Doctor Issachar

Episode 41 of the Commonweal Magazine podcast addresses the topic of “White Churches & White Supremacy”. The discussion consists of this leftwing Catholic outfit interviewing Robert P. Jones, a Southern Baptist wracked with White guilt, about his book “White Too Long: The Legacy Of White Supremacy In Christian America". In the discussion, it is revealed that the title is taken from a quote by writer James Baldwin. Isn't that itself an act of cultural misappropriation? If we are to buy into the premise that White Christians are guilty for deeds from the past deemed by Woketopians as racist on the part of organized religion, why shouldn't Baldwin and his contemporary acolytes be held responsible for the bloodshed, death, and destruction of property linked to the socialist ideology of which Baldwin was a proponent? And if the correspondents at Commonweal and Robert P. Jones want to invoke admiration for James Baldwin in their crusade against “White Christians”, don't they owe it to their readers to explain why they are downplaying or even concealing the ultimate conclusion of Baldwin's ratiocination that the concept of God should be abandoned altogether? If Christians are to derive their social philosophy from thinkers that deny the existence of God, why are we to side with those advocating revolutionary upheaval over those such as Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman that advocated a more individualistic approach to life? After all, in a world without God, no set of ideas is ultimately superior to any other. Could it be that, unlike Baldwin to the acclaim of critics, these propagandists do not have the creative wherewithal to continue their scam without what would be considered a crutch or opiate of the masses if they were being more philosophically honest about the worldview that it is that these alleged intellectuals actually profess? By Frederick Meekins

It's been said your first murder is always the hardest. So what is to stop this level of microdictatorship every time there is a flu or disease outbreak? Does social distancing really prevent disease? Am not really that close to that many other human beings other than immediate family yet in the past still picked up colds and such mostly likely that did not originate with them. If we are to be subjected to public service announcements urging us not to touch our faces, how about some targeting certain demographics on the importance of wiping their rear ends properly and washing their hands afterwards? It has been hypothesized that those that do not submit to a future coronavirus vaccine complete with bio-tracking capabilities could be prohibited from travel. But if such a vaccination really does provide immunity for those that take it, what does it matter regarding those that do not? It has been suggested that even if risk of the Coronavirus subsided to a reasonable level, those over 55 should remain quarantined indefinitely. Will that be a personal choice or imposed by the state under threat of violence which is how any governmental edict or law is ultimately enforced? Will those with elderly in a long term care or even independent living facility be allowed to see them ever again? So would one’s 55th birthday become a ritual like the trip to Carousel in “Logan’s Run” or the episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” where a scientist had to abandon his work that would have saved his planet just because he had reached a certain age? The remark was made on Fox News that once the initial Coronavirus lock down ends, the elderly should continue their social distancing while the rest of us move on. Wonder how long until this results in the elderly being excluded from society and then eventually eliminated preemptively against their will? The threat of this disease lurking in the background even if no one is actively suffering from it is going to be used to justify all sorts of cultural deprivations and infringements of liberties. Sort of like how those Japanese Americans had to be placed in those facilities for “their own good”. This would also be a good way to get many of the more doctrinally solid churches shuttered as well. Wonder how much property will end up being seized before it’s all over with to finance these Coronavirus relief programs. Wonder how long, in the name of compassion of course, until the elderly are herded against their will into quarantine colonies where they will never again be allowed to see their loved ones? So if the New York lock down applies particularly to those with underlying health issues, does that mean they are snooping through the medical files of those detained? Cuomo says “social distancing is needed EVERYWHERE.” Does that include our bedrooms where it was once insisted what two consenting adults did was their own business? In regards to the enforcement of social distancing decrees, are we to assume that law enforcement is so superhuman that they can estimate the difference between six feet and 5 feet 10 inches? If this is going to be the racket through which governments finance assorted plague relief efforts, the least that a citizenry subjected to such an intrusive degree of scrutiny deserves is for these assessments to be determined accurately rather than as a result of someone not having gotten their doughnut before hypoglycemia sets in. Apparently a number of prisons are releasing convicts over fears of the Coronavirus spreading among the inmates and even to the staff. So why would it be acceptable to detain those accused of violating social distancing decrees (at this point can these even be considered actual laws) and possibly even those over 55 now daring to show their unmasked faces in public? Ironic. The states now inclined to crack down the most vigorously against the Coronavirus in terms of imposing near police state conditions were the most lackadaisical in enforcing immigration laws that could have played a part in curtailing this plague. It was remarked, “Tim LaHaye made millions of dollars with his 'Left Behind' series and his movies. Personally, I think that it is junk. Can it be explained to me why Tim LaHaye's prophecy works are to be condemned for a more literalistic interpretation of eschatological portions of Scripture yet this same online theologian is noticeably quiet or perhaps even accepting of Pat Robertson's prophetic announcements? Both of these ministers are Premillennial with works published teaching that the Tribulation period is to be understood as foretelling events that will take place. So why is Tim LaHaye to be condemned for having been a workman worthy of his hire? At least unlike Robertson, LaHaye's fortune would have been made for the most part from the actual selling of books and not begging for it through questionable broadcast tactics with those proceeds going in part to pay for race horses and his own private jet and Virginia Beach air landing strip. Unlike Mrs. Robertson, I bet Beverly LaHaye never had to fear being kicked to the curb in favor of a younger replacement had she been stricken with dementia. As of late, a popular theme among Gospel Coalition type churches is that what we have does not belong to us but rather to God. Technically, that is true. However,, it is hoped that such conceptual repetition will make it easier to manipulate the pewfiller into more pliantly surrendering the targeted financial resources or even acceptance of compulsory income redistribution commonly referred to as increased taxation. But if we are to view ourselves as mere stewards rather than as owners, don’t we have an obligation to look to the needs of our own households just as rigorously so that we won’t be a burden upon God’s people. In a prayer, a pastor lamented the divisive politics “polarizing our nation at this time.” So just how many more fundamental liberties are we obligated to surrender and compromise? Does the income that should be redistributed also include the accumulated wealth of the church and the pastor’s housing allowance? Or do the higher tax rates to be arrived at in the name of compromise just apply to the dimwitted saps filling the pews? Should the compromises also include the bill like the one being proposed in Virginia where religious schools would not be allowed to fire crossdressers? The pastor lamented that partisan politics is now linked to the message of Christianity. But wasn’t that initially the fault of progressives going out of their way to blatantly curtail the expression of religious liberty and traditional values to the extent that those holding to these could not help but come to the conclusion that the only viable alternative in this country was some degree of participation in the Republican Party? Jim Bakker hawking 5 gallon survivalist buckets of pinto beans. No wonder some folks need so much toilet paper. Given that Prince Charles contracted Coronavirus, wonder if his father Prince Phillip remained as keen on the prospect of plagues wiping out vast swaths of humanity. By Frederick Meekins

For daring to critique the life of a rapper that probably lived like a reprobate to begin with, the foremost ethicists and theoreticians of jurisprudence of the era in which we live such as Justin Bieber are calling for the firing of Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham. For decades now, those mired in the lifestyle extolled by this musical genre have chipped away at what remains of American’s moral fabric by emphasizing if it feels good do it mindset irrespective of human life, traditional social relationships, and even law and order. Thus, who are these barely literates to tell Laura Ingraham what she can and cannot say? For does not the same First Amendment that allegedly allows the hurling of the vilest of obscenities on the grounds of giving voice to the plight of urban youth also protect Laura Ingraham in articulating her own moral and social vision? For years, those on both sides of the racial divide concerned about the corrosion of standards often exhibited by popular music were told that, if they did not like what they heard, then don’t listen. If so, why is Fox News obligated to pander to those likely not even watching the channel in the first place? By Frederick Meekins

Outrage erupted over President Trump's proposal to alter the concept of so-called birthright citizenship to exclude the progeny of illegal aliens through the administrative fiat of executive order. Such a policy alteration would have been based on the interpretation that such individuals would not qualify for the status of citizenship because neither parent is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trumps has to be given props for advancing such an innovative understanding. However, such an issue would best be resolved through a constitutional amendment clarifying the matter. But more importantly, regarding those up in arms over the dangers posed by executive orders, where was similar outcry regarding this sort of regulatory threat when Obama wantonly violated the law regarding so-called dreamers and now that his puppet Biden issues these edicts like mints to cover over the foul stench exuding forth from his diseased mouth? By Frederick Meekins

In a video posted on Facebook, a legalistic evangelist set a flame of a pair of Mormon ceremonial undergarments. The evangelist claimed that the action was Biblically justified. Acts 19:18-20 reads, “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.... In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.” From the text, readers can deduce a couple of things. To set down such a decree regarding such requires the believer to look at both the context and content of the passage. Only then can a more definitive policy be put in place. Because of this account, those figuratively on fire for God insist taking the flame to any doctrinally dubious object is not only permissible under Scripture but actually required. These items were not snatched by authorities out of the hands of those wanting to keep them. Rather, it is emphasized that those bringing the occultic works forward for destruction were those once owning them that no longer wanted this dark influence in their lives. Furthermore, what we see in the passage of Acts is an historical account of how a specific set of believers decided to implement a particular set of Christian principles. Though in particular circumstances their example would be a noble one to emulate, the account is not presented as that of a command that must be adhered to in every circumstance where the Christian finds himself confronted by religious paraphernalia with which they are at doctrinal odds. For others, it may simply be enough to dispose of the object if they are its owner without raising considerable hoopla or fanfare. It is usually admonished that Christians hold to the principle that Paul is to serve as the Christian's example in terms of ministry. As such, though the customs and traditions of unbelievers troubled him, it is debatable whether or not he would be that deliberately abrasive in attempting to persuade in regards to matters of error and truth. The approach used by Paul in dealing with competing belief systems is found in Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, the Apostle is disturbed by the amount of idolatry he sees around him in the city of Athens. To confront this distressing situation, Paul sets out to present the saving knowledge of Christ in those places in the foremost city of the Western world whose very name is synonymous with discussion and argumentation. In verse 17, we learn that Paul did not shy away from controversy as he took the Gospel into the very hearts of Mediterranean cultural life such as the synagogues, marketplaces, and forums. We are not privileged to have a comprehensive transcript of the exact dialog that took places in those learned circles. However, we are given a summary with quotes of what Paul talked about and the response of the Athenians to it. Upon hearing Paul's message, a number of Epicureans and Stoics inquired, “What is this babbler trying to say?... He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” Scripture then clarifies, “They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.” From what the Holy Spirit decided to preserve of that encounter in the pages of redemptive history, one does not get the impression that all that much time was spent criticizing (at least in a condescending way) the shortcomings of Greco-Roman mythology. Instead, the Apostle to the Gentiles emphasized the distinctive particulars of the Christian faith. However, Paul's homiletical approach did not avoid the beliefs he hoped to persuade as to the error and insufficiency of. If anything, Paul actually utilized aspects of Classical thought to show how all truths that humans might deduce or stumble upon are ultimately God's truths. One might dispute this from the way in which Paul began his oration before the learned gathered on the Aereopagus. Paul pronounces in Acts 17:22, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” From where we stand along history's unfolding drama, both the triumph of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Scientific Revolution are behind us in terms of being events that have forever altered the way entire civilizations perceive reality. As such, to our ears, to be labeled “too superstitious” sounds almost like an insult. However, a number of other versions translate the text as Paul commenting on the religious nature of the Athenian intellectual class. Irrespective of where numerous exegetes come down on this interpretative issue, from that point forward there is virtually no debate as to the approach Paul takes. Those whose missiological approach consists of literally setting ablaze whatever paraphernalia offends their religious sensibilities would have had Paul rip to shreds the inconsistencies and shortcomings inherent to paganism in general and polytheism in particular. There is certainly Biblical precedent for such a strategy where, in Romans 1, Paul holds nothing back regarding how forsaking worship of the one true God to worship nature rather than nature's Creator leads to the most pronounced of carnal sins. Yet in Acts 17, the Apostle shows that the message can be tailored to fit the nature of the audience addressed. Paul went about this by pointing out the commonalities between Biblical beliefs and Greek philosophy. In terms of apologetics, this phenomena is known as a point of contact. Paul shares in Acts 17:23, “For as I passed by ... I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown God'. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” From that point, Paul proceeded to point out other commonalities between Judeo-Christian and Greek thought. In verse 26, Paul declares, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation...:” He emphasized that this simply wasn't the ramblings of a crazed Hebrew babbler Rather, as we are told in verse 28, “For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'.” As such, in his conclusion Paul does not ridicule the Greeks into capitulation and compliance. Instead Paul commends what the Greeks got right in their philosophy as a reflection of the law written across the heart as spelled out in Romans 2 as to what the Greeks ought to set aside of their pre-Christian thought as they come to Jesus in repentance. The act of setting ablaze the revered and venerated object of a faith outside the parameters of Biblical Christianity is without question a very provocative act. Even if one opposes the faith, worldview, or creed that the object represents, only the most fanatic would fail or refuse to admit how such a deed does more to alienate rather than woo those one is taking such a course of action to gain the attention of. For example, it is doubtful many Christians are convinced to the alleged doctrinal error within their own positions of faith when ACLU lawyers descend upon nativities across America and abscond with the ceramic baby Jesus. Often many a Scripture verse is invoked to justify all kinds of shocking actions. For once, it would be edifying to hear a minister of solid reputation to go out on a limb emphasizing those passages extolling individual conscience and determining for oneself those things not quite so clearly spelled out in stone. By Frederick Meekins

An old adage contends that it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Something quite similar could be said regarding living by the “live and let live” philosophy espoused by many early twenty-first century relativists thinking they are too cool and hip to be stifled by any one religious creed. In a letter to the editor regarding an 4/27/2010 USA Today article analyzing the tendency of young adults not to be devoted to a particular faith, a respondent observed this trend is the result of being more educated than previous generations and “exposed to the realities of life in the twenty-first century.” But rather than thinking for themselves, what may be taking place among the youth such as the letter's author is their indoctrination or brainwashing by those educators the young are spending record time around. The correspondents on this topic claim to applaud and embrace an iconoclastic eclecticism. But in reality such souls do little more than parrot the notions expounded upon and bandied about the typical college lecture hall. The author writes, “Who seriously believes that an infinite God, who created the vast complexities of the cosmos, can be understood by finite humanity, let alone be reduced to a statement of faith that's subject to the limits of human understanding?” Some of humanity's greatest minds actually. It's actually a concept not all that difficult to get one's mind around. The assumption that finite man cannot fully comprehend an infinite God is (to use a much maligned term) absolutely correct. Isaiah 55:8-9 says God's thoughts are not our thoughts. However, though we cannot fully know God, it does not follow that God cannot fully know man. Since the infinite is beyond the finite, it is not beyond the realm of the possible for the infinite to reveal of itself what it knows the finite is capable of comprehending of that which is beyond our meager understanding. In the New Testament, God's only Begotten Son Jesus Christ took on human form by being born of a virgin so that He might dwell among us, die upon a cross for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life if we admit that we are sinners and accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation. In essence, God condescended to our level so that we might know Him. When asked why evolution caught on as a theory of origins among the intelligentsia, a popular anecdote posits that Julian Huxley responded that Darwinism supported the sexual morays of that particular social class. Thus, all the grandiose proclamations against the dogmatism of the Almighty and the seeming existential nobility of the libertines ends up being a cover to sleep with whomever you want with the hopes of no regret the next morning. One of the letters to the editor reads, “Beyond that is the nasty habit of many Christian fundamentalists to deny basic human rights to those who don't agree with them theologically.” And what “basic human rights” might those be? Just about nowhere in the United States are “fundamentalist” Christians denying anyone the traditional rights such as freedoms of speech, creed or property where an ACLU media whore is not before a network news camera within a hour of such an alleged transgression transpiring. When articulated by a progressive, the phrase “Fundamentalist Christians denying basic human rights” is actually a euphemism for daring to stand in disagreement of the trend towards sodomite matrimony or refusing to enforce preferences for certain groups simply because they are favored minorities. If anything, Christian “fundamentalists” are the ones having their “basic rights” curtailed and infringed upon here at home in America and most certainly around the world. One cannot name a single regime around the world today where the rulers hold to an explicit traditionalist Christianity that abuses its power by persecuting its population. If anything, Christians unwilling to give up and compromise these truths that they hold dear by refusing to participate in the rejection of moral absolutes are more likely to be the ones persecuted (ironically by the ones that whine the loudest about the church's curtailment of postmodernist understandings of human liberation. For examples, secularists and radical ecumenicalists applauded the decision on the part of the Department of Defense to disinvite Franklin Graham to the Pentagon's commemoration of the National Day of Prayer over his comments that Islam is an evil and wicked religion as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks and the treatment of woman in lands where that creed prevails. For you see. Franklin Graham made the mistake of concluding that the First Amendment is something to live by rather than a abstraction to talk about in vague generalities. As Chesterton is credited with saying, the problem with the freedom of religion is that people end up discussing everything but religion. It is of this fear of appearing impolite and offensively stepping on someone's toes in a manner that delicate psyches will never recover from that our society has come to such a screeching halt that it can become an act of considerable courage to simply state the obvious. And this is something the enemies of this great nation have learned readily. For example, Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, in a 5/10/10 USA Today column titled “Graham's Anti-Mulsim Jabs Hurt Islam and America” applauded CAIR's public statement emphasizing the American value of “differing faiths united in shared support of our nation's founding principles” rather than the “message of intolerance that Graham advocates.” But while CAIR puts forward a public face espousing tolerance and cooperation, the groups and individuals the organization supports behind the scenes advocate something else entirely. For example, CAIR has supported Islamic extremists such as Hamas who not only advocate a form of religious exclusiveness that goes far beyond anything advocated by Franklin Graham but also endorse violence against those with whom they disagree. An old country song admonishes that you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Should Americans continue down the path imposed by cultural agnosticism, the result will not be a relaxed, easygoing paradise. Rather, the result will be the establishment of a sociopolitical milieu where the deceptive will manipulate the weak to undermine the liberty of all Americans. By Frederick Meekins

In a sermon titled “The Ultimate Marriage” posted at SermonAudio, Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church starts of comparing the Whore of Babylon with the Bride of Christ as each is described in the Book of Revelation. However, this is not the standard eschatologically based interpretation describing the two great systems of belief operating throughout cosmic history. Instead, the exposition quickly degenerates into the standard condemnation of the unmarried, the divorced, and those that happen to get married at an age other than that probably standard in the 1800's when most were dead by their mid 40's. In other words, if you are not acceptably married, you are the equivalent of a prostitute irrespective of whether or not you are actually fornicating. In his remarks, Pastor Harris when to the extent that he ridiculed the unmarried as obviously having no interest in woman as if they were closeted homosexuals. But is it no interest in women or in being saddled with a bad match that will result in financial ruination once a relationship that should have never been in the first place comes to its lamentable end? Towards the conclusion of the tirade, Pastor Harris remarked that the church needs to create a culture where getting married is what Christians do and all those that do not should be viewed as abnormal. Technically, isn't what Christians ought to do is abide by the explicit laws detailed in the Word of God irrespective of what station of life one happens to find oneself without outside pressure for an individual to move on to the next level not so much for the purposes of their own fulfillment but rather for no other reasons than herd conformity and group approval? By Frederick Meekins