Casting Out Devils

Speaking Conservative Truth to Evil-Doers

Archive for the ‘Society’ Category

Whose ‘Monuments’ Survive?

leave a comment »

Despots throughout history have “won” history by destroying the history of others and inserting their own version (i.e., revisionism).  As noted in the movie, “Monuments Men,” based on a true story, this is exactly what Adolf Hitler intended to do with the history of the French, English, and many other peoples, meanwhile looting for himself and his “Thousand-Year Reich” the fruits of others’ accomplishments.  As the main character in the movie explains,

“They would tell us, with this many people dying, who cares about art?  But they’re wrong, because that’s exactly what we’re fighting for, for our culture and for our way of life.  You can wipe out a generation of people, you can burn their homes to the ground, but somehow they’ll still come back.  But if you destroy their achievements, and the history, then it’s like they never existed — just ash, floating.  That’s what Hitler wants, and it’s the one thing we simply can’t allow.”

There are sinister forces at work in America today seeking likewise to “win” history by quashing anybody’s history and accomplishments that do not fit their politically-correct, Totalitarian narrative, deriding and attacking not only the Confederacy and its flag, but the Founding Fathers of America, the Ten Commandments, and any other ideas that oppose them, in hopes of erasing them altogether from the public consciousness.

BUT — “this is one thing we simply can’t allow!”

Monuments Men Compared to Confederate Flag & Heroes

Monuments Men Compared to Confederate Flag & Heroes

Copyright © 2015 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

July 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM

Why the Confederacy Still Matters

leave a comment »

The Big Picture:  Federalism vs. Centralization

Texas Flags

by Paul A. Hughes

The path to the Confederacy, bred of republican Federalism, passed through Mexico to Texas, where the future of Federalism might still lie.

On September 16, 1810, Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla stood on the steps of his church in Dolores, Mexico, and uttered the “Grito” (“cry”) of independence from colonial Spain.  Hidalgo was a Francophile, steeped in the same ideals of democratic freedom that helped inspire the American Revolution.  For too long, he had watched his native and mestizo parishioners neglected and abused by a far-off, centralized government that did not represent them or their interests.  Rather, the Spaniards and native-born criollos in central Mexico maintained the masses as a permanent under-class to serve their own interests.  A revolutionary army formed almost instantly behind Hidalgo which soon threatened Mexico City, but which was ultimately defeated by government troops in a series of setbacks and betrayals.  Hidalgo’s head and those of leaders Ignacio Allende, Juan Aldama, and José Mariano Jiménez were displayed in cages hanging from the corners of a public building in Guanajuato for ten years, a reminder to passersby of the fruits of revolution.  Hidalgo’s cry is still echoed throughout Mexico each Independence Day.

El Grito de Independencia en 1810

El Grito de Independencia en 1810

Independence from Spain would not be realized until 1821.  Threatened by Napoleon, Spain had enacted a new, liberal Constitution in 1812 which granted New Spain (Mexico) seven representatives in government, plus Freedom of the Press and revocation of special privileges for Catholic clergy and the military.  However, the new Constitution was almost immediately set aside by the Spanish viceroy, Francisco Javier Venegas, on the premise that Hidalgo’s insurgency, which was being continued by José María Morelos, justified emergency measures.  Fernando VII of Spain, released from Napoleon’s custody in 1814, abolished the Spanish Constitution and enacted policies which caused such widespread reaction that he began to entertain forsaking Spain for a new empire in Mexico.  An apparent resurgence of liberalism in Spain encouraged conservative Centralists in Mexico to now consider the advantages of independence.  If they remained loyal to Fernando and the Church, they reasoned, there was no treason.  (Still Fernando never arrived.)  At this fortuitous juncture, Agustín de Iturbide, an ambitious army officer who had defeated Morelos, conspired with Vicente Guerrero, another of Hidalgo’s successors, in a coup d’état against the viceroy.  Supported by 6,000 troops under Gen. Anastasio Bustamante, Iturbide and Guerrero laid out the Iguala Plan, which led to the de facto independence of Mexico.

Unfortunately, Iturbide followed Napoleon’s example and set himself up to be Emperor; but soon he exhausted his personal capital with both government officials and the army, who were not getting paid.  Seizing this opportunity, Iturbide’s former protégé, Antonio López de Santa Anna, joined with yet another Hidalgo successor, Guadalupe Victoria, in a counter-coup, leading to Iturbide’s abdication and Santa Anna’s aggrandizement.

By 1823, sentiments of the upper classes swayed again toward republicanism.  The new government enacted the democratic Constitution of 1824, based largely on the principles of the U.S. Constitution.  It set up a federal system in which power was shared with 19 states and four territories.  The document, written by Don Miguel Ramos Arizpe, reflected his strong Federalist, self-rule sentiments and those of the northern states, including Texas.

Shortly before this time, Mexico’s northeastern frontier known as Texas remained an untamed wilderness, populated by Karankawa, Tonkawa, Attacapa, and Hasinai tribes near the coast, Caddos and Comanches inland, and Apaches in the Hill Country.  French traders, Spanish missionaries, and a few shipwrecked sailors had been the main points of contact by Europeans with these tribes (some rumored to be cannibals).  Spain had long sought to establish the region as a buffer zone between itself and French Louisiana, and later with the United States.  They had imported Canary Islanders into San Antonio, but were never truly successful at settling the region.

Spanish North America Map

Spanish North America

This void presented a window of opportunity, especially after Mexican independence.  Parts of the Alabama and Coushatta tribes from the east established themselves on the lower Trinity River, and by 1819 Virginia native Aaron Cherry had claimed land nearby for a plantation.  A contingent of Cherokee settled further north.  In 1821, Stephen F. Austin was granted an empresario contract to establish 300 farming families west of present-day Houston.  Irish immigrants, preferred by Mexico because they were also Catholic, established coastal colonies in San Patricio and the vicinity of Aransas Pass, while other colonies were placed further inland.  The Imperial colonization Act of 1823, enacted under Iturbide, granted 4,428 acres each to immigrant families with livestock, for a nominal fee.  Later, the National Colonization Act of 1827 continued these liberal policies but prohibited colonization within a buffer zone of 20 leagues (52 miles) of the U.S. border.  Soon plantations were staked out and land placed under cultivation all along the lower Trinity (known as the Atascosito administrative district, from the name of an early Spanish outpost near present-day Liberty).

American immigrants took great pains to present themselves as loyal citizens of Mexico.  They formally converted to Catholicism, as required, and kept the peace.  In 1826, citizens of Austin’s colony and settlers from Atascosito escorted Mexican political chief, Col. Mateo Ahumada, under arms, to put down the abortive Fredonian Rebellion in Nacogdoches.

However, settlers in Atascosito began to realize their need for organization in order to enforce the peace within their district.  Moreover, their land grants had yet to be confirmed by the Mexican government, as did the contracts of some empresarios down the coast.  According to law, settlers were entitled to have their land surveyed by the Mexican land commissioner, their titles confirmed, and a township established as their seat of government (ayuntamiento).  Juan Antonio Padilla, the secretary of state, was appointed general land commissioner for Texas.  He had just begun his work when he was accused of embezzlement and murder, and arrested (later exonerated), probably out of political retribution.  Padilla was replaced by José Francisco Madero (great-grandfather of future president Francisco Madero).

Military authorities, as an arm of the Centralist power structure, had become suspicious of Norteamericanos, and began to interfere with Federalist state authorities.  In 1828, Gen. Manuel de Mier y Terán was commissioned to assess the situation in Texas, and was alarmed by the vitality of the Anglo-Saxon settlers, the sajones, who had cultivated more land than Hispanic settlers, then numbering a scant three to four thousand, had in 300 years.  In 1829, then president Guerrero, himself part African, tried to discourage new settlement by outlawing slavery.  Gen. Bustamante seized the presidency in 1829 and enacted a strict new colonization law the next year, sending Gen. Terán with troops to enforce it.  Madero and his surveyor, José María Jesús Carbajal, were arrested by John Davis Bradburn.  The latter had been newly dispatched by Gen. Terán to establish a fort and garrison at Anahuac on Trinity Bay, and another at Velasco on the Brazos.  An Irishman born in Kentucky, Bradburn nevertheless served the interests of the Centralist military and president.

Map of Liberty County, 1895

Map of Liberty County, 1895

Interpreting Terán’s orders and the new law, Bradburn insisted that the citizens, and Madero, were in violation of the law, which prohibited new American settlement and gave all authority to act on land titles to himself.  Madero maintained that the new law did not apply to land or persons settled under previous laws.  An order to release the men was issued by the political chief at San Antonio, Antonio Elosúa.  Thereafter, Madero proceeded, during a brief period in 1831, to confirm up to 60 land titles and establish a town site straddling the Trinity River, near the crossroads at the old Atascosito outpost.  He named it, “Villa de la Santissima Trinidad de la Libertad.”  Madero laid out its streets and named them after heroes of democracy, including Socrates, Demosthenes, Cicero, and Cincinnatus, current Hispanic liberator Simón Bolívar, and recent revolutionary martyrs including Hidalgo, Morelos, Allende, and Jiménez.  (Now known simply as Liberty, the town later renamed many of its streets after heroes of the Texas Revolution, even including Santa Anna and his brother-in-law, Gen. Martín Perfecto de Cos.  Liberty proudly remarked its streets with their original names for the Sesquicentennial of Texas Independence in 1986, which markers remain to this day.)

Liberty Street Markers, Sinsinato and Hidalgo

Liberty Street Markers, Sinsinato and Hidalgo

Gen. Terán ordered Bradburn to demolish the town, such as it was, though apparently this was never attempted.  The new law further placed high tariffs on imported goods.  A customs house was established on Galveston.  Authorities attempted to assess tariffs on ships already arrived within Brazos River ports, and captains complained bitterly about ex post facto laws.  Citizens were accused of smuggling.  Worse, citizens of various locales organized militias, prohibited under Mexican law, which were claimed by some to be meant merely to guard against Indian raids.  Bradburn arrested Patrick C. Jack and his law partner, William Barret Travis, Jack having been chosen captain of the Anahuac militia.  Militia groups from as far away as San Augustine and Austin’s colony mobilized to march upon the fort.  A group of militia from Austin’s colony, joined by several ready men from Liberty, purportedly numbering at least 130, made camp north of Anahuac, near Turtle Bayou.  Encountering cavalry dispatched by Bradburn as a show of force, they managed to capture and hold hostage all 19 troopers.  This action led to skirmishes at Anahuac and at Velasco, both Anglo victories.  At Velasco the first blood of what became the Texas Revolution was shed.

