wheelermacpherson

Frampton Comes Unglued

In Uncategorized on August 9, 2014 at 6:36 pm

Balthus_6

Peter Frampton’s place in my musical heart is well-established. Recently, he did something that made me like him even more, and in a non-artistic sense. I read this account of Frampton’s reaction to boorish front-row fans and I just laughed and laughed. Just today, a driver was acting like a damn fool on the road where we were driving. I made a mental bet: It’s going to be a girl, and she’s going to be texting or talking on a cellphone. I won the bet. And if I could have gotten my hands on her phone, I would have Framptoned it into the next county.

Speaking of cars, Mrs. MacP drives a 2004 Ford Escape. It’s developed a weird tic lately. If it’s been driven for a while and is well warmed-up, and if the A/C is on when it’s turned off…when you start it back up with the A/C on, the engine will die. The A/C is cooling fine; the entire engine shuts off when you put it in drive and start moving if the A/C is engaged. Turn the A/C off and start the car and proceed as before, and it runs fine. Any of you mechanics have any idea what’s going on?

I know y’all have been wondering what I’m pissed off at today. Well, here’s a few linguistic/grammatical burrs under my saddle:

I detest how adults misuse “you” and “I.” For example, it’s quite common for people to say things like, “So what does this mean for you and I?” Well, sorry, Charlie, but that’s incorrect. The simple rule is this: when you’ve got this sort of sentence in your throat, pretend that the “you” has been removed. As in “So what does this mean for you and I?” See how nonsensical that sounds? It should be “you and me.” I strongly suspect this common and irritating error stems from a desire to sound intelligent, and to the passive ear of the non-reader, “you and me” sounds uneducated. But the incorrect but so-common way of saying the phrase sounds dumbass. And dumbass is much worse than uneducated or unsophisticated.

I regularly read things written by people with graduate and post-graduate degrees using the phrase “tow the line.” “We need to make sure people tow the line on this issue.”

Well, dumbasses, the line is not being towed, as in pulled. The line is being toed, as in putting your dumbass toes on the line. I am the leader. I draw a chalk line on the floor. You put your dumbass toes on the line and stand at attention, or I will split your dumbass skull with my hatchet. Any questions? Huh? Huh? It’s toe the line.

And if you don’t properly toe the line, I won’t be taken back. I will be taken aback. Dumbasses, pay attention. No one is taken back, unless they are a Parkinson’s patient named Fox and are riding in a DeLorean. One is taken aback. Aback. Say it with me. Aback.

Another thing I read of quite frequently is the fact that someone is trying to “loose” weight. Really, now? As in you’re trying to set the weight loose? The word you’re searching for, dumbass, is lose. I am trying to lose weight. Bad spelling makes me want to lose my mind. Lose. Not loose. Lose. Bad spelling is a result of many things, chief among them a non-reading populace who relies on SpellCheck to do their grunt work. Well, sweethearts, SpellCheck doesn’t read for context. SpellCheck doesn’t care about you and I me. It doesn’t tow toe the line. It doesn’t care if you loose lose your mind. It is never taken back aback. And it doesn’t read for context. Dumbasses.

The Jew mamzer in the White Shanty has a couple of female offspring. One of them recently attended a music festival, and while there she kicked a white girl. The white girl, predictably, smeared her social media with breathless remarks about how awesome the experience was. I have nothing to say about the white girl; she’s brainless and beneath notice. “Off” is the general direction in which she should f**k. But this incident could be useful, in an amusing way, for those of you who still attend the organized church.

Tomorrow, approach your pastor or one of your elders or deacons. In a hushed voice and with a grim expression on your face, ask the fellow if he’s heard about the white girl who kicked a black girl at a public gathering. Explain that the girl was accompanied by several paid public employees, none of whom lifted a finger to correct the situation. Further explain that the black girl was so intimidated, she actually praised the white girl in pathetic, cringing fashion, for kicking her.

Once he finishes his predictably weaselish response, cut him off and say, “Oh, wait…I got it backwards. It was actually a black girl who kicked a white girl. The black girl was the daughter of a public figure, and the guards who were accompanying her didn’t bat an eye, and the white girl gushed about how wonderful it was to be found worthy enough to receive the boot end of the black girl’s swaggering.” Watch his face, and savor the moment. And then seriously think about turning your back on organized judeoxtianity. You’re not going to go to hell if you walk away from the traditions of men. But you will go through hell if you stick around.

