. And to think that that mindless skirt standing there would have been able to say whatever drivel dribbled out of her 1776 mouth. What did they do with the dangerous stuff she would have had the freedom to spew out on society? Capitalism? Free enterprise? Private property? Constitutional rights? Right to life? Now those were dangerous times! It’s a good thing we got control over these idiots. Oh, I’m sure that those founding fathers—slaveholders, bigots, capitalists though they were—still had good motives. They just didn’t have the foresight to know that the rank-and-file citizen out there couldn’t handle all that freedom. Nice thought, but totally unworkable. It’s far easier for people of my caliber and understanding to assign appropriate freedoms to deserving people—-and keep the savants from having them. It’s one reason why I don’t believe in God. If God exists, he sure made a mess of things. Actually, I should say that I do believe in God…God does exist, and I am he. Ha!)

Criticism for Conservatives and Liberals

• Criticize a conservative and he will argue on the substance of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will assassinate your character.

• Criticize a conservative and he will ask for your evidence.
• Criticize a liberal and he will call you a liar and be done with it.

• Criticize a conservative and he will debate you on the logic of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will appeal to the emotional content of the allegation.

• Criticize a conservative and he will still respect you for speaking your mind.
• Criticize a liberal and he will curse you for speaking your mind.

• Criticize a conservative and he will defend your right to express your opinion.
• Criticize a liberal and he will rip you for hate speech and bigotry.

• Criticize a conservative and he will seriously examine your contentions.
• Criticize a liberal and he will mock your stupidity for opposing him.

• Criticize a conservative and he will listen and answer you on the merits of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will interrupt you and shout you down.

• Criticize a conservative and he will believe that you speak in good faith.
• Criticize a liberal and he will indict you for having an agenda of greed and selfishness.

• Criticize a conservative and he will assume you are speaking on your own behalf.
• Criticize a liberal and he will accuse you of speaking on behalf of an evil system.

• Criticize a conservative and he will give you an honest and direct answer.
• Criticize a liberal and he will obfuscate his answer with smoke and mirrors.

• Criticize a conservative and he will shake hands with you at the end of the day.
• Criticize a liberal and he will spit on you at the end of the day.

• Criticize a conservative and he will work on a compromise with you.
• Criticize a liberal and he will shaft you and do things his way after all.

• Criticize a conservative and he will forget it and wipe the slate clean.
• Criticize a liberal and he will exact revenge on you and make you pay.

• Criticize a conservative and you can never lose.
• Criticize a liberal and you can never win.

Our Politicized Media

One of my biggest beefs with the entire political process in our era has less to do with the candidates and their policies, campaign strategies or even the tenor of debate than with the unforgivable and blatant bias of the media. With no attempt anymore to conceal their partisanship, they speak about their favorite candidates with beaming smiles, gushy phrases and obviously pulled punches. Before their guy even has a chance to respond to an attack, they initiate counterattacks and circle the wagons so as to blunt any negative effects.

By the same token, the political candidates whom they despise get hostile commentary, slipshod reporting and often a distortion of facts. It has become laughably clear where their sentiments lie as conveyed by the demeanor with which they cover a story. The mass media in this country, hiding behind the freedom of press (which, by the way, they would love to deny to other media outlets who do not share their views) long ago abandoned their objectivity. The press has an agenda, and their philosophical strategy in executing their jobs plays off of this agenda through any and every element of media, whether by straight-up news stories, editorials, commentary, video footage or still photos. You can be sure that the average reader or viewer gets exactly what the czars of media power centers intend for them to get.

One would think that the major media would obfuscate their maneuverings so that most people would not suspect that they are being manipulated. In many instances they do, but they attempt any serious smoke and mirror acts less and less. They don’t think they need to because they believe most people agree with them anyway. It is, however, an arrogant denial of the political positions of most of the country. The country’s opinions do not matter to them if they have their own well-grounded view. If polls show that the majority is with them on an issue, they quote the poll. If the polls show that the majority is against them, they ignore the numbers and ramp up the propaganda to advance their view anyway. Double standards, rabid partisanship and public debacles don’t bother them if the media become the beneficiaries of such political defects.

John Hinderaker of PowerLineBlog discusses this modus operandi in the media in a recent posting. He wrote in response to an editorial defending the New York Times for printing of graphic and gory photos of the carnage of war. The real question is not the propriety of printing the pictures. They, as we know, simply tell the story of the tragedy of war. Rather, the issue is why did the Times publish these pictures but not similar or even worse shots of gore and mayhem occurring elsewhere in the country? If the intent is to present the facts as they are, why are those facts always set up so as to lead readers to a political conclusion? Are the photos simply a photojournalist’s view of the war or are they calculated to advance an agenda held by the corporate media? John writes:

“The Times photographer quoted by Hoyt says that graphic battle photos should be published “to see that a truthful account of the consequences of war is given.” I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. But isn’t that principle being very narrowly applied here? The fact is that newspapers and magazines hardly ever publish graphic images of violence in any context.

“If journalists believe it their role to “see that a truthful account of the consequences” of a given policy or phenomenon is given, why don’t we ever see photographs of the bloody and battered bodies of crime victims? Most horrific crimes are committed by people who already had long records of violent crime, and either have not been jailed, have been given short sentences, or are out on parole. Many Americans think that our criminal justice system is too lax in punishing violent criminals. Wouldn’t showing graphic pictures of their victims, painful though that might be to their families, represent a “truthful account of the consequences” of our policies on criminal justice?

“Here’s another one: a large number of crimes are committed by illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are also responsible for a remarkable number of motor vehicle accidents. Here in Minnesota, an illegal immigrant was just convicted of criminal vehicular homicide after she crashed into the side of a school bus, killing four children and injuring 17. No newspaper published photos of the dead or injured children. Why not? Wouldn’t such photos contribute to a “truthful account of the consequences” of our lax immigration policies?

“One more: since shortly after September 11, 2001, the television networks have refused to show footage of the terrorist attacks or the collapse of the twin towers. They have done this on the ground that the footage would be too upsetting to Americans; therefore they are sparing our sensibilities. What they really mean, I think, is that if Americans could see that footage their anger against the Islamic terrorists would be rekindled and they may be more likely to support aggressive actions to defeat them. They might conclude, for example, that two or three minutes of waterboarding is a small price to pay to avoid such attacks in the future.

“So, if we’re going to have a debate about when it is necessary to show graphic images of violence so that Americans can be better informed about the consequences of government policies, by all means let’s go at it. But let’s not pretend that the only time the issue arises is when a newspaper wants to publish photos of dead and dying soldiers for the purpose of turning public opinion against a military conflict.”

Today’s media power represents a fourth branch of government, albeit an informal one. Without an official role in governing this nation, they insert themselves into formation of public policy, selection of candidates and appointees, executive decisions, foreign affairs and domestic welfare. They can foment war, instigate riots, assassinate characters, shape public opinion, interfere with the administrative process, facilitate their agenda and virtually control the direction and destiny of the country. That’s a lot of power. That’s a lot of unelected power. We don’t get a chance to elect the people who work the ropes behind our politics.

The huge conundrum is, of course, how can we reign in the mainstream media without denying them the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights? The simple answer is: we can’t. Two options remain: the media can return to its former professional objectivity and report the news that happens, or, alternative sources of news can rise up to expose the present media agenda. I don’t see the first option happening. The news outlets have become far too politicized to change. Moreover, they are fully cognizant of the power they wield and they will never let it be wrested from them without a fight on the scale of WWIII. (And remember, they control their own destiny through the use of their power. The playing field in such a war would never be level.)

The second option, alternative sources of news, is happening today. This column and tens of thousands of others represent the move in that direction. It is an uphill battle, a costly battle in which the media moguls hold the major financial resources, and it is a messy battle because many players in the alternative media sympathize with the mainstream media.

In the meantime, read or view ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOX, AP, Reuters and all the other news outlets with skepticism. Don’t make up your mind until you sample the alternative sources out there. In extremely critical matters, investigate fully the options available. Ultimately, each individual consumer is responsible for what he or she believes. If someone lies to you repeatedly, and you continue to believe them, then you are to be blamed for your own opinions. If, however, you catch them in their lie and you turn to some other trusted source, you are to be commended. In the end, truth is all that matters. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

Relevancy Doctrine Diversions

“We don’t believe in organization, in liturgical tradition, in man-made rules. We just believe in Jesus. Let’s refocus on Jesus and forget everything else we’ve added to the plain and simple gospel.” So opines the “emerging church” dogmatists. And it does sound seductively good. After all, haven’t all the “add-ons” clouded and encumbered the purity of the gospel? Haven’t we piled manuals, resolutions, procedures, standards, bylaws and protocols on top of Jesus and effectively suffocated his message to the world? It would seem, then, that the relevancy doctrine only seeks to present a fresh Jesus to the world, unobscured by the trappings of obsolete Christianity.

We’ve heard it before. Remember “No law but love, no creed but Christ?” Or, “accept Jesus as your personal savior?” Or, “once in grace, always in grace?” Platitudes like these have an appealing ring to them. Cosmetically, they look good, but their infrastructure is deficient. When one scratches beneath the silky smooth surface, the appealing ring becomes hollow in a hurry. The truth is that one simply cannot preach a true Christ to this world without the nuts and bolts that give the gospel its substance. While the gospel may indeed be preached on a rudimentary level, it is both dangerous and ludicrous to filet this veneer off of it and cast aside the essential underpinnings that make it strong and define its meaning.

What if I said that all you need is food to survive? Cake is food. Ice cream is food. Candy is food. So are sauerkraut, anchovies and chocolate-covered ants. Well, you protest, food is lot more than that. You would be right, of course. Any diet that consists only of these “foods” would lead to serious health problems. A well rounded diet must include food groups like dairy, vegetables and fruit, meats, grains and foods containing fats, oils and sugar. Obviously, we have to qualify the term “food.” Many similar illustrations could be used to demonstrate the same principle. Does it matter what you study in school? If it does, then education needs to be defined. Does it matter whether you fly in a jet or ride a bicycle? If so, then transportation needs a definition. Religion, philosophy, family, career…there is no end to the list. The definition of marriage is in the throes of controversy as we write. Anything left undefined will almost always sink to the lowest common denominator. This is precisely why those who wish to disencumber Jesus from scriptural parameters that they find too restrictive will end up with a belief system very different from Apostolic truths.

I can make a safe prediction about any group that rejects the essentiality of water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Fewer and fewer people associated with its congregations will be baptized or be filled with the Spirit. As Brother Tenney has often said, “What goes unpreached will soon go unpracticed.” One large Pentecostal group has already proven this. After they determined that they would not require their members to receive the Holy Ghost baptism, the incidence of this experience went into serious decline. Only seventeen percent of their constituents now claim to have received the Holy Ghost baptism. 

The driving force behind this doctrinal shift is the desire to be relevant to the present generation. Flawed thinking like this leads to reconfiguring Bible doctrine, or inventing new interpretations to scriptures for the purpose of relevancy. But truth does not permit itself to be conformed to popular opinion. Truth worships at no man’s altar. If we would know truth, it will not slink down to our level and grovel in front of us. It will not be beholden to any man. Truth always makes us rise to its level

The Old Testament story of Naaman seriously challenges the notion of the “relevancy doctrine.” A “relevant” prophet would have tried much harder to be nice to this important man. Instead, Elisha didn’t even bother to personally go out and talk to him. He sent his servant to tell him to dip seven times in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy. Naaman didn’t like it at all. “But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.” 2 Kings 5:11-12. But a man with leprosy is in no position to demand anything. Finally, Naaman’s servants prevailed on him to get over his wounded ego and obey Elisha. “And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” 2 Kings 5:13-14. Man’s prideful heart may scream for relevance, but God demands submission. Always has. Always will.

In the New Testament, Jesus did not seek to be relevant and sensitive to Nicodemus. This Jewish leader risked his reputation to meet Jesus. That’s why he came at night. But, Jesus did not even answer the question put to him. His answer to Nicodemus was cryptic, radical and demanding. “You must be born again!” We’ve heard this phrase so often that it has little shock value to us, but, to Nicodemus, it was brutal, even demeaning. A high-born, registered Pharisee was not used to being so dissed or so snubbed as he was by Jesus’ answer. Actually, few people could hope to have a better birth or better life circumstances in terms of Jewish tradition than Nicodemus. He was at the top of the heap.

How “relevant” was God to Saul of Tarsus? He knocked him down in the middle of the road, he afflicted him with blindness for three days and he totally rearranged his life’s purpose. Somehow, relevance didn’t seem to describe Saul’s treatment. How “relevant” was Jesus to Simon Peter? He called him a devil, he told him he had no faith and he basically told him that if he didn’t submit to the Master’s demands that he would lose his place in the kingdom. In the end, Jesus even told Peter to mind his own business and not worry about the lives of other disciples. Many different instances throughout the ministry of Christ show that Jesus did not treat his disciples with kid gloves nor did he try to make things easier for them. He presented them with truth. It was up to them to accept or reject the terms of the Lord.

Regardless of how noble their intentions may be, those who gravitate away from true doctrine in the interest of befriending seekers and facilitating their acceptance of Christ do them no favor. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it “cheap grace.” Such an approach may very well have the opposite effect. It is one thing to upgrade our methods, modify our language and even sing newer music, but these are non-essentials in worship styles and church tradition. It is something else to decide against preaching New Testament doctrine simply because we don’t think it is relevant to today’s society. The Apostle Paul warns us against the slightest attempt of any man or angel to lead us into heresy. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:8-10.

What is the “gospel” of which Paul speaks? Again, definitions are paramount. We find the answer in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Any preacher who professes to preach the gospel must preach the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He must also instruct people how to apply these truths to their lives. That leads us directly to Acts 2:38. If these steps are eliminated from the message, there is no way to appropriate the gospel to a person’s life. The only alternative is to spiritualize every ordinance of scripture that a believer is to fulfill. When doctrines are spiritualized, that is when they are only given metaphoric value and are stripped from any practical application, only a small step exists to the virtual elimination of the ordinance from the salvation experience.

If nothing matters, then NOTHING MATTERS! This fact seems to be lost on advocates of the relevancy doctrine. When they reap the ultimate harvest of the “nothing matters” gospel, they themselves will not matter. Neither will their pulpits, their remaining doctrines, their church congregations and their livelihoods. That’s the nature of the beast. Tell people they don’t have to obey the laws and you reap a nation of lawbreakers. Tell people they don’t have to pay their taxes and you can be sure that no one will pay their taxes. Tell people they are okay without baptism and without the Holy Ghost and no one will be baptized or receive the Spirit. Tell people they don’t have to come to church, and guess what will happen? That’s right. Either turn the sanctuary into an entertainment center or else lock the doors, sell the place and go home.

I receive Paul’s admonition to the church elders as a solemn charge. “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:26-28. The relevancy doctrine is at best a diversion from the true mission of the church. At worst, it is a heretical doctrine that must be exposed for what it is.

Departures

“…Some shall depart…” 1 Timothy 4:1

Every generation of Apostolics must confront perennial departures from the faith. Those of us who maintain the truths preached and taught by our pioneers must do more than wave goodbye. We have a solemn obligation to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” In non-essentials, we may not be intransigent, but we rise up against anything that threatens to uproot the tree of doctrine and sound biblical teaching. False doctrine must never go unchecked.

The so-called “relevancy” movement or “emerging church” movement that has gained some popularity in the last few years represents one such threat. This movement targets several fundamental oneness Pentecostal doctrines for change. Our pastors, ministers and saints need to strengthen their grip on these doctrines so that none of us becomes influenced by “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.” I write this particular article as an opening round against beliefs that compromise or destroy signature apostolic teachings.

First, we all know that the blood of Christ is essential to salvation. The “relevancy” position, however, holds that the blood is applied at repentance; therefore they conclude that water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are unnecessary for salvation. Two egregious errors exist in this falsehood. One, the blood of Christ is applied at every step of salvation: repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism.

The typology precedent may be seen clearly in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. The writer to the Hebrews shows the corresponding application in the New Testament. “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:19-22. The blood was sprinkled everywhere! Couple with this the melding of remission of sin with water baptism in Acts 2:38, and we cannot divorce the blood from baptism. The conjunction of the blood with the Holy Ghost may be seen in the following scripture: “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying…” Hebrews 9:7-8.

The second error is ignoring the Scriptural pattern of water and Spirit in the new birth. Not only is the blood applied at each point, but the critical role of baptism of water and Spirit in salvation means that these steps cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. To preach less than Acts 2:38 disqualifies one from being an Apostolic. Those departing from the faith need to read this: “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of…And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:14-15. Moreover, a wealth of scriptures demonstrates evidence for the essentiality of Jesus’ name in baptism, the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the Apostolic teachings on sanctification, justification, grace and faith.

The “relevancy” movement rejects the holiness lifestyle as obsolete standards of men, referring to it as Phariseeism. The Pharisees placed ceremonial rituals and customs above grace and faith. They were not criticized by Christ for their modesty and morality, but for their hypocrisy, their pride and their misplaced faith. An honest Bible reader, however, understands that living the Christ life entails presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God. Among many instances of this teaching is this: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 7:1. To reject holiness as irrelevant, inconvenient or unnecessary is not an accurate portrayal of the Bible’s admonitions on how to live our lives.

My core problem with the “relevancy” movement is their hollow use of the word “relevant.” I believe that truth is timeless. When will the law of gravity become irrelevant? Or, the second law of thermodynamics? Or, the bill of rights? The truths of repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, the infilling of the Holy Ghost with tongues, the oneness of God, modesty and holiness in dress and behavior will never fade into irrelevance. Just ask the person who has recently emerged from the waters of baptism, breathing a sigh of relief from sins remitted. Ask someone who still feels the tingling from the Holy Ghost baptism experience. They will tell the entire world that the fundamentals of the Apostolic message could not be more relevant, even in today’s changing world.

I love this Apostolic message. I am not commissioned to preach anything else. Here I stand.