Retiring Episcopal Hierarch Calls For Communist Upheaval

In reflection on her term as the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church posted at YouTube, Katharine Schori said that the reign of God would look like a society where there is justice in the sense that nobody lives in want and nobody has too much.

Given that the apostate wing of Anglicanism isn't exactly known for its apocalyptic millennialism or even a literalist interpretation where these eschatological expectations can only be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Christ's return, such a statement ought to be a cause for concern.

There is little reason to object to the aspiration of everybody being free from want provided they lift a finger of their own to some degree in pursuit of this ideal.

However, without Christ Himself on scene to render such a verdict, who is to say what constitutes “too much”?

Might “too much” be the ostentatious vestments and silly hats many belonging to this retired bishop's particular denomination like to prance about in?

If these functionaries really cared about the equitable distribution of recourses, they could still solemnly fulfill the requirements of their ritual and liturgy in little more than a collared clergy shirt running not more than $50 online.

More importantly, how are those that “don't have enough” necessarily negatively impacted by my having “too much”?

What if one has more simply because one has been a better steward of what one has been blessed?

By Frederick Meekins

Unearthly Beings

Rather than embrace the salvation there for the taking provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a growing percentage would rather put their trust in alleged visitors from outer space planning to usher humanity into a New Age utopia under the guise of a “benevolent dictatorship”.

A good example of this increasingly-pervasive UFO mythology appeared in an edition of the Prince George’s Journal when one of the columnists exhibited a number of the typical intellectual and spiritual fallacies surrounding this controversial issue. For starters, the columnist assumes the federal government is concealing alien corpses from another planet or knowledge pertaining thereof under lock and key in the deserts of the Southwest.

Our government might be guilty of many things (including psychic warfare according to various reports), but harboring extraterrestrial biological remains is probably not one of them. Naturally, people are going to see strange things in the skies above Roswell and Area 51; it is, after all, where experimental aircraft are tested, many of which in all likelihood do not conform to popular aeronautical configurations.

The philosophical reasoning of the columnist under consideration is even more fuddled than her historical assumptions. The columnist complains about the popular conception that the universe’s non-human inhabitants are diabolical and bent on interstellar domination. But she herself then makes the equally egregious error in assuming any extraterrestrial intelligence must be in a moral sense inherently superior to any human being.

Many of the great Western thinkers of both the classical and Christian traditions contend human beings possess the same nature the world over, operating along an established behavioral continuum. Isn’t it safe to assume that sentient life across the universe would adhere to a similar standard?

Popular science fiction seems to bear this out as television programs in this genre exhibit a wide array of alien psychologies often in the span of a single episode.

On Star Trek alone, Vulcans value the intellect while Klingons revel in bloodshed; the Borg epitomize Communism as they have no rulers yet all are slaves having their individuality sublimated to the prerogatives of the collective. The Bajorans of Deep Space Nine are deeply religious, the shows producers using them to comment on the role of religious faith in light of the Space Age. On Babylon 5, the Vorlons claim to stand for universal order while pursuing their own nefarious agenda. So much for extraterrestrials being superior.

It seems from this small sampling that such creatures would be as complex and varied as the nations and peoples now inhabiting our own world. Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry through his work seemed to argue humans would actually be the ones providing a sense of balance to galactic affairs with the so-called aliens actually the ones for the most part exhibiting behavioral and philosophical extremes.

It seems the incessant praise of all things alien might just be another attack on the wonders man has accomplished in his few short millennia of existence. The liberals who bash human ignorance in light of the knowledge an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would have to offer turn around and praise the backwards peoples of the Earth such as jungle tribesman and desert nomads.

Applying this heuristic of the “noble savage” (to borrow Rousseau’s term), wouldn’t us simple Earthfolk bring enlightenment to the interplanetary voyagers? Perhaps we simpletons would even persuade them to abandon their vile space-faring technology (which no doubt pollutes the solar winds) for a way of life more in tune with the principles of cosmic sustainability confined to a single planet.

By Frederick Meekins

Republican Elites Demand Americans Embrace Servile Acquiescence

The United States drifts further into decline.

However, don't expect establishmentarian Republicans to do anything about it.

It seems the party's foremost luminaries and rising stars are more concerned about maintaining the go along to get along mentality that has brought the nation to the precipice of collapse.

This was evident in South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's response to the 2016 State of the Union Address.

The party has grown so weak and tepid that it was suggested on the WMAL morning show in Washington that some debated the propriety of even referring to this short oration as “Republican” for fear of appearing too partisan.

In her remarks, Haley insisted that, “Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”

The Scripture does counsel that a soft answer can turn away wrath and can make a world of difference in terms of personal relationships.

But what is being suggested by Governor Haley is that, while subversives threaten violence and destroy private property in pursuit of assorted radical agendas, once again the so-called “Silent Majority” really ought to remain quiet and continue to be walked all over.

As an example of the path she suggests to utopia, Governor Haley uplifted the response to the terrorist madman that murdered those assembled for prayer at the Charleston church prayer group.

The end result of that tragedy that Governor Haley is the most proud of is not necessarily the aversion of widespread looting but rather the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from South Carolina state property.

But was this move not the epitome of the loudest voices being triumphant in terms of determining the course of public policy?

For it is doubtful that workaday South Carolinians had the final say in this decision.

Rather, as with many of the others made across the various levels of government and throughout influential social institutions, this one was no doubt the result of activist leeches not even living in the particular jurisdiction that threaten to burn entire cities to the ground if you so much as look askance in their direction working in tandem with nefarious elites attempting to implement a globalist New World Order.

In her remarks, Governor Haley assured, “No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

Too bad this sentiment no longer seems to apply to you anymore unless your progenitors just got off of the boat or have wads of cash large enough to pay your way into an assortment of secret societies.

By Frederick Meekins

The Christian & The Socratic Quest For Truth

Not well acquainted with the Western intellectual heritage, some Christians readily dismiss all philosophical endeavor because of the results arrived at by many ungodly thinkers seeking to elevate their own finite speculations above God's revelation. However, it must be remembered that all truth is God's truth. Made in the image of God, man can mirror to a small degree a portion of his Creator's rationality if he is seeking after that truth in an honest fashion.

It has been remarked that Western civilization owes its foundation to the two ancient cities of Jerusalem (representing Judeo-Christian theism) and Athens (representing Greek philosophical inquiry). And while the primacy of the Judeo-Christian contributions must not be forgotten as it represents God's direct relationship with man, the Athenian connection must not be forgotten either. For it represents man trying to come to grips with the world --- both the terrestrial and the human --- made by that divine Creator.

Ranking among the foremost of ancient Greek thinkers was the Athenian Socrates. It must be remembered that the thought of Socrates rested outside the accepted canons of orthodox Christianity.

For example, Socrates believed that man existed prior to his earthly incarnation. However, the idea professed by Socrates that absolute morality exists apart from human culture and convention has a great deal of truth about it.

Like the current era, those living in Athens during the time of Socrates found their culture awash in the chaos of moral relativism. This situation arose in part as a result of Sophist teaching.

The Sophists were a group of traveling teachers who would share their insights with those willing to pay, namely the well-to-do of the Athenian aristocracy. The Sophist worldview was epitomized by the following aphorism attributed to Protagoras, pivotal member of the movement: “Man is the measure of all things.” This meant that man had to rely on his own experience with the highest arbiter of conduct being the collective conventions of any given reality and objective morality nonexistent.

Protagoras was not willing to live out the implications of his own ethical theorizing as he maintained that individuals ought to follow the practices of their own particular culture in order to guarantee social stability. The doctrines promulgated by other Sophists were just as dangerously inconsistent.

Gorgias said truth did not exist nor could it be communicated. Apparently with the exception of this truth of course. Thrasymachus believed might did indeed make right.

It was in such an atmosphere that Socrates undertook his relentless pursuit of the truth in order that he might live what he termed “the good life”, defined as living in such a way as to maximize virtue. He attempted to discover what constituted this morality by subjecting the truth claims propagated within his culture to careful scrutiny and reflection.

To Socrates, the knowledge of morality and truth were not merely intellectual commodities to be touted out to score points in public debates or used to pass the next philosophy exam. Similar to the Christian view of truth, knowledge of the ethical was to serve as the basis of action.

It was this conception of truth that Socrates sought after despite the hardships it eventually brought him. The events leading to the trial of Socrates occurred approximately 405 BC when Socrates as a member of the Committee of 500 refused to convict a number of generals accused of military negligence. The thoughtful sage reflected that to try the military leaders as a group violated the established judicial norms.

Throughout his trial for allegedly corrupting the Athenian youth, Socrates was confronted with several occasions where he could have escaped from authorities or played on their sympathies in order to spare his life. But instead Socrates let the truth stand on its own and accepted whatever consequences the defense of it brought.

Socrates' quest for morality and truth is to be commended, especially in light of the cultural conditions in which he found himself. However, the Christian must be careful when employing this thinker as an historical example worthy of personal emulation.

For starters, Socrates was only partially correct when he argued that individuals do evil because they do not know it is wrong. This might be true in some circumstances like when one eats an extra cupcake thinking it will be pure pleasure when in fact it ends up resulting in a stomachache. However, such is not always the case.

I Timothy 2:14 says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Adam, therefore, fell into sin knowing full well what he was doing when he went against God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

Even though Socrates is to be commended for searching for the truth in light of the spiritual darkness that gripped Athens in the form of Sophist philosophy and pagan religion, that search was only partial at best. For Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. If one's quest for truth is not to be washed away like the house built on the sandy shore mentioned in Matthew 7, it must ultimately be based upon Him.

By Frederick Meekins

Astute Parents Alert To Jihadist Intrusion

A Virginia school system shut down classes for a day over protests that erupted in response to a Geography assignment that would have required students to write in Arabic the fundamental Islamic statement of belief known as the shahada.

If Jews or Muslims rebuffed an assignment to write John 3:16 or “Jesus Is Lord”, would the leftwing media formulate coverage of this story in such a manner so as to paint those standing up for their First Amendment rights against the state attempting to impose a particular religious perspective as the villains?

Students are rarely taught English penmanship these days.

So why is time being spent now in regards to what amounts to a Third World language?

Before progressives look down their haughty noses in condemnation at those seeming to oppose the celebration of pluralism, perhaps they ought to realize to what it was these parents were reacting.

In Islam, to be considered a Muslim, the primary requirement is to recite with conviction the disputed statement that the students would have been required to write.

That is, in essence, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad was his prophet.”

In the eyes of jihadists and allied extremists, if students sign their names to such a statement, is that considered a binding proclamation of conversion?

If so, should jihadists discover the names of students having completed this assignment reverting back to their Christian professions of faith and ways of life, what is to prevent fatwas from being drawn up calling for the violent execution of these unsuspecting pupils?

For the punishment regularly called upon those those leaving Islam for another faith is often death.

The parents noticing this subtle subversion of the public school system should not be looked down upon as unsophisticated rubes or rednecks.

Instead, they ought to be commended for exercising a degree of vigilance and discernment many in this day have been conditioned to overlook for fear of the reprisals that might be imposed for failing to surrender to the tyranny of political correctness.

By Frederick Meekins

Columnist Compares Candidate To The Son Of Perdition

In a commentary transcript, columnist Cal Thomas compared the rise of Donald Trump with the rise of the Anti-Christ.

The consideration of such is always good discernment on the part of an Evangelical public intellectual when a political figure begins to accumulate a devoted following..

However, out of curiosity, did this commentator make an as bold a statement regarding President Obama?

After all, there was a point when church worship bands and elementary school choruses alike were singing songs of praise in homage of the forty-fourth president.

Thomas observed that at one time a divorced man could not expect to be elected President but that Evangelicals are now comfortable with a candidate that has been married three times and can barely quote a single Bible verse.

But didn't Thomas himself help get this kind of ball rolling when he co-authored “Blinded By Might”?

In that work, Thomas advocated the thesis that Christians shouldn't really get that involved in politics.

Instead, believers ought to recognize a distinction between an individual's personal sense of piety and their ability to govern effectively.

Interesting how such a directive is rescinded as soon as average Christians are considering a candidate that does not spew the social justice platitudes infiltrating religious circles to an ever increasing degree.

By Frederick Meekins