What have you got to loose?

~ Wheeler

balthus-still-life-1937

Sacri-licious!

In Uncategorized on August 7, 2014 at 6:45 pm

The_Sheep-Shearing_-_Abel_Grimmer

My good friend Christian Gray over at Tribal Theocrat left the following comment on my last post:

Here’s part of the common Reformed membership vow:

“To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you?”

I have certain qualms with this. Of course I promise to study and pray and keep the Lord’s Day. But “regularly attending services” can be a discriminatory burden upon poor folks like yours truly. There are times I can’t afford the gas, frankly. In the OT, was there a requirement that believers migrate to a building every Saturday? Hell no, there wasn’t. Why does “keeping the Lord’s Day” all the sudden equate going to two services one day a week?

And what is this “Lord’s work” business? My Quaker neighbor lets me use his shop to change my mower’s oil and blades. Last month he brought his chainsaw to help me cut down mulberry trees growing in the pines. We give him fresh farm eggs. Is that not the Lord’s work? Is that not service? Is he not a believer? But that can’t be what’s required in the vow. How about a random act of kindness to a stranger who’s not a member of the local church? How about sending money to Roger Hathaway’s widow? I have a strange suspicion that the Lord’s work is giving “His tithes and our offerings” to seminary trained men so they can appoint them to fund the salaries of non-working “shepherds,” youth group trips, a hefty mortgage payment, insular seminaries, and missionaries to spread the “gospel” to those that in return spread eboli.

But when I stand before God, what matters is my service to the local (elder-run) church and my giving to the Lord’s work (elder-designed budget)? That sounds exactly like slavery to men, brother. So much for the light burden the Lord placed on us.

He’s made some very timely observations, and I have a few things to say about Christian’s reactions to the CHURCH-CHURCH-CHURCH stuff going on all around us. But first, I think it would be best to start with a little background information about the word “church” itself.

The word from which translators get “church” doesn’t even resemble the Greek word “ecclesia,” whose place it has usurped. The meaning of “Ku-ri-a-kos” is understood by its root: “Ku- ri-os,” which means “lord.” Thus, “kuriakos” (i.e., “church”) means “pertaining to the lord.” It refers to something that pertains to, or belongs to, a lord. The Greek “kuriakos” eventually came to be used in Old English form as “cirice” (Kee-ree-ke), then “churche” (kerke), and eventually “church” in its traditional pronunciation. A church, then, is correctly something that “pertains to, or belongs to, a lord.”

Oh, but see…there’s a problem. The King Jimmy translators broke the rules in a big way. When they inserted the word “church” in the English versions, they were not translating the Greek word “kuriakos“, as one might expect. Rather, they were substituting an entirely different Greek word. Pretty slick trick, no? The word “church” might have been an acceptable translation for the Greek word “kuriakos.” However, not by the wildest imagination of the most liberal translator can it ever be an acceptable translation for the Greek word “ecclesia.”

“Ecclesia” is an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning than “kuriakos.” In fact, the Greek word “kuriakos” appears in the New Testament only twice. It is found once in I Corinthians 11:20 where it refers to “the Lord’s supper,” and once again in Revelation 1:10 where it refers to “the Lord’s day.” In both of those cases, it is translated “the Lord’s…” – not “church.” This word does not appear again in the New Testament. This reminds one of how the King James fellows arbitrarily switch the same Greek word to be “nation” and “Gentile,” and we can see the poisonous fruit of such fast & loose linguistic gardening. Eventually, through the manipulation of organized religion and those shady characters who are always tagging along with Yahwah’s children, “church” came to replace “ecclesia” by popular acceptance.

Now, let’s look at the word, “ecclesia“. This Greek word appears in the New Testament approximately 115 times. That’s just in this one grammatical form. It appears also in other forms. And in every instance (with three exceptions), it is wrongly translated as “church” in the KJV. Those three exceptions are found in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. In these instances the translators rendered it “assembly” instead of “church.” But, the Greek word is exactly the same as the other 112 entries where it was changed to “church” wrongly.

In Acts 19, “ecclesia” is a town council: a civil body in Ephesus. Thus, the translators were forced to abandon their fake translation in these three instances. Nonetheless, 112 times they changed it to “church.” Why isn’t THIS talked about from the pulpits and among the “We’re Bereans!” crowd? The Greek word “ecclesia” is correctly defined as: “The called-out (ones)” [ECC = out; KALEO = call]. I hope you can see how this word was originally used to indicate a body of select (called, elected) people.

Okay, then. Now, let’s look at the vow Christian Gray was referencing.

“To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you?”

My friend Christian is more than justified in having qualms about this vow. The real question, though, is this: why is a vow required in order to join to a congregation? Is there a single example of this in the New Testament? To take it further, let me ask the question a different way. If the word (mis)translated “church” literally means, “the called-out ones” and not a building or organization, and if these called-out ones are what Scripture says they are and if their names were written in the Lamb’s book of life since before the foundation of the world as Scripture claims, why in hell do they need to “join” anything or take a vow to anyone? Are they members of an eternal group (as Scripture says) or are they not? If the former, then vows are silly and unnecessary. If the latter, then the people sitting in the pews and submitting to these man-made ordinances have bigger problems than skipping the evening worship service on a pleasant summer evening.

Let’s return to what Christian was saying. I have known several people who truly cannot afford to keep gas in their cars, and these same people have been made to feel guilty if they skip worship services where they’re going to hear the same refried, deadly-dull, all-head-and-no-heart theological lecturing while “fellowshipping” with the back of the head of some guy who earns six figures and knows more about what Calvin said than about what Scripture says about the New Covenant and true religion and the traditions of men. These folks are probably not going to be approached by the deacons with offers to pay for gas, unless he goes to them first. Why? Because they don’t know anything about their “flock” beyond how often their asses are in the seats.

With your indulgence, I’ll share another personal anecdote. Several years ago, I knew a poor man who belonged to a Reformed congregation. He drove a 25 year-old junker, had two small children who were in poor health, and had a wife who was (gasp!) an unbeliever. He never attended evening or Wednesday night services, and attended perhaps two Sunday mornings out of four or five. He resisted all attempts to get him “involved” in churchity-church busywork, and gave his offerings in cash, meaning that they couldn’t be tracked or recorded. At one point, this man told a prying elder that he felt he was being a better witness for Christ to his wife by spending time with her than spending time in the church building. The session at that congregation had an interesting little sobriquet for this man: “difficult.” One of the elders accidentally communicated this to the man, and that was the last time this man ever darkened that particular Calvinistic door. I have thought of this man often, and have breathed a few prayers on behalf of him and his family. And I am pleased and warmed when I think of his actions. Those were the actions of a son of God; they were not the actions of a good churchman.

As Christian Gray asked in his excellent question, just exactly WHERE was the OT requirement for structural migration? And more to the point, “Why does ‘keeping the Lord’s Day’ all the sudden equate [to] going to two services one day a week?” I can remember having this conversation several times with several men, and the refrain goes like this: “There’s no requirement to come to the evening service, but it is a really good way of sanctifying the day.” Well, now. That brings up another question. If congregations are going to require vows like this, and if they want to be truly biblical, why not replace the “attend services” clause with something like “I promise to visit incarcerated people who are believers being imprisoned for their faith (because that’s who was being mentioned in that verse, folks, not drug-dealers or pornographers or scam artists; the writer of Hebrews was clearly talking about the community of faith, the children of our Father – not the community at large)?” Why not a clause like “I promise to locate and support with my time, talent, and substance at least one widow (or orphan) in the household of faith and assist her regularly in any way I can?” Come to think of it, why don’t the open-minded ear-pissers with the MDiv’s get all up in arms because the Scripture doesn’t mention supporting widowers? Isn’t that sexist? Where’s their concern for the wifeless men of a certain age?

And to back up a bit, why in the wide world of sports would anyone need to take a frikkin’ VOW to pray and search the Scriptures? If the person is a child of God, he’s going to do these things. If he’s immature and doesn’t do them, that’s okay, his Father is going to instruct him, and he’s going to be all right, and at some point, he WILL do these things. But no, he needs a bunch of solemn ol’ judges to enforce this stuff, right?

Christian continues, “And what is this “Lord’s work” business? My Quaker neighbor lets me use his shop to change my mower’s oil and blades. Last month he brought his chainsaw to help me cut down mulberry trees growing in the pines. We give him fresh farm eggs. Is that not the Lord’s work? Is that not service? Is he not a believer? But that can’t be what’s required in the vow. How about a random act of kindness to a stranger who’s not a member of the local church? How about sending money to Roger Hathaway’s widow? I have a strange suspicion that the Lord’s work is giving “His tithes and our offerings” to seminary trained men so they can appoint them to fund the salaries of non-working “shepherds,” youth group trips, a hefty mortgage payment, insular seminaries, and missionaries to spread the “gospel” to those that in return spread eboli. “

Excellent, excellent analyses. I’d like an answer to the question, too. Maybe The Reverend Lane Keister or one of his many mentors can assist us in this. What is this “Lord’s work” razzmatazz? What work – specifically – is it that He has commanded us to do in these 21st  century days? Oh, wait…I’ll bet it’s “sharing the gospel,” iddnit? “Reaching the lost for the Lo-ward?” Or the ever-popular “Building the kingdom?” Perhaps these vow-vultures would care to contradict the Good Shepherd Himself as He speaks in Luke 12:32?

Something else. “Observe the appointed sacraments.” You know, for a pope-bashing bunch, the P&R crowd have never had much trouble retaining tons of detritus from the Roman Catholic church (and that’s an entire blog post just percolating in my wily old brain). By “observe,” I’ve always assumed they meant “participate in,” but it makes me giggle to ponder how accurate the word “observe” is when applied to pretty much any church service. “Appointed sacraments.” Hmm…who appointed them? And where in the Scripture are they called “sacraments?” Ooops…there goes that popery & priestcraft stuff again. The Scriptural fact, eschewing the traditions of men, is that no pastor, elder, or deacon has the authority to bar anyone from participating in the Lord’s Supper. Individual believers are to examine themselves before gathering for the MEAL and abstain if they have spiritual cause to do so. When the black-robed wielders of the Book of Church Order start squawking about how you’re not even supposed to eat with unrepentant sinners, they’ve just painted themselves into the corner of admitting that the Lord’s Supper is part of a meal, not a stupid-ass cracker & thimbleful of Welch’s, shrouded in funereal grief affectations and Masonic-looking rituals. I remember at my old church, outraging most of the other elders when I said I’d like to see children distributing the elements. “After all,” I said into the florid faces of the apoplectic divines, “where do we read in Scripture that officers are to do this? In fact, where did we get the idea that being an elder or a deacon is an ‘office’ instead of a function?” You can imagine why I was not exactly well-liked in that group of Westminsterized gerbils.

Ahem. Sorry. Where were we?

Mr. Gray concludes, “But when I stand before God, what matters is my service to the local (elder-run) church and my giving to the Lord’s work (elder-designed budget)? That sounds exactly like slavery to men, brother. So much for the light burden the Lord placed on us.”

Well said, my brother. The seminary boys love to load us up with all manner of burdens to be borne, burdens of their own manufacture, and they will not lift a digit to provide relief. They will, however, give you a plaque if you teach Sunday School for five years without a break.

I saw something interesting in the news. Scott Adams, author of the popular “Dilbert” comic strip, tore into the financial industry recently in this piece. I particularly liked this remark: “An investment advisor needs to justify his pay, and that means pretending to have stock-picking magical powers that science has never discovered. Every study on the topic shows that the professionals generally don’t beat the market average over time. But they do cause a lot of churn that causes a lot of unnecessary taxpaying on gains. And the professionals charge enough to take perhaps 25% of your potential annual gain in fees.”

Sounds suspiciously akin to the church industry. Let me rephrase it in MacPhersonese:

A professional pastor needs to justify his pay, and that means pretending to have a mysical ability to interpret and apply deep, obscure truths of Scripture unable to be discovered by millions of people, even though these people posess real-life experience, observation, and supernatural status as a child of the Father Who loves and has promised to instruct them. Any observation of any duration shows that the professionals generally display almost no spiritual depth nor wisdom over time, and more importantly, they seem utterly incapable of imparting wisdom and maturity to their congregations, almost all of whom continue to be weak, dependent, and needy of constant reinforcement and reinstruction in basics which they should have mastered and left behind long ago. But they do cause a lot of spiritual and emotional churn that causes a lot of unnecessary grief and guilt about not being a good enough church member. And the professionals charge enough to take at least 10% of the money you worked for, while they do nothing to earn this money outside of pressuring you to continue to follow their unscriptural commands.

That Sunday morning fishing trip or outing with the family is looking better and better, isn’t it?

~ Wheeler

Dilbert

Unpardonable

In Uncategorized on August 5, 2014 at 8:08 pm

falseprophet

This past Sunday morning was foggy, and I used it in the same way I’ve used the past few early Sundays: I pulled weeds. That slow, contemplative rhythm of bending, reaching, tugging, tossing. The august, August smell of warm, wet earth, from which the first Adam in my bloodline was formed. The cows nuzzling their Milk-Dud calves in the next pasture. The hummingbirds shooting past me on their way to the feeder, enjoying their last month in these mountains before they begin their migration south. The chickens bragging about their eggs. The thoughts that swirl in my head as I tear the tares.

Foggy mornings in August. You know what that means, don’t you? Every fog in August portends a snow in the wintertime. We’ve had four foggy mornings this month so far. I’ve been watching the other signs, and I’m convinced we’re not only going to have a hard winter, but an early one. Perhaps I’m misguided when I talk about the weather. Or when I talk about the signs of the times. I’m no meteorologist, and I’m no pastor. Those guys are educated, and I most certainly am not educated.

My grandmother wasn’t educated beyond the third grade, but she was a formidably capable woman. She even taught school at one point…ain’t that rich? She was also a telephone operator for a brief period when my grandfather was injured on the farm where he sharecropped and no cash money was coming in.

She could read the signs of the times. She was an incredible gardener; she could make a stick of firewood grow. She could also dowse, or “water witch” as some call it. Did you know that the esteemed Martin Luther denounced dowsing as the work of the devil? No doubt he would have Servetused my grandmother up on a pile of willow limbs. My grandmother could also predict the sex of a baby with her wedding ring, a gift she passed on to me per family tradition (I’ve never been wrong, incidentally).

I started off talking about Sunday morning, and now look at me. Off in the weeds again.

Our habit is to eschew the electric coffee maker on weekends and use our French press. Sunday morning, I spooned ground beans as black as Delta dirt into the glass pot, added almost-boiling water, stirred it, and let it settle for a while before pressing it down and pouring that first frothing, fanged cup. Mrs. MacPherson fried eggs and bacon, and we ate while talking about the ways in which modern life and culture irritate us.

I’ve written on this blog about the vocal fry and what I call the infantile hiccup. But there are new bitching social clouds on the horizon. Have you noticed the NPR-ish habit of people who, when asked a question, begin their answer with the word “So?”

Examples:

Q. Mr. Self-Absorbed, when did you first become interested in waxing your unibrow?

A. So I was at my therapist’s the other day? And she suggested I was a bit hirsute, facially expressionistically speaking? And so…

Another example:

Q. How does the controversial practice of fracking affect the average Appalachian citizen?

A. So we took a door-to-door poll? And after we stopped rolling our eyes and mocking the people we were surveying, we discovered…

Listen for it. Listen for the word “so” to be the first word out of the mouth of a person being queried. Listen and hate. It’ll be righteous, righteous hatred.

And is it too much to ask that actors in movies pick up suitcases that actually look heavy? Or that they be able to take a sip out of a cup or glass without using a flip-wrist motion that in real life would dash freezing or scalding liquid all over their fake f***ing faces? Or that they buy groceries that don’t include a stalk of celery and a baguette?

Speaking of movies, we rented and watched “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” the other night. What did I think of it? Let’s see. There’s a ridiculous riot grrl elfette crammed into the storyline, the orcs are all white, and there are noble mamzers among the river village crowds. Oh, and the movie is boring and over-CGI’ed to an alarming degree, with the very pleasant exception of Cumberbatch/Smaug. Waste of time, waste of money. The third installment will probably have Billy Dee Williams in it. Ah, well. We’ll always have the LOTR trilogy.

***

A new month is unspooling, and time is playing her immutable tricks on us all.

Here’s a frequent thought in my mind these days: I have nothing to teach you, dear reader. I have plenty to say on the printed page, for my own need of self-expression in this craft or sullen art. But I have nothing to teach you. Even if I had something to teach you, who am I to presume to teach you?

A couple of years ago, I wasted way too much effort and time in corresponding with a pastor about my views on race and nationhood. And if this pastor now wants to know more about my views on the origin of my Father’s children or the universe or heaven or hell or damnation or resurrection…why should I even spill one word on the ground before him? If I talk to him of earthly things and he cannot understand, how shall I talk to him of things beyond this world? Hell, I have friends who refuse to write a single line to me unless I write to them first, so clearly the power of my words is less than compelling….how am I going to change the mind of some seminary-indoctrinated robot with a few paragraphs?

Here’s an example. Another pastor, the Reverend Lane Keister, started some shit with me a few months ago because I dared mention his name and his Tudor-style, lavishly decorated blog here on my little lean-to website with the linoleum floor and chamber pot in the corner and Cool Whip bowls in the cupboard. Everything I ever needed to know about the Reverend Lane Keister came clear when he vehemently denied my accusation that he identifies himself by name as Reverend Lane Keister …all the while his “About” page on his blog starts off with the statement, “My name is Reverend Lane Keister…” The Right Reverend took the brief mention of his blog I made and used it to launch an attack against kinism, even though I am not a kinist and am not welcome in kinist circles (take note of how quickly and fervently the kinists distance themselves from me when mentioned alongside me in anyone’s blog entry), and then when he took too much heat on the topic race, decided to close down the discussion. This is a cowardly pastor. This is a dishonest pastor. This is a pastor who is consumed with the tiny subculture in which he lives and moves and deposits his paycheck, all the while ignoring the obvious truth about Yahwah, the world, life, and the interlocking connections between these elements. This is a pastor who, in his own words, in a response to a question I asked, denies that the ekklesia, the called-out ones, existed before the apostles came along and organized things along the lines that Presbyterians claim they did.

Bless his little heart.

Aesop told us that familiarity breeds contempt, and each of us has seen the truth of this statement. One consequence of ignoring Christ Jesus’ command to share the kingdom news only with the lost sheep of the house of Israel – and this consequence glares across the room at us every day – is that the churchification of the world has created an atmosphere of easy familiarity and open contempt for the word of God. Evvabotty’s heard the Goss-pull!

The word of God.” Hm.

Hm.

A friend recently sent me one of his well-written essays, this one about the essential nature of truth. He quoted from II Timothy 2:15 and made an excellent point in this statement: “This admonition is most often taken to be applied in the area of knowing and studying the Scriptures. However, there is a word of truth about every aspect of life, money, marriage, politics, justice, morality, parenting, buying, and selling.”

As my friend pointed out, the easy-peasy, surface reading of Scripture tends to lead one to shallow, flaccid conclusions. How many assumptions have we read into this passage of the bible? And other passages?

I had another thought recently. Let’s talk about the unpardonable sin. What is this dread sin? Our Elder Brother told us plainly that it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And what IS blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? The context of Christ Jesus’ words demonstrates that this particular flavor of blasphemy entails attributing to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit. Hold that in your mind for just a moment, and then let’s proceed.

White man, white woman, you follower of Yahwah and his son Christ Jesus, think on this: what beliefs do you hold which, if voiced during the fellowship meal at your weekly church meeting, would bring about the hostility, scorn, and fear of your fellow pewsters? Whether you consider yourself racially aware, or if you are fascinated with the evidence that white Western people are the descendants of biblical Israel, or if you believe as I do that you are literally a child of the Father and that you preexisted with Him before the foundation of the world…which of your “unorthodox” views would be welcome in your church, in any church?

Now, I am aware that some of you have been persecuted in your churches for your views. Some of you have been driven out of churches and homeschool groups and social circles because you’ve been deemed “racist” or “hateful” or “intolerant” or “unloving” or “unchristian.” Some of you have endured death threats and threats against the peace and safety of your own wives and children. And mark me well: some of the rest of you, if you stick with the views you only whisper about in your own home, will eventually experience the same, and perhaps worse.

Do you hold your beliefs because they are trendy, or fashionable? Because they are socially advantageous to you? Or do you hold them because you believe they are true? And if they are true, were they revealed to you by the spirit of God? Or did you dream them up on your own, utterly independent of what your Father wants you to know and believe? Tell me, gentle reader, do you imagine that people are more persecuted by the world’s system because they say “I love Jesus,” or because they get caught whispering one of the inflammatory opinions (opinions your great-grandparents likely held) mentioned here? So who’s being persecuted for righteousness sake? Think about that.

And now think about the time or times when you’ve been tagged with one of the above monikers (racist, hater, bigot, intolerant, unchristian, unloving, etc.). Think about the person or group who called you such a thing. Now think carefully…did they in any way attribute your beliefs to Satan, evil, the devil, or demonic forces?

Could it be that you have been the object of the wrath of a person who committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit while using you as the whipping boy?

Yes, well, okay. LOTS of people think I’m nuts. I’m used to it.

But I’m exceedingly handsome.

Our friends Roger and Lisa introduced Mrs. MacP and me to the elegant showmanship of Andre Rieu. Enjoy this, if you’ve a mind to.

My best and warmest regards to you, my friends.

~ Wheeler

aimee_older

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers