Shalom Aleichem...
Reflections is a weekly Christian Teaching Ministry. Each week we will talk about the Bible and lessons we can put to use in our daily life. We will try to, on a weekly basis, provide to you stories, thoughts, and just easy ways to live your life on a straight path.
THIS WEEK'S TEACHING....July 22, 2019
This is going to be, for many of you, a troubling next few weeks. We are going to delve into a subject that has been growing increasingly disturbing to not only myself but many from the world of Christianity. It involves the world of the left-wing progressive Democratic party in the United States and we will be looking at the plot that is, and has been for many years, underway to destroy Christianity today. This may sound crazy to many of you who are of the Democratic persuasion, politically, however, I must be very up front, transparent and honest with you who believe in the tenets of the modern Democratic party. It is not like it used to be when we were growing up.
I realize Hawaii a strongly Democratic so as I say, this might not sit well with some. However what I ask of you before turning away from reading the truth about some factions of your political party, ponder what these teachings are saying. I am only writing what I have found after reading the book Dark Agenda. It all made sense and the issues we touch on in these readings are factual and true.
Let me give you a very short dissertation on the most talked about “beliefs” in the main political parties in the United States…As Webster’s dictionary defines….
Liberals…(or the Left), believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
Conservatives….(or the Right), believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
There are Liberals and Conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties so this is not a knock on either party as I do believe both have strong ideas that could work…if man would give them a chance.
It may sound to you at times I am picking on the Democrats, however the problems we have regarding this subject come from the extreme part of that party. The problem that disturbs me the most is the recent, since 2008 or so, of the Democratic Socialist Progressive movement in the Country. Briefly…
The worldview of Progressive reformers was based on certain key assumptions. The first was that human nature could be improved through the enlightened application of regulations, incentives, and punishments. The second key assumption was that the power of the federal government could be harnessed to improve the individual and transform society. These two assumptions were not shared by political conservatives, who tended to believe that human nature was unchanging, and that the federal government should remain limited in size and scope.
I will begin this teaching by introducing you all to the modern left-wing progressive tenets of which there are four:
The Core Beliefs of Progressives….The purpose of the Progressives is to promote economic, social and environmental justice and sustainability through electoral and other democratic political activities, and to become the majority political party, while protecting minority and individual rights and opportunities.
These were the tenets of the progressive Democratic party in 2010. This was the time of President Obama, of which he was a firm follower of this movement. The beliefs sound safe. In theory they are. But let me ask you this….
If Jesus lived in twenty-first century America, what would He think about our current political concerns? What would He think about gun control or immigration or even how we do taxes? Would He care about welfare? Healthcare? Prison reform? Would He recycle? These are all focus points for the Democratic party in general.
But perhaps the most important question we could ask about this hypothetical, politically minded, “American Jesus” is, what would His political beliefs be based on?
In other words, what would be the why behind His beliefs?
There’s a verse in the Bible that perfectly sums up Jesus’ mission on earth. This verse was the bedrock for His ministry. It permeated His whole life, from what He did, to how He thought. And I think it would have also been the primary influence of His political convictions, had He lived in a world like ours.
“I came to give life—life that is full and good,”(John 10:10).
I wonder if we woke up every morning believing that our purpose today is to increase the quality of someone’s life, how different would we live? What would our conversations and interactions look like? Would we interact with drivers on the highway differently, or talk to our barista differently or converse with our spouse and kids differently?
Some of what you are going to read, in the next several weeks, come directly from the book Dark Agenda, which draws back the curtain on a sinister plot that began many years ago and has permeated the Democratic party to the point that the removal of Christianity in the United States is a major goal. We are seeing today more and more of this “takeover” of our moral values by a group that are led by sinister motives and it scares me deeply.
I have titled this series of teachings….
Don’t just sit there….DO SOMETHING!!!
On Sunday morning, November 5, 2017, a gunman walked into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He wore tactical gear and a black face mask marked with a white skull, and he carried a semiautomatic rifle.
He shot and killed two people outside the church, then went inside, walking up and down the aisle, cursing and shooting people in the pews. He reloaded again and again, emptying fifteen magazines of ammunition. The attack killed twenty-six people, ages five to seventy-two, and wounded twenty.
The slaughter of unarmed Christians in a church sanctuary was a cowardly attack on one church. But what happened after the church shooting was part of a wider war by the political left against Christians and Christianity.
Christians took to Twitter and urged fellow believers to pray. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a devout Roman Catholic, tweeted, “Reports out of Texas are devastating. The people of Sutherland Springs need our prayers right now.” From Hollywood to New York and Washington, the left responded with a chorus of jeers and insults. Former MSNBC political commentator Keith Olbermann suggested in a tweet that Speaker Ryan should proctologize himself with his prayers. Seattle Democrat, Representative Pramila Jayapal, tweeted, “They were praying when it happened. They don’t need our prayers. They need us to address gun violence . . .” Comedian Paula Poundstone sneered: “If prayers were the answer” to mass shootings, “wouldn’t people at a church service be safe?” Actor Wil Wheaton tweeted, “The murdered victims were in a church. If prayers did anything, they’d still be alive, you worthless sack of . . . .” These and other comments from the secular left displayed not only a smug disdain for Christians but an amazing ignorance of how religious Christians view prayer.
I and most Christians don’t view prayer as a magic incantation to make ourselves bulletproof. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ who warned them: “In the world ye shall have tribulation.” In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ prayed to be delivered from the agony of the cross, but he ended his prayer, “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” The answer to Christ’s prayer was silence—and he was later crucified on a Roman cross. In her commentary on the church shooting, MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid tweeted that “when Jesus of Nazareth came upon thousands of hungry people,” he didn’t pray; he fed the people. In this statement, she is simply wrong. If Ms. Reid had bothered to read Matthew 14:19 it records that, before Jesus fed the people, he looked heavenward and prayed. Jesus prayed and he acted. That’s how his followers still view prayer.
Since its birth in the fires of the French Revolution, as this is crucial…the political left has been at war with religion, and with the Christian religion in particular. In a symbolic revolutionary act, the Jacobin leaders of the French Revolution changed the name of the Cathedral of Notre Dame to the “Temple of Reason.” Then, in the name of “reason,” they proceeded to massacre the inhabitants of the Vendée region of west central France because its citizens were Catholics.
When priests demanded freedom of religion, they were sentenced to death. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Russian Orthodox priests were arrested, 95,000 of whom were executed by firing squad. Radicals in America today don’t have the political power to execute religious people and destroy their houses of worship.
Yet they openly declare their desire to obliterate religion. In their own minds, their intentions are noble—they want to save the human race from the social injustice and oppression that religion allegedly inflicts on humanity.
“Religion must die in order for mankind to live,” proclaimed left-wing commentator and comedian Bill Maher in Religulous, the most-watched documentary feature of 2008. Throughout the film, Maher travels to Jerusalem, the Vatican, and Salt Lake City, as well as other centers of religion, interviewing believers and making them appear foolish. How did he gain interviews with his victims? He lied to them, saying he was making a film called A Spiritual Journey.
According to Maher, “The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end.” He predicts the destruction of the human race as a result of “religion-inspired nuclear terrorism.”
Hence the need for religion to die if mankind is to live. Maher’s views accurately reflect the attitudes of a movement called the “New Atheism,” whose leaders are prominent scientists and best-selling authors, far superior in intellect to Maher but equally contemptuous of religion and religious believers. Like Maher’s film, the New Atheism movement seeks to discredit all religious belief by caricaturing its adherents, Christians in particular, as simpletons, and worse. The stated goal of the New Atheism is to delegitimize and extinguish the religious point of view.
Near the end of Maher’s rant, he pauses to address any religionist who may have unwittingly strayed into the cinema where Religulous was playing: “Look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest.” I have never seen or cared to see Mr. Maher however my answer to his statement would most certainly be…..How myopic!
The New Atheism arose in response to the attacks of 9/11, when Radical Islamist jihadists, crying “Allah is great,” murdered 3,000 innocents in the World Trade Center. The 9/11 attacks were indeed a case of religious fanaticism leading to heinous results. In their wake, the New Atheists to their credit, and virtually alone among progressives, did not shrink from connecting the attacks to Islamic beliefs. They did not, however, limit their attacks to Islamic fanaticism, but maliciously included modern Christianity and Judaism in their deeds about religious terrorism. They did so despite the fact that Jews and Christians are the primary targets and victims of the Islamic jihadists. Moreover, Judaism and Christianity have undergone reformations and, as a result, have not prosecuted religious wars since the time of the Crusades.
The principal manifesto of the New Atheist movement was published in 2006. Written by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion maintains that post-Darwinian scientific advances have rendered any belief in God irrational and unnecessary. To make the case, Dawkins’s argument drastically narrows the compass of religious teachings, viewing them as crude and fallacy-ridden attempts to provide nonscientific accounts of natural forces and phenomena.
But how many Jews and Christians today actually cling to a literal reading of the Bible? How many go to church or synagogue to challenge the knowledge that science has provided of the workings of the universe? The Bible’s not a science text. What is unique about the statement Dawkins makes is that science has proven, and continues to prove, the Bible Truths through the discoveries being unearthed in the Holy Land over the past few decades.
The most telling aspect of Dawkins’s argument is the unscientific animus with which it is pursued. The vitriol that infuses his book suggests an agenda that is not wholly, or even primarily, intellectual. He states in the book: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Only a fool would worship such a God. But consider, for a moment, the particulars of Dawkins’s indictment. “Megalomaniacal” means to have delusions of grandeur. If God is God, then His grandeur is hardly a delusion. “Control freak”? If God is the Author of everything, then isn’t “control” implicit in His job description? And how can “control freak” be applied to Him except by a comedian in search of a laugh line? “Pestilential”? Can Dawkins be referring to the locusts, which Exodus describes as a plague designed to free His people from slavery in Egypt? Is Dawkins siding with the Egyptian slave masters? Or is he misreading a story that might be metaphorical or that actually contains some historical facts?
You, as a Christian may read this and just ignore the words as nonsense, however there are more and more “believers” of this drivel in the world today. BEWARE of being blasé about this subject family. As an example, Rep. Ilan Omar recently described the 9/11 attacks on America, which killed over 3000 innocent people as "some people did something." WHAT....REALLY??
Dawkins’s writing oozes contempt for people of faith: Do we know of any . . . examples where stupid ideas have been known to spread like an epidemic? Yes, by God! Religion. Religious ideas are irrational. Religious beliefs are dumb and dumber: super dumb. Religion drives otherwise sensible people into celibate monasteries, or crashing into New York skyscrapers.
Religion motivates people to whip their own backs, to set fire to themselves or their daughters, to denounce their own grandmothers as witches, or, in less extreme cases, simply to stand or kneel, week after week, through ceremonies of stupefying boredom.
My own personal opinion of Dawkins idea that all religious people are stupid is, well, stupid. Of course there are dumb religious people, just as there are dumb nonreligious people.
However, both Isaac Newton and Galileo were devout Christians, as were virtually all the geniuses who created the scientific revolutions we associate with the Enlightenment, from Galileo to Pascal. In fact, they were inspired to look for order in the universe precisely because they believed it was the work of a Divine designer.
There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. Keep in mind, it was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.
Here is a question I have for all of you, family…why do Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists demonstrate such hatred and loathing toward religious people? It’s because they have a faith of their own. They see themselves as liberators—pioneers of a new millennium for the human race. They envision a future in which religion has been vanquished and rationality prevails. They want a world in which humanity is finally free from myths and superstitions. They believe in a vision of a world of “new men and women,” liberated from the chains of the past. Science will usher in a utopian age of reason, enlightenment,
and social justice. This is the way of the progressive left of the Democratic party in our world today.
NEXT WEEK…We look at the roots of this war on Christianity.
DID YOU EVER WONDER???
WE HAVE TWO CHOICES:
Jerry was the kind of guy you love to hate. He was always in a good mood and always had something positive to say. When someone would ask him how he was doing, he would reply, "If I were any better, I would be twins!" He was a unique manager because he had several waiters who had followed him around from restaurant to restaurant. The reason the waiters followed Jerry was because of his attitude. He was a natural motivator.
If an employee was having a bad day, Jerry was there telling the employee how to look on the positive side of the situation. Seeing this style really made me curious, so one day I went up to Jerry and asked him, "I don't get it! You can't be a positive person all of the time. How do you do it?"
Jerry replied, "Each morning I wake up and say to myself, 'Jerry, you have two choices today. You can choose to be in a good mood or you can choose to be in a bad mood.' I choose to be in a good mood. Each time something bad happens, I can choose to be a victim or I can choose to learn from it. I choose to learn from it. Every time someone comes to me complaining, I can choose to accept their complaining or I can point out the positive side of life. I choose the positive side of life."
"Yeah, right, it's not that easy," I protested.
"Yes, it is," Jerry said. "Life is all about choices. When you cut away all the junk, every situation is a choice. You choose how you react to situations. You choose how people will affect your mood. You choose to be in a good mood or bad mood. The bottom line: It's your choice how you live life."
I reflected on what Jerry said. Soon thereafter, I left the restaurant industry to start my own business. We lost touch, but I often thought about him when I made a choice about life instead of reacting to it.
Several years later, I heard that Jerry did something you are never supposed to do in a restaurant business: he left the back door open one morning and was held up at gunpoint by three armed robbers. While trying to open the safe, his hand, shaking from nervousness, slipped off the combination. The robbers panicked and shot him. Luckily, Jerry was found relatively quickly and rushed to the local trauma center.
After 18 hours of surgery and weeks of intensive care, Jerry was released from the hospital with fragments of the bullets still in his body.
I saw Jerry about six months after the accident. When I asked him how he was, he replied, "If I were any better, I'd be twins. Wanna see my scars?"
I declined to see his wounds, but did ask him what had gone through his mind as the robbery took place. "The first thing that went through my mind was that I should have locked the back door," Jerry replied. "Then, as I lay on the floor, I remembered that I had two choices: I could choose to live, or I could choose to die. I chose to live."
"Weren't you scared? Did you lose consciousness?" I asked.
Jerry continued, "The paramedics were great. They kept telling me I was going to be fine. But when they wheeled me into the emergency room and I saw the expressions on the faces of the doctors and nurses, I got really scared. In their eyes, I read, 'He's a dead man.' I knew I needed to take action."
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Well, there was a big, burly nurse shouting questions at me," said Jerry. "She asked if I was allergic to anything. 'Yes,' I replied. The doctors and nurses stopped working as they waited for my reply. I took a deep breath and yelled, 'Bullets!' Over their laughter, I told them, 'I am choosing to live. Operate on me as if I am alive, not dead.'"
Jerry lived thanks to the skill of his doctors, but also because of his amazing attitude. I learned from him that every day we have the choice to live fully. Attitude, after all, is everything.
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE...A TEACHING
This week, we cover the 1st Letter to Timothy, written by the Apostle Paul....
Who wrote the book?
The first of Paul’s final series of letters—which along with 2 Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles—1 Timothy offers practical and pastoral advice from the aging apostle Paul to a young pastor named Timothy working in the church at Ephesus. More than a decade prior to writing this letter, Paul had first met Timothy in the city of Lystra—in Asia Minor—where Timothy was known and respected by the Christians (Acts 16:1–4). Upon recognizing Timothy’s impressive qualities, Paul recruited the young man to travel with him as he continued his second missionary journey. The presence of Timothy would have met an important need for Paul, their friendship coming on the heels of Paul’s split with his close friend and partner in missions, Barnabas (15:36–41).
Where are we?
The Bible’s silence on the ultimate fate of Paul has engendered a great deal of debate in modern times. The book of Acts ends with Paul sitting in a Roman prison awaiting his hearing before the Roman emperor, a privilege of appeal that all Roman citizens possessed. However, the writing of the Pastoral Epistles clearly dates to a time after the events of Acts. So where was Paul when he wrote 1 Timothy? Paul had expected the Romans to release him from prison, something that likely happened near the end of AD 62 (Philippians 2:24). His release allowed him the opportunity to travel to Ephesus and eventually place Timothy in ministry at that church. Paul then went on to preach in Macedonia, where he heard reports of Timothy’s work at Ephesus that prompted him to write 1 Timothy, probably in AD 63.
Why is First Timothy so important?
First Timothy presents the most explicit and complete instructions for church leadership and organization in the entire Bible. This includes sections on appropriate conduct in worship gatherings, the qualifications of elders and deacons, and the proper order of church discipline. Paul advised Timothy on these practical matters in a way that would have helped the young pastor to emphasize the purity that should characterize Christian leaders and the gatherings they oversee.
What's the big idea?
Timothy’s youth no doubt served him well, allowing for the energy and vigor he needed to serve his people. However, it also caused inevitable difficulties with older Christians who may not have taken quickly to the leadership of such a young man because of his lack of knowledge and experience in leadership. It was important to Paul that Timothy set an example of consistent faith and a good conscience, remaining above reproach and exercising the spiritual gifts that God had given him (1 Timothy 4:12–16).
However, Paul knew that such a task would not be easy for the young man. Therefore, on two occasions Paul encouraged Timothy to “fight the good fight” (1:18; 6:12). Perseverance in what was good often became a slog for Timothy, one that required thick skin and a clear purpose.
How do I apply this?
The leaders of our churches fill important roles as they participate in encouraging the spiritual growth of Christians under their care. We know the significance of these men in our churches and in our personal lives, but 1 Timothy helps us to gain a clearer understanding of the proper qualifications and roles for church leaders. Paul’s letter shows us those things he hoped Timothy would address in his ministry, providing a template of sorts that our leaders can follow in their own ministries.
How do your leaders implement Paul’s exhortations in 1 Timothy? Our churches will be strongest when they are closest to the biblical vision laid out for them. As you look at your church or look for a new one, consider the priorities of the leaders. Look for an emphasis on sound doctrine, on purity within the leaders’ personal lives, and on living out the Christian faith by example. Find those qualities, and you will more than likely find a church where you can thrive.
HAVE A SAFE AND BLESSED WEEK:)
Ho'omaikaʻi ka Pua iā kākou