Meanwhile, a committee drafted a list of grievances, which reads like the Declaration of Independence and became known as the Turtle Bayou Resolutions.  These were further presented, in true Hispanic style, as a pronunciamento denouncing President Bustamante and declaring for the Constitution of 1824 and Santa Anna, who at that time was known as a liberator and Bustamante’s rival.  “This had the effect of taking their actions out of the realm of rebellion,” wrote one historian, “and placing themselves in the main stream of revolutionary activities going on throughout all of Mexico.”*  It was a master stroke.  An agreement was reached with Bradburn’s superior, Col. José de las Piedras, prisoners were released, and the settlers returned home in peace.  Gen. Terán, however, wrote to Lucas Alamán, “How could we expect to hold Texas when we do not even agree among ourselves?”  He concluded, “The revolution is about to break forth and Texas is lost.”  To add to his troubles, Mexican Federalists dealt a defeat to government forces in Matamoros.  Ill and despondent, on July 3, 1832, Terán donned his dress uniform, entered the church in Padilla, Tamaulipas, and fell on his sword.

Representatives from the various colonies and districts convened in October 1832, and again in January 1833, to discuss grievances and reforms.  The 1833 convention commissioned Stephen Austin to carry their proposals to the government in Mexico City.  Most objectionable to the Centralists was the proposal to separate Texas from Coahuila and form its own state government, which had heretofore been combined under the Constitution of 1824 (with Texas as a subordinate Department).  Unable to get results, Austin presently wrote a letter instructing local officials back home to go ahead and form a government.  This was intercepted, and Austin arrested.  He languished in a prison of the Inquisition for 18 months, without trial, before being released in a general amnesty, upon the ascension of Santa Anna to the presidency.  Austin’s health was never the same.

Stephen F. Austin with Dog

Stephen F. Austin with Dog

Soon Santa Anna issued his Plan of Cuernavaca, which repealed liberal reforms and enforced a Centralist government.  In April, 1835, a faction of the Coahuila government declared against the Plan.  Newly-elected governor, Agustín Viesca, called out the militia, intent on removing the capital to San Antonio.  Efforts to do so were hindered by troops under Gen. Cos, and Viesca was arrested.  Thus Federalism in Coahuila was stymied.

Events in Texas moved quickly.  In July 1834, Capt. Manuel Sabriego was dispatched from the old stone fort at Goliad to the town of Refugio, in the Aransas colony, with orders to displace settlers from the old Spanish mission and convert it to military barracks.  June 1835, Anahuac merchant Andrew Briscoe was arrested for violating tariff laws by bartering, prompting William Barret Travis to raise 25 volunteers and take the fort there, site of his previous confinement.  Its garrison was forced to agree to evacuate Texas.  Santa Anna sent Gen. Cos with several hundred troops to investigate, which landed on the coast south of Goliad in September.  Santa Anna’s brother-in-law had orders to arrest Travis and other instigators and discourage any settlers who arrived after the 1830 colonization law.  First stationing troops at San Antonio, Cos sent a detachment of cavalry to Gonzales, the most northwesterly Anglo settlement, to retrieve a small cannon previously granted to them for defense.  Indeed, the cannon was once used to frighten off a Comanche raiding party.  October 2, displaying a flag emblazoned with a cannon and the words, “Come and Take It,” the citizens of Gonzales forced the troopers to back down.  October 9, colonists from Matagorda and Victoria mobilized, along with 30 mounted rancheros, and captured the fort at Goliad by subterfuge.  November 4, colonists took Fort Lipantitlán, southwest of Goliad, inflicting 28 casualties without a loss of their own, and but one injury.  John Linn recognized a friend among the wounded, Lt. Marcelino Garcia, who denounced Santa Anna before he died.  The next morning, the same colonists encountered deposed governor Viesca, who had escaped confinement, headed to Goliad with an armed escort.

Meanwhile, Texans convened a Consultation at Columbia, many delegates still hoping to resolve differences with Mexico City.  Yet on November 7, the Consultation voted 33 to 14 to organize a government, under the stipulations of the Constitution of 1824.  At the same time, they declared Santa Anna to have already alienated any allegiance owed to him.

The Alamo in 1854

The Alamo in 1854

Several hundred Texan volunteers proceeded to San Antonio.  Their first skirmish took place at nearby Misión Concepción, in which the same Andrew Briscoe previously jailed in Anahuac, and freed by Travis, led a detachment of Liberty volunteers.  The Texans besieged Cos’s superior force for some weeks, finally fighting from house to house to capture the town, ultimately forcing the capitulation of the old mission known as San Antonio de Valero de los Alamos, the Alamo, on December 9.  From Gen. Cos was exacted the promise to march his remaining forces out of Texas, permanently.

By February 1836, Santa Anna crossed into Texas with his army.  He had come by way of Zacatecas, where he had defeated a well-armed Federalist militia of 3,000 and allowed his army to sack the town, raping and murdering, causing the deaths of 2,000 non-combatants.  A second army under Gen. José de Urrea, numbering 1,100, came by the coastal route, heading for Goliad by way of the Anglo settlements at San Patricio and Refugio.  The rest of the story is better known.  Santa Anna had learned from Bustamante the doctrine that all prisoners should be shot, and all combatants at the Alamo were slaughtered.  Santa Anna ordered Urrea to do the same with about 400 rebel prisoners at Goliad.  Afterward, Santa Anna led a “flying” force after Sam Houston’s army, to meet its fate at San Jacinto, while Urrea continued up the coast as far as Brazoria.

Goliad Fort and Chapel

Goliad Fort and Chapel

The public in the United States watched these events with increasing interest and enthusiasm.  The citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, donated two matching cannon, dubbed thereafter the “Twin Sisters,” which were the two cannon used by Texans in their victory at San Jacinto on April 21.  One manufacturer of weapons, which produced a short model fighting sword for the U.S. military, provided a Texas version.  One of these was reported found on the San Jacinto battleground by a construction worker about 1936, and was more recently featured on the PBS program, “Antiques Roadshow.”

Historians and pundits have since speculated that some later-arriving settlers, namely Sam Houston, had come on a mission to steal Texas from Mexico and hand it over to the United States, perhaps on President Jackson’s secret orders.  Certainly there were those Anglos who longed for incorporation into their native country, if only for preservation of their accustomed rights as free citizens.  (Americans maintained a concept of basic citizenship rights, as had the American Founding Fathers, which harked back to 17th-Century England, see “Politics and Religious Liberty in 17th-Century England.”)  Certainly such desire to associate themselves with the United States seems to be reflected in the design of the flag of the Republic, adopted at the end of 1838, displaying one five-pointed star and one each of red and white stripes.  As we have seen, however, the evolution towards an independent Texas goes back to at least 1810 (some might point back further to Aaron Burr’s conspiracy), yet did not immediately presume U.S. statehood.

Texas was a republic for nearly ten years, then a U.S. state for barely 15 years when Secession took place.  Other causes of Secession are well-known and much-debated, but without doubt the independent, Federalist example of Texas was still fresh in the public consciousness.  The Southern states were not traitors against America, but states populated by Americans who wished to escape what they saw as the tyranny of an unresponsive and no longer representative, Centralist government and continue as American states under self-rule.  Unlike the North, the South did not raise an army to invade others’ territory with an eye to subjugating it.  The South raised an army in order to tell other states and the Centralist government to leave them alone.

There is to this day no stipulation in the U.S. Constitution that forbids states, once joined, to thereafter secede.  The matter was never settled by law, but by sheer force of arms and economic weight.  The Spanish forces opposing Hidalgo, and the armies that Santa Anna took to Texas, had done or attempted to do the same.  Same also were the palpable as well as existential violations of the inalienable rights of free and law-abiding citizens.

The same principle of Centralization is at work today, “in spades,” as special interests, a bureaucratic mentality, and socialistic, dictatorial politicians and legal activists attempt to force laws, speech, thought, and behaviors upon states (which the Constitution declares to be sovereign) and their citizens against their will—except today’s Liberals are the Centralists and Statists, and Conservative Southerners are those who wish to remain free to live as they choose, much as they have always lived, meaning no harm, but brooking little interference.  It remains to be seen when the “tipping point” will be reached, with what substantial reaction, and what form that reaction might take.

God bless you Texas! And keep you brave and strong,
That you may grow in power and worth, throughout the ages long.
”   Listen

Surrender of Santa Anna by William Huddle, 1886

Surrender of Santa Anna by William Huddle, 1886

Note

*Miriam Partlow, Liberty, Liberty County, and the Atascosito District (Austin, TX: The Pemberton Press, 1974), p. 89.

Sources

Copyright © 2015 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

July 17, 2015 at 6:26 AM

Scriptures to Vote by: Voting Christian in a Secular World

leave a comment »

 

civil040A

Compiled by Paul A. Hughes, M.Div

Note: This collection of scriptures was first published during the 1992 presidential election.  A few additions have been made.  If only these warnings from Scripture had been more heeded back then, and since, by Christians of all types who decided to vote their own preference instead of God’s!  Think, in particular, what better appointments would have been made to the Supreme Court, had truly Christian presidents and other leaders been elected.

As another crucial election approaches, it is important to emphasize the need for Christians to vote according to their Christian convictions.

Some Christians think it is somehow “unspiritual” to participate in molding and influencing our nation through politics.  Others have bought the secular line that Christians should keep their religion separate from their politics.

However, it is not only the right but the solemn responsibility of all Christians to exploit every means to influence the world, including electing men of truth, justice, and character to their government, calling all their leaders to accountability, and punishing those who violate the public trust.

Now I cannot tell anyone else for whom to vote [though perhaps I ought to have done so, in retrospect], but I would like to offer a selection of scriptures we should all ponder before we vote.  These scriptures speak for themselves [or so I had hoped].

Seek the Nation’s Welfare

“Seek the peace of the city to which I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in its peace shall ye have peace” (Jeremiah 29:7).

“Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way” (1 Samuel 12:23).

“I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Seek Freedom of Worship

“Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will entreat the LORD. . . but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice to the LORD” (Exodus 8:29).

“For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem” (Ezra 9:9).

“Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you; and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:1).

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Colossians 4:3).

The World is Ignorant of God’s Truth

“The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

“We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

“Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2).

Choose God, Not Self-Interest

“No man can serve two masters . . . . Ye cannot serve God and mammon (i.e., money)” (Matthew 6:24).

“If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served . . . or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).

“See I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. . . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:15, 19).

“Seek not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Luke 12:29-31).

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Revelation 12:11).

Declare a Public Testimony

“Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:18).

“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14).

“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28).

“For a long time, then, they abode there, speaking boldly in the Lord, who gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Acts 14:3).

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2).

“And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word . . . And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:29, 31).

“And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region” (Acts 13:49).

Do Not Aid Sinners in Their Cause

“Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them who hate the Lord? Therefore, there is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11).

“Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

“He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Luke 11:23).

Stand Against Evil

“Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3).

“Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20).

“This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).

“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).

Beware of Deceivers

“Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6, see also 4:14).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

“For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22).

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Distrust Human Counsel

“For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly toward you” (2 Corinthians 1:12).

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19).

“My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13).

“Woe to the rebellious children, saith the lord, who take counsel, but not of me; and who cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin” (Isaiah 30:1).

“We looked for peace, but no good came; and for a time of health, and behold, trouble!” (Jeremiah 8:15).

“They say still unto those who despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you” (Jeremiah 23:17, see also Ezekiel 13:10, 16).

Seek God for Guidance

“Thus saith the Lord, Stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk in it, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk in it” (Jeremiah 6:16).

“Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13).

“If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8).

©2015 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

June 27, 2015 at 6:14 PM

‘Christian’ Tattoos: Does Jesus Approve?

with one comment

Yahweh-Approved Tattoos

Fair Use of an Image Displayed on a Public Street for Reporting Purposes Claimed

Condensed and adapted from God’s Laws:  Sin, Law, Grace, and Obligation in Pauline Theology by Paul A. Hughes (2014), available in paperback from Amazon and other online retailers, and in eBook format from Apple iBooks and other eBook publishers.

Don’t make up your mind till you have
considered these Biblical principles . . .
and oh, prayed about it—seriously!

Finding the line between God’s eternal moral law and prevailing culture is one of the stickiest problems with which people of faith must deal.  Much pressure is naturally exerted upon contemplating God’s law by the sheer weight of historic as well as contemporary culture.

When evangelizing, Paul preached from synagogue to synagogue.  Wherever there was a synagogue, there was also a Judaic subculture.  His views on the rights and comportment of women, while informed by the principles of original Creation and Scripture, also appear to reflect the influence of strongly traditional societies.  The prohibitions against women speaking in church (as in the synagogue, 1 Cor. 14:34 f., 1 Tim. 2:11 f.), praying with their hair uncovered (1 Cor. 11:5, 13), and adorning themselves ostentatiously (1 Tim. 2:9 f.) appear to be calculated to uphold the highest standards of respectability and even gender roles, and humility as becomes a saint, within the local society as well as the synagogue.  Add to this Paul’s opinion, appealing to Natural Law as well as culture, that men should wear their hair short and women long (1 Cor. 11:14 f.).  The Apostle favored neither Libertinism nor license, which in the name of grace flouted not only Biblical morality but the customs and mores of societies in which he ministered (see Rom. 6:1 f., 1 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 5:13).  Rather, he upheld what he deemed to be conservative, ratifying moral ideals and traditions among the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  Theologically, Paul regarded the original order of Creation to be supportive of natural and traditional gender roles, e.g., “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

Matters of Conscience

Paul writes on questions of ritual observances and matters of conscience, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5) and “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (14:22).  If Christians’ bodies are “the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own,” and “ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19 f., also 7:23), it stands to reason that while we are free moral agents before God, we are not free to unilaterally overstep God’s Moral/Natural Law at will.

This principle applies to a multitude of cultural moral questions, in a world that is increasingly godless, profane, and sexualized.  Questions of speech, entertainment, attire, and relationships are all in play.  A case in point is the phenomenon of the so-called “Christian tattoo,” or at least Christians with tattoos.  At the moment, tattoos are, especially among young people, increasingly popular.  A tattoo parlor in a small town near Houston, Texas, advertises, “Yahweh-Approved Tattoos.”  But does Yahweh approve?  Proponents say that the prohibition against tattoos in the Old Testament is invalid because we are no longer under Moses’ Law but under grace.  There they have a point.  They go on to say that the prohibition in Leviticus 19:27 was not about tattoos—rather due to the association of tattoos with some now-forgotten Pagan ritual practice.  Perhaps, but they would do well to wonder further what that Pagan practice might have been, why Hebrews were not to associate themselves with it, and why the commandment focused on tattoos and not other behaviors.  The reasons might still apply today, for all they know.  One might well consider that sincere believers should, in the absence of knowledge, prefer to err on the conservative side.  Paul’s views regarding the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, meant for God’s glory, and no longer “owned” by the believer, spring immediately to mind.

Proponents argue that “old” tattoos from their former reprobate lives become a curiosity to acquaintances, affording opportunities to witness by demonstrating the lifestyle from which they have been redeemed.  Fair enough, if so used and effective toward that purpose.  The metaphor that the “marks of sin” are hard to remove is not lost.  Associated with this idea of “evangelistic tattoos” is that of the aforementioned “Christian tattoos,” by which advocates, often citing out-of-context New-Testament support (e.g., Jn. 6:27; 2 Cor. 1:22, 3:2; Gal. 6:17; Rev. 19:16), profess to be setting God’s mark upon themselves, sporting their personal testimony, and even making their bodies into “a living billboard for the Lord” (my term).  Meanwhile, they categorically deny any connotation relative to the Mark of the Beast.

Many pertinent principles may be applied from Paul’s several discussions of meat offered to idols (see Chapter 2).  Tattoos, if associated in any observer’s mind with evil, could be equated with participating in evil; and while “all things,” according to Paul, are “lawful,” in such case would hardly “edify” (1 Cor. 10:20 ff.).  A believer who judges a brother on the sheer basis of a tattoo is wrong, and vice versa (Rom. 14:3 ff., 10 ff.).  Yet to Paul the onus of responsibility falls on the one who takes license, in this case to display a tattoo that offends a brother (Rom. 14:15, 20); or worse, tempts a brother to violate his own conscience by getting a tattoo himself (Rom. 14:20, 23; 1 Cor. 8:7 ff.).  It would be more pleasing to God, as well as to men, in Paul’s mind, for a believer to forgo the “liberty” of obtaining a “lawful” tattoo, in order to “make peace” and edify (Rom. 14:18 ff.).  This is the Law of Christ in action.  “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.  For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. 5:13 f.).

Know What the Lord’s Will Is

It is thus incumbent upon the believer, first, to learn sound doctrine, being thoroughly trained and informed in the elements of the Faith. Jesus’ mission both prior and subsequent to his atoning sacrifice was to deliver his Gospel to the Apostles so that they could in turn convey it to others to follow.  Aquila and Priscilla deemed it important to correct deficiencies in Apollos’ doctrine.  “I would not have you ignorant, brethren,” Paul so often began his instruction.  According to Paul, Christian leaders are gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach sound doctrine, so that believers might “come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect [mature] man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:12 ff.).  It is not just “unity of faith,” but unity which is only possible in the context of the Faith, that is, sound doctrine.  Truly, we find to this day, as in Paul’s, that where there is unsound doctrine, there is no unity, but division!

Paul further urged believers to “be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).  The good steward of Christ’s grace needs to know the Lord’s will for him or herself, by a thorough understanding of the Word of God and also by personal revelation.  Though “we walk by faith,” seemingly blind much of the time, God’s Word provides principles by which to live, beyond specific commands and prohibitions; and moreover, the Spirit-filled believer, if to such one may lay claim, is equipped and ready to hear the voice of the Spirit whenever He chooses to speak.  Dare we make life decisions on our own, without thoroughly consulting the Lord?  Paul entreated, “Be careful [worried] for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Php. 4:6).  The Apostle James warned those who made their own plans without consulting the Lord, when they ought to be saying, “If the Lord wills” (Jas. 4:15).  The Apostle John reminded the church, “if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 Jn. 5:14 f.).

Do we not know what to pray?  Most who purport to be Christians pray that their own will be done and neglect to ask God his.  “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19 f.).  Paul said that “the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit . . .” (Rom. 8:26 f.).  So second, we need to pray in the Spirit.  “Not my will, but thine be done.”

How long are we to pray, and how hard, before making a decision?  Paul conceived that believers ought to “pray without ceasing” (Rom. 1:9; 1 Th. 2:13, 5:17; 2 Tim. 1:3), just as he “spoke in tongues more than you all” (1 Cor. 14:18, paraphrased).  Even Paul did not claim to receive a definitive answer to his prayers in every case.  He still had to “walk by faith, not by sight,” too.  Yet in matters of conscience, he enjoined his fellow believer to “be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5) in order to be “happy” that he “condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (v. 22).  Only once the life choice in question has passed the final test of the Law of Christ can the believer truly consider himself to have been “fully persuaded” and stand not only uncondemned but “happy” in it.

The Law of Faith and Law of Christ

Paul rejected the works of the Law, yet concluded that God’s law is still not so simple as “Moses out, grace in.”  He was not a Libertarian.  Those freed from bondage to the “Letter of the Law” are not so free as to “continue in sin, that grace may abound” (Rom. 6:1).  Paul took pains to stake out the moral middle ground between Legalism and Libertinism, in which God’s interests are served.  Christians may not live altogether without law, for God’s laws are built into Creation, and lawlessness is utter rebellion.  Sound doctrine, derived from the Gospel, dictates that Christians reject both the extremes of dogmatic Legalism and libertarian self-actualization in order to live by a higher law, the Law of Faith.

The Law of Faith says that we are saved by faith alone, by God’s grace, not because we have the ability to earn salvation, or to pay the price (other than by our own eternal damnation).  Since we are saved by faith, moreover, we should then act in accordance to what we have believed:  to wit, that Christ’s blood frees us from bondage to sin and the consequences of the Law of Sin and Death.  We who have received forgiveness of sin should forsake those sins for which we have been forgiven, rather than pile up more and expect the Lord to cover them like the proverbial “blank check.”  Such a mindset is akin to throwing excrement on Christ and his Cross.  Jesus declined to condemn the woman caught in adultery, yet commanded, “Go, and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11, see also 5:14).

The Law of Faith further presupposes the Law of Christ.  The Law of Christ says that since Christ loved us enough to die in our place, we are therefore obligated to return love to him by acting in love toward all others for whom Christ also died.  We have been redeemed from sin, bought and paid for, hence are Christ’s servants, not free to do as we please without our Master’s permission.  We are thereafter acting as Christ’s emissaries in Christ’s interests and, since all who believe have entered “into Christ,” also for the interests of the entire Body of Christ, in which we share.  The Apostle James is fully in agreement with Paul and with Christ when he writes, “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (2:18).  Those redeemed are to go on to do good works toward others, to serve Christ by edifying his Body, and to share the Gospel wherever possible, in word and in deed.

Consequently, the believer does not ultimately live under the laws of Men, even the letter of Moses’ Law, but according to the Law of Faith.  The Law of Faith upholds Gods’ Moral/Natural Law (which embodies all that is morally right and according to God’s purpose in Creation), and is expressed to the World through the Law of Christ.

In America today, it appears that a dogmatic interpretation and application of absolute laws is unacceptable to modern, relativistic sensibilities.  It is indeed a mistake to attempt to translate law directly to modern society in terms of the “do’s and don’ts” and “thou shalt nots” of Moses’ Law, however those ordinances are framed.  Simple, unassuming people may find comfort in “pat” answers to eternal questions, and in turn be highly offended when their orderly little world is questioned.  Others have found profound truth in Scripture, and the power of God through the Holy Spirit, no longer finding cause to question.  Questioning claims of truth seems to be the hallmark of the younger generations, however, as “everything that can be shaken is being shaken.”  Youthful exuberance and willfulness chafe at restrictions.

But God’s eternal laws cannot be shaken without dire consequence.  God’s laws coalesce toward God’s Plan for Creation, ultimately to be fulfilled in and by Christ.  God’s laws and goodness are displayed for all to see in the things that He has made, so that all Men “are without excuse.”  Christ is “the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. . . . And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Ps. 118:22, Mt. 21:42, 44).

What Does God Require?

So how does the Christian fulfill God’s laws without simply becoming legalistic?  God’s laws are rightfully expressed through the combination of the Law of Faith and the Law of Christ, as described above.  There remain, first and foremost, moral absolutes—adultery and murder are always sins against God’s eternal moral law.  The repentant believer acquiesces to such clear-cut, eternal laws, in humility before God, or else he does not believe the revelation of the Gospel, nor the evidence displayed in the created order:  in short, he remains an infidel and a rebel.  Second, there is the sovereign will of Christ as is conveyed through God’s Word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit.  The servant listens for his Master’s voice, heeds, and obeys.  Spirit-filled believers seek the will of the Lord through the Holy Spirit, and are able to hear the Master’s voice when He speaks, thus highlighting the indispensable nature of Pentecostal Spirit Baptism.

A third classification of obedience to and discernment of God’s law, at which point the Law of Christ comes especially into play, is that which involves “matters of conscience”:  those things which are neither clear-cut and subject to eternal principles, nor a revelation of the Lord’s specific and particular will for a time, a place, and a person or persons—but in the absence of a set of Ordinances such as Moses’, a matter apparently left to the discretion of the individual believer.  Paul describes, himself, various instances in which even he, an apostle, having been granted various endowments of revelation, yet renders his own judgment (“to the rest speak I, not the Lord”) based on his best understanding of the will and purpose of the Lord.  In this realm of activity we as believers exercise the prerogative afforded by God, who would have all Men to freely choose to serve him or not, to decide for ourselves, according to knowledge of his Word and of his nature, what is good and appropriate to do.  Paul in essence walks us through the process, outlining the problem, describing the opposing interests, and presenting alternative solutions, in his several passages on eating meat sacrificed to idols.  Yet too many Christians, even leaders and teachers, become heedlessly obtuse when Paul’s own clear-cut example is brought up; they demand a law, chapter and verse, clearly stated, to which we are bound, in the absence of which they assert personal sovereignty and claim license to please themselves.

In this utter willfulness they overlook and defy the very Law of Christ by which they are called to conduct themselves in just such contingencies in the absence of clear-cut law.  The Law of Christ, Paul points out, compels the servant of God to sacrifice self-interest, and even his or her much-vaunted “rights,” in favor of sparing the sensibilities of a brother and keeping the peace.  Any other choice is carnal and defamatory to the Cross by which he or she purports to be saved.

© 2014 Paul A. Hughes

 

Written by biblequestion

July 18, 2014 at 7:05 AM

Posted in Paganism, Society

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Relativism vs. Belief in Absolute Truth

leave a comment »

Absolute Truth vs Relativism

Absolute Truth vs Relativism

How does that go again?  For me to believe in absolute truth, and that the Bible is true, is arrogant — but for you to make up your own truth, however you please (Relativism), is not?

© 2012 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

March 20, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Posted in Banners, Liberalism, Politics, Society

Tagged with ,

“Don’t Call Me Bossy”

leave a comment »

"Bossy" Liberal Women

“Bossy” Liberal Women

In yet another outlandish emanation of Political Correctness, Michelle Obama and other Feminists are now ordering American society to cease and desist from ever, ever calling a little girl “bossy,” just because she is a big-mouth know-it-all who bosses everybody around.  But I say we ought to stop denying facts and lying to ourselves out of fear, or in the narcissistic desire to appear noble and sophisticated, and call people what they are, especially bossy Liberals.

© 2014 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

March 19, 2014 at 5:57 AM

Christianity Can Only Be Conservative

leave a comment »

Crowd Culture by Bernard Iddings Bell

by Paul A. Hughes, M.Div

In a retrospect on Crowd Culture: An Examination of the American Way of Life by Bernard Iddings Bell, W. Winston Elliott III (“Tyranny of the Herd”) concludes that

Bell believed that America’s obsession with egalitarianism had impoverished education, the arts, politics, and religion.  He did not write against the Common Man’s advancement, but against a society that seemed interested in advancing only on narrowly economic, materialist grounds.

Elliott further summarizes,

Schools had abandoned a foundational curriculum, failed to impart proper manners and civility, and left high achievers, the leaders of tomorrow, to fend for themselves in favor of an all-encompassing focus on equality.  Churches, too, increasingly instructed their congregations not in the timeless articles of the faith but watered-down, feckless accommodations to the latest trends.

Bell’s answer was Conservative nonconformity:

     … Bell urged rebels to challenge the cultural rot, but he warned these conservative iconoclasts that they should be prepared to suffer—whether in financial deprivation or personal scorn.  “We need such nonconformists,” he wrote, “if democracy is not to become absurd”….

A dated but still relevant video, “The Culture of Critique,” exposes the conspiracy begun by the Marxist “Frankfurt School” to undermine the roots and values of Western society.  Its method was to be so-called Critical Theory, which “criticizes basically every pillar of Western Civilization, promoting the leftist, liberal, multicultural, feminist viewpoint.”  Today, no one can credibly dispute its success.

Those of us who are Conservative and preach revealed truth, Biblical authority, and absolute values find that an increasing number of people question everything we say, not out of curiosity or to find answers, but to undermine the entire basis for truth.  The video reveals that such is the plan behind Political Correctness in universities and elsewhere.  Moreover, no proof, no explanation, no documentation ever satisfies them; they ignore proof and keep probing for weaknesses, or to wear down their opposition.

Such people have been likened to “playing chess with a pigeon“:  no matter how well you play, they just knock over the pieces, poop all over the board, and strut around like they think they are winning.

Conservatives are accused of being polarizing in their absolutes and intractability.  The polarization, on the contrary, comes from the Left.  It comes down to the basis of truth and the definition of good.  The world is moving away from the church and Christian revelation, and not in a way that can be countenanced by any believer.  For example, when a million healthy babies are aborted every year as birth-control-after-the-fact, a believer not only cannot in good conscience support the perpetrators of this crime, but is compelled to speak out against it.  When mood- and mind-altering drugs are legalized and mainstreamed, the Christian cannot be silent, and must not be moved.

Even many Christians try to make the principle of “love,” by some amorphous and facile definition, the overriding rule for Christian ideology.  But read your New Testament:  love is to be the Christian’s motivation for actions toward brethren, but never, ever, does love trump principle; else the Apostles, Paul in particular (who wrote the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13), would not expend so much time and ink chastening those who stray, rebuking those who sin, and denouncing false doctrine wherever it is found.

Make no mistake, challenging sin that is increasingly acceptable to a callous world, and worldview, will not be taken as love:  it will be called crazy, “looney-tunes,” mean-spirited, oppressive, and all the other catchwords Lefties use.  However far Left the world shifts, the Christian must stand firm.  As the true Christian refuses to move, he/she will be increasingly marginalized by the Left.  Hence the divergence will not be academic, a matter of perspective, but ever more clearly becomes a choice between good and evil.

One term often used to nuke Conservative Christians is the Fundamentalist label.  This came about largely due to criticism of conservative Evangelicals, notably by James Barr in his book, Fundamentalism (1977); and was further applied by Western intelligentsia in order to link Conservatives to the Muslim perpetrators of the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80 (as a phenomenon or even pathology).  Those who lean Left go around pointing out people as Fundamentalist, stereotypically and pejoratively, in order to marginalize them.  Typically, the term does not strictly apply, certainly not to all Conservatives.

Earlier, I posted what I described as the Apostle Paul’s “Carnality Index.”  The chart is based upon exegesis from the New Testament, and is not overtly political:  thus is draws not from worldly categories, but the Apostle Paul’s categories of carnal versus spiritual, and licentious/Libertine (Left) compared to Near-Right spiritual and Ultra-Right Legalist.  Those categories just happen to correspond rather closely, relationally, to common socio-political conceptions of today’s Western society.

The Pauline Carnality Index

The Pauline Carnality Index

In the linked chart, those who are stereotyped as Fundamentalist would generally fall in the Legalistic Religionist category, though many Left-leaning pundits would throw anyone to the right of themselves into the same stereotypical, marginalizing ashcan.

Conversely, the Legalistic Religionists would tend to “label[…] those who disagree as liberal unbelieving people who think the Bible isn’t true” (to quote a commentator) — the other side of the same coin.  The Legalistic Religionists are just as carnal as Carnal Christians, maybe even the Carnal Unsaved, and fall just as much into the “question mark” area in terms of their salvation.  Paul’s writings make it clear that both are “at risk,” being motivated by the “flesh” (SARX, PSUCHE), not the Spirit of God.

Those who are Spiritual Christians are, of course, those who “walk in the Spirit,” not “in the flesh”; and I do believe that truly spiritual Christians fall to the right of Center (Conservative-leaning), especially since “perceived” Center gets shifted ever more Left as society and many professing Christians continue to apostasize.

As intimated above, true Christians believe an eternal, absolute message which does not shift Left any more than to the Far Right, and cannot be compromised, for neither our Lord nor his intent changes.

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.  For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. ~Malachi 3:5 f., KJV

But from now on, in the eyes of the world, the rebellious, Nonconformist underclass is Conservatives who stand for traditional values and propositional truth.  Even within the Church, Conservatives will be excoriated as evildoers and “troublemakers”:

When Godly troublemakers act, we can expect many in the Church to denounce them as such.  If they bring hardship and persecution upon us, many will ask, as they questioned Moses, “Who put you in charge of us?  You have made us look bad in the eyes of the world!  It is your fault that we suffer!”  It will require great courage and self-sacrifice to stand in the face of bitter criticism, even that of our own brethren.  But if in obedience to God, how can we withhold? ~Paul A. Hughes, “God’s Troublemakers”

Meanwhile, America and the West are sinking precipitously into Barbarism in our frenzy to gratify and glorify self, and surrendering to Totalitarianism in our myopic quest for solutions and meaning.

© 2013 Paul A. Hughes

Written by biblequestion

February 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM