The "Holly" Bible

A major reason for my becoming a Christian was that I was shown the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ, beginning with the first telling of the gospel in Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This passage is known as the Protoevangelium.  Proto meaning first and evangelium refers to the gospel message, the good news of salvation through Christ—In other words the "first gospel."

Here God is telling Satan, from the beginning, exactly what his demise will be. God tells Satan he is destroyed by the seed of a woman, this is Christ born of a virgin. The serpent is told he is dealt a deathblow by the seed while Satan will only be able to temporarily hurt the seed. Though the seed is struck down, He would again rise.

As a Muslim, I was taught to believe that Jesus was a prophet--But when confronted with the reality of the vast number of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ that were 100% fulfilled in the person of Jesus in the New Testament, I had to ask myself a very important question.

If the Holy Bible (in the Old Testament) was prophetically 100% correct in foretelling the first coming of Christ and as no historian, (that is not on the fringe at least) secular or otherwise disputes the historicity of the person of Jesus, wouldn’t it be logical to assume the Holy Bible likewise correct regarding His return?

This compelled me to seek after Christ for no other reason beyond self-preservation. When I found Him and understood how much God loved me through Christ Jesus, I loved Him! This is what is meant by: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

Christ is the Word! Christ is the Message in both Old and New Testaments!

Which is why I am so sorely disappointed in the History Channel’s mini series titled “The Bible.” In removing all of the foreshadows and types of Christ from the Old testament narrative, as this mini series did in what I saw of it, it does exactly what a Facebook friend, Bolo Fifth Column Cheung said:

"God can use anything, yes. But so can the enemy. The enemy is a roaring lion seeking for someone to devour. Or rather, how about the parable of the sower - the enemy is the bird - quickly devouring the seed. The problem with such programming is that it is WITHOUT the Word. It is not evangelical. It is academic. It fills the head with knowledge but not with the conviction for salvation.”

Conviction starts in the heart, it is the heart that must change. Without the head making the proper connections, you never get to the heart. This is why Scripture says:“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews 11:6

A person, cannot believe that God is, you aren’t rewarded with faith, until you make the proper connections. Those connections are made through the Living Word of God­--This is not just an allusion to Scripture, but to Christ Himself, it is through Christ that our faith has meaning and is fulfilled.

Indeed, it was the Old Testament saint’s faith in the promises of those prophecies concerning Christ that is their salvation—even though Christ had not yet come, they looked ahead towards His coming. We today have the luxury of being able to look back at the actual fulfillment of the promise.

This morning the Today program on NBC did a brief feature on the mini series focusing on the success of the show, attributing the success not to the public hunger for God—but rather Mark Burnett’s prowess as a producer. Comparing the mini series to Burnett’s other shows like Survivor and the Apprentice.

NBC also praised the special effects and music, remarking what better way to celebrate the birth of Christ than by having Cee Lo Green mark the occasion with a song. I feel strongly that if the first show had actually given context to what it was depicting in a sincere and honest way, particularly the actual sin of Sodom—the reportage would not have been so kindly towards the broadcast.

What we got from Burnett and his wife and co-producer Roma Downey, is a sterile offering of the Pentateuch. Some of the many reasons this show fell flat for Christians who actually love the Word of God:

No context for Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel, No protoevangelium, No context for Noah’s story, no Melchizedek. No context for Sodom, No struggle of Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness and therefore none of the subsequent mercy from God towards them. No revelation on the person of Ishmael explaining his descendants and their present day barbarism and warlike nature.

Isaac was too young, in fact he was at least as large as Abraham at the time of his testing, Isaac carried all of the firewood for the sacrifice, a small boy couldn’t do that. The Holy Bible does not depict him entreating his father to spare his life, in fact Isaac’s faith was as strong as his fathers, he was a willing sacrifice. This is what made it a foreshadowing of God the Father offering His Son Jesus Christ another willing sacrifice for all of mankind’s sake. Without the proper context you never make the connection that God as Abraham bore witness, would provide His own Sacrifice.

No story of Jacob wrestling with God, another Old Testament allusion to Christ providing more contextual grist for evangelism. No Story of Joseph… The theological errors are enumerable. In fact what you have is a separation of the Bible’s theology from the narrative. Not exactly what you would expect when you read Roma Downey’s reason for making this program: "Three-and-a-half years ago, I felt the call to do this, I got my husband to share the vision. He is a great man for making things happen. He doesn't hear the word no."

Frankly, if I had realized ahead of time that Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren acted as consultants on this project I would have known to expect what I got from the show—These are not men known for their Scriptural fealty.

Roma and Burnett’s choices for consultants do serve smartly as a separator, distinctly demonstrating the difference between this show and sincere efforts like Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, which did by the way open with Genesis 3:15 laying the foundation for the “Passion”.

I was not surprised when I learned one of the men of God Mel Gibson used as a consultant for his film was Lee Strobel, the author of the wonderful book, “TheCase For Christ”, because I thought of Strobel’s book while watching the film in the theatre.

I find it interesting how God uses flawed men like Mel Gibson and King David before him, to deliver works of such profound worth—Whilst the outwardly good like Downey provide such utter tripe. It is indeed a puzzlement.

I enjoy a good sword fight as much as the next guy, but it would have been much more powerful to show what actually happened in Sodom that allowed Lot and his family to escape unscathed, instead of the angels fighting their way out. I can catch a good sword fight watching the History Channel’s new Viking program.

 The Holy Bible is filled to the rim with wonderful adventure stories as this mini series clearly illustrates. But without the spiritual context, making the whole thing the love story of God towards man in a desire to reconcile us to Him, it is just that, another adventure story.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” II Timothy 3:5 What you have in the History Channels “Bible” mini series is perfectly described by that passage. It is the “Hollywood Translation”   In fact, simply calling the show “The Bible” is apt, as the “Holy” has been removed from it, replaced with a holly. The sin of omission is often more harmful, indeed in some cases more deadly, than a plain dealing lie.

Digital Publius

Of Toms and Sambos

I wrote this article originally in the late summer of 2009. The article is now difficult to access because my original blog's archive is no longer available. With the recent hiring of Herman Cain as a contributor by Fox News and the brilliant speech delivered by Dr. Ben Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast, the ever "tolerant" liberals, Black & White alike, have once more in a single voice begun the "Uncle Tom" chorus.

Few things gall me more than systemic ignorance--So I have decided to re-post the article, (with some editing) in hopes of combating the utter depravity of this particular pejorative. I hope you will share your thoughts in the comments section and this article widely!

We have a new Mayor in the city of Detroit, prominent business man and Hall of Fame NBA star Dave Bing. “I wish Dave Bing would run for mayor”, “Now Dave Bing is the one that should run for mayor.” “If Dave Bing ran for mayor I’d vote for him in a second.” You could hear words like these echoing from the propped open doors of Detroit’s barber shops, over the sound of squeaky shopping cart wheels in the local grocer and across the fellowship halls of every church denomination extant in the city.

Dave Bing did finally rouse himself and has become Mayor and now that he has suggested some rather draconian measures to attack the problems facing what could be the most problematical city in the union; a new refrain has replaced the sanguine cries of “run Dave run!”, Now we hear the stentorian and ugly crowd calling Dave Bing a “straw hat negro” and an “Uncle Tom”.

I even heard Tom Barrow, a man who has sought the office of Mayor for decades without positive results and the likely main challenger to Bing in the upcoming elections refer to Mr Bing as the tool of the Republicans who are trying to take over the city. I am not one for repeating platitudes but, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result. Detroit has elected the same kinds of liberal Democrat politicians without exception for well over thirty years.

Detroit has not had a Republican or even a conservative Democrat in any position of authority for decades. In fact we have scarcely had any whites in government, the few who have gained office in the city, have been liberals of the highest order. What we have seen since we have chosen to elect a singular political point of view in our once great city, is a steady decline in services, safety, education, employment, morale, pride and outside esteem.

All this without benefit of blaming it on the “MAN”, in Detroit the “MAN” is manifestly black, (tongue planted firmly in cheek) and we, of course, cannot be blamed for anything going wrong within our own community.

I am not sure if I support the measures that Mr. Bing is proposing, frankly I haven’t yet looked closely at the issues. I do know I will never support anyone who uses the term “Uncle Tom”. Anyone who uses the term Uncle Tom is profoundly ignorant and has never read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” or they would most assuredly never call someone an Uncle Tom in a derogatory manner, unless of course they have read the book and are also profoundly evil.

Lets look at this epithet Uncle Tom in hopes of divining how it could come to represent a person who betrays the best interests of his people in favor of an oppressor. I became a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ some fifteen years ago after being a Muslim for the first thirty years of my life. The Bible says when you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you take on the mind of Christ, He performs a spiritual circumcision of the heart. Christ replaces your heart of stone with one of flesh. This was certainly true in my case.

I began to see the world in an entirely different light, it was as if, as Scripture alludes, scales literally fell from my eyes and I was seeing the world for the very first time. An unforeseen by-product of this new sight is a fundamental change in my politics--I voted for Bill Clinton the first time around, but after a couple of years of Biblical study I couldn’t vote for him the second time. It was at this point  I read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” on what I then thought a whim.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an astonishing book that remains relevant even to this day, every American should read it, as should every Christian in the entire world. By design it is filled with types and archetypes. Uncle Tom, the protagonist of this allegory; is a type of Christ. Tom is the perfect Christian, in fact he is a super Christian, which sheds light on why the enemy of mankind has worked so devilishly hard to turn Uncle Tom into a pejorative.

Uncle Tom faces ignorance and the most bestial cruelty with supernatural Christlike compassion, patience and understanding. He acknowledges the seemingly overpowering evil of chattel slavery whilst recognizing the Christian mandate of allowing God to ultimately right the wrongs inflicted upon him. Tom had faith in the knowledge that what he suffered on earth was fleeting and nothing compared to an eternity of peace prepared by God Himself for those who believe in His Son. Tom had forgiveness in his heart and a true desire to see all those he encountered, even if they had done him evil, repent and come to faith in Christ.

“Hulloa, There! Sambo! Quimbo! All hands!” called Legree, coming to the quarters, when the men and women were just returning from work. “There’s two runaways in the swamps. I’ll give five dollars to any nigger as catches ‘em. Turn out the dogs! Turn out Tiger, and Fury, and the rest!”

Simon Legree, is the archetypical evil slave owner Tom finds himself in the clutches of late in life. Sambo and Quimbo are Legree’s exceedingly cruel black overseers. (Think Samuel Jackson’s role in D’jango) Legree, having purchased Tom because of his intelligence and with the mind of putting him in charge, soon finds him incapable of the inhumanity necessary to fill the job. The sadistically brutish Sambo and Quimbo become, along with their master, Tom’s constant tormentors.

Sambo and Quimbo are the true “straw hat negroes”, they have traded their souls for the few creature comforts their betrayals can purchase them. We have seen their kind in latter times as well in a post slavery America. Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood recruited Black pastors and leaders to sell her diabolical idea of population control and eugenics. To this very day Black babies, by Sanger’s intent, are the victims accounting for the majority of the abortions being carried out across our nation. Black babies are being slaughtered wholesale with the compliance of liberal Black leadership.

The Democrat party has a long history of recruiting Black folks to convince their fellows on ideas common sense initially leads people to reject. But, Democrats going back to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have always been marvelously adept at finding those pliable silver tongued Blacks willing to take favors to sell destructive ideas to their own communities.



Wilson and Roosevelt in the early days never failed to betray Black folks after they procured their votes--betrayals I don’t have space to illustrate in this particular article but are outlined brilliantly in Wayne Perryman’s Unfounded Loyalty and Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race. Sadly Black folks have woefully short memories and after a time they forget that the Democrats fail to deliver on promises and fall victim again and again to the same liberal sweet talk.

“Now, Quimbo,” said Legree, as he stretched himself down in the sitting-room. “you jest go and walk that Tom up here, right away! The old cuss is at the bottom of this yer whole matter; and I’ll have it out of his old black hide, or I’ll know the reason why!”

“Sambo and Quimbo, both, though hating each other, were joined in one mind by a no less cordial hatred of Tom. Legree had told them, at first, that he had bought him for a general overseer, in his absence; and this had begun an ill will, on their part, which had increased, in their debased and servile natures, as they saw him becoming obnoxious to their master’s displeasure. Quimbo, therefore, departed, with a will, to execute his orders.”

The modern day Sambos and Quimbos fall under two categories They are the poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who may have begun on the proper path but have since been co-opted by racist liberal Democrats. Peddling programs to Black folks that have the virtue of keeping them servile and in constant need of the reassuring hand of the government in their affairs. Always playing up perceived indignities so they can remain the preeminent spokespersons for the Black community.

And you have the just plain stupid Black leaders who have been selectively bred to drink the Kool-Aid with an insatiable thirst, despite the glaring evidence of the devastating toll that liberal policies have wreaked upon Black America. These are the people most responsible for the day to day promotion of the liberal mindset. They are the triumph of the changed Southern Democrat strategy adopted after realizing they couldn’t win with fire hoses, attack dogs and the hangman’s noose.

If you can no longer lynch them and beat them with sticks, rot them from within. Sap their will to overcome by their own energy. Control them with entitlements so they live in constant fear of losing them. This way they stay ignorant and servile and they will thank their oppressors who now love them.

It is ironic urban areas like Detroit, decaying, collapsing under the weight of it’s own corruption, rife with failed liberal ideologies, choking to death on the putrid fumes of  decaying democratic politics, are surrounded by suburban areas embracing sound principles that are flourishing. In fact many of the so-called urban leaders are moving to these areas in search of what is not being delivered by liberal promises in the cities. It is my prayer, as those urban dwellers seek satisfaction in the suburbs; they don’t bring the liberal politics of the city with them and seek public office.

As the Sambos and Quimbos of the antebellum South took offense to the uppity Tom with his Christian ideas compelling him to displease their master were quick to punish him for not performing tasks they had profited from carrying out; so too the modern day versions are quick to pounce upon any who do not toe the line of Black liberal orthodoxy. The Sharptons, Jacksons, Congressman John Conyers of the world are never so ferocious as when they are denouncing the Steeles, Sowells, or J.C. Watts (Cains and Carsons) who would dare oppose their lock step thinking and are outspoken critics of their liberal White masters who’ve been so good to them.

“Quimbo seized him... ‘and no mistake! See how ye’ll look, now, helpin’ Mas’r’s niggers to run away! See what ye’ll get’”

Indeed! see what you get when you try to express a competing idea?

“Well, Tom!” said Legree. walking up, and seizing him by the collar of his coat, and speaking through his teeth, in a paroxysm of determined rage, “do you know I’ve made up my mind to KILL you?”

“It’s very likely Mas’r,” said Tom, calmly.

“I have,” said Legree, with grim terrible calmness, “done – just – that – thing, Tom, unless you’ll tell me what you know about these yer gals!”

Tom stood silent.

“D’ye hear?” said Legree, stamping with a roar like that of an incensed lion. “Speak!”

“I haven’t got nothing to tell, Mas’r,” said Tom, with a slow, firm, deliberate utterance.

“Do you dare to tell me, ye old black Christian, ye don’t know?” said Legree.

Tom was silent.

“Speak!” thundered Legree, striking him furiously. “Do you know anything?”

“I know, Mas’r; but I can’t tell anything. I can die!”

After one more appeal to Simon Legree to repent, where Tom declares he would happily give every ounce of his blood to save Legree’s precious soul, Tom is beaten to death. Carrying to his grave the hiding place of the escaped slaves, which prompted the lethal Interrogation costing him his life. Before Tom dies, Sambo and Quimbo, seeing his bravery as he faced death and the perplexing mercy Tom rendered in forgiving them and Legree during his murder, show genuine regret for the parts they played in his demise. The two implore Tom to share his faith in Christ with them and Tom prays with them and leads them both to Christ just before he breaths his last.

This all begs the question, how did Uncle Tom become the symbol of race betrayal when he died to protect his fellow slaves? It begins with Malcolm X and his criticism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his Christian approach to the civil rights movement. Not as a castigation of Tom as one who was an unctuous betrayer, but rather denouncing his Christian sacrifice. Malcolm was declaring he would not give up his life with docility as Tom had, Malcolm would resist and fight, by “any means necessary”. This was an attack on the very  concept of Christ’s self sacrifice and the Christian ethos of loving one's enemies.

For those of us who believe in the super natural, we recognize this as the way the devil works. Satan very subtly twists things so people reject what is good in favor of what best serves the selfish nature of man. He did it in the Garden when he twisted the very words of God to entice Adam and Eve to rebel.

Because Malcolm X was accepted as the strong Black leader most personifying resistance to the oppressive ideas of the slave masters, the term Uncle Tom became the parabolic opposite. This idea was bolstered by the popular depictions of Tom in truncated versions of Uncle Tom’s Cabin going back almost a hundred years, playing up his relationship with the Eva character and omitting his Christian fueled defiance and an undeserved relation to Uncle Remus.

The result is a book and character that played an instrumental part in the abolition of slavery in this country, and illustrative of what is essentially greatest in human nature, have fallen out of favor. It shows how ignorance is perpetuated and how false information can spread like an unabated pox with the same withering effect on society. Liberalism feeds on such misinformation, like the way the three-fifths compromise is twisted to appear as if White folks in the government believed blacks were only three-fifths human.

"So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." – Abraham Lincoln upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe for the first time.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written to destroy the institution of chattel slavery in the United States. It burned through the Union like wildfire! At the time of the Civil War the majority of the nation opposed slavery. People forget the south was a minority and because of the machinations of the founders, most of the country never knew the stain of our “peculiar institution”.

The left which controls our schools and much of our media, have a stake in eternalizing the negative aspects of our past while burying our glories. Many of the destructive ideas prevalent in modern society were birthed in the minds of those still harboring a resentment towards the nation for winning the war between the states.



What we need today is a boat load of Harriet Beecher Stowes writing books with the express purpose of destroying liberalism, our contemporary peculiar institution and Black peoples slavish devotion to bad ideas.

Digital Publius

Resisting Romans 13?

I don't often post pieces by other authors on Digital Publius, But this is such a wonderful example of Biblical exegesis rendered by my brother in Christ Mark Pepin, I felt compeled to share it! Please share your thoughts in the comments section and the article itself liberally!

I have been thinking on this since yesterday.  After a friend posted yesterday that he believed Romans 13 spoke decisively against Christians opposing their government, it caused me to stop and consider this a bit more carefully.   And that is the way that it should be.  Christians should never just stick to one position without ever reconsidering where and why they stand where they do.

Before we look at this closer, it is important that we do not stray too far from the Scripture, and I would invite anyone who wishes to challenge this, to do so with a form of logic and consistency with an adherence of “Comparing Scripture to Scripture.”

 .

Romans 13:1-6ff, states:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

 .

As I stated above, I stopped to look at this a bit more carefully and what I learned was not so much that I was wrong, but confirmation of why it is that I am right.

 .

To begin with, the argument against Christians fighting against their government is primarily given in this manner:  “The Apostle Paul does not say “be subject to the king UNLESS he is oppressive” or “you must obey all rulers EXCEPT those who are tyrannical.” Romans 13 clearly teaches us that all governments everywhere are to be honored and obeyed.”  Yet the Founding Fathers rejected this theory completely, which is (thankfully) why we have the United States of America today.

 .

Basically, before America’s war for Independence, there was a general attitude that prevailed among the elite in the British realms commonly referred to as the “Divine Right of Kings.”  This Divine Right was said to emanate from the Romans 13 edict that God had empowered governments with His will, and that if you were opposing the King, then you were therefore opposing God, Himself.

 .

Yet the Founding Fathers rejected this theory. Even so, having a clear conscience regarding this issue and their right to oppose the King, the Founders vigorously pursued some manner of peaceful reconciliation, and did so continuously for a very long period of time.  But as it was with all communication with their King, it was Great Britain that rejected their entreaties and terminated all discussion.

 .

Some people even today would accuse the Founding Fathers as having abandoned Scripture and instituted their own interpretation of Romans 13.  But even back in that day, those who resided in the halls of the British government were aware of the spiritual nature of those who were opposed to the machinations of King George.  One Parliamentary leader, Sir Richard Sutton, read a copy of a letter relative to the government of America from a governor in Americato the Board of Trade showing that....If you ask an American, 'Who is his master?' He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ."

 .

The Founding Fathers, it must be remembered, were Christian through and through.  So much so that everything they considered to do was a reflection of their relationship to the Lord of Hosts.  One web site notes that: “…so cognizant were the Founders that they would account to God for what they had done and be justified in His eyes, that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed 'An Appeal to God,' and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared 'An Appeal to Heaven.' “

 .

These men understood that their course of action, which included resistance to the “higher powers” was either a rejection of Scripture which commanded them to obey the “higher power”, or it was a clear “appeal to God and Heaven” for protection and guidance in the coming war for Independence.

 .

There is no other way to understand the frame of mind of the Founders, other than to understand that American Christians were conducting themselves consistent with the understanding that they were not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.

 .

We must also remember that during all of the constant entreaties to their King and government, King George continued to escalate his tyranny through different methods such as higher taxations and even going so far as to dispatch 25,000 troops to America, where they entered the homes of the citizens and took what they wanted to for themselves.

 .

Americans lost their private possessions, and they were imprisoned for months without trial or recourse.  If Americans were living in anarchy, it was the anarchy which the King created when he made laws that protected his citizens from such actions, but ignored his own common law, and the Magna Carter.

 .

Even with all of these oppressive events being orchestrated around them, Americans still continued to entreat the King and Parliament with petitions and arguments about why Americans felt abused.  Among those entreaties were a series of “resolves” that were written and communicated to the King, which are known as the “Fairfax Resolves.”

One resolve stated:

Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty’s person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and most humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal.

The resolves were categorically rejected by Parliament and the King.

So, I have stated all of that to point out that our Founding Fathers pursued a course of action that began with pleadings and entreaties to their King and his government.  Violently resisting the King was the last of their choices, just as it is among Americans today.

So the real question to us (Christians), is whether or not resisting government is Scripturally allowed.  This is an individual choice among Christians.  I personally believe that there is no Biblical injunction to Christians not to resist a tyrannical and unjust government, and I base it upon a couple of considerations, which are logical associations of Scriptural passages.

My first logical association: when the Bible says, “Thou shalt NOT”, we know clearly that we are to do the opposite of the “NOT”.  For example, when the Bible commands, “Thou shalt not have any gods before you.” We know clearly it means we shall only have ONE God before us.  Thankfully, the Scripture does go into sufficient detail to explain that we are to worship only ONE God, Jehovah.  But even if it did not, the logical association with the rest of Scripture reveals to us what is the right thing to do.

 .

This means that when we read Romans 13, we have the “DO”, and we can make a logical association with the rest of Scripture to come to an understanding of what that means for us.  In the case of Romans 13, we read about how government is ordained by God for specific purposes, and what our duties in that context are:

 .

1. Government is instituted by God for a framework of good works to prevail;
2. This is accomplished by the government being a terror to evil works;
3. And by being a praise to good works;
4. Verse 5 says that therefore, because Government is a tool for supporting and promoting good works, we should therefore be subject to the government. After all, don’t we want to live in a society where good works prevail over evil works?

 .

Let’s go through this verse by verse:

Paul begins this subject by stating that “every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God.”  Paul here urges Christians towards the duty of obedience based upon the premise that civil rulers are supposed to fulfill the will of God, and would therefore be part of the ordinance of God for government.

But how is this an argument for obedience to those rulers who do not perform the perfect will of God by doing good?  Instead, such rulers are doing the will (pleasure) of the devil by doing evil.  Therefore, such rulers are not God's ministers, but the devil's!

Paul continues:  “Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.”  But how does this prove that those who resist a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God, are resisting the will of God? Is resisting those who resist God's will, the same thing as resisting God?

To continue, how can this be an argument that we must submit to higher powers when such higher powers are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good actions?

So, as you see, by a logical association of Scripture, you can see that Paul is merely outlying the purpose of Government, and why Christians should support government when it is within God’s will and purpose.  He is not commanding Christians to obey evil, for that would be contrary to what God’s will is for His people.

If Governments are unrighteous, and are respecters of persons, if they are partial in their administration of justice, then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid, as those that do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious. So that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated.

 .

* this paper has been adapted from a sermon delivered by a preacher in 1750America.

© Mark Pepin

Lethal Lies

Posted at RenewAmerica

One thing that I cannot abide is the use of something meant for the common good, warped into a tool of repression and ill intent. The left is hell bent on depriving Americans the wherewithal to protect themselves and they find no slander too repugnant in their pursuit.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

The target of the lefts latest calumny is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Leftist politicians and pundits repeat ad nauseam that they do not really want to infringe on our right to bear arms. Claiming to seek only practical solutions to stem the tide of gun violence.

I could write an entire article just on the inherent silliness of the left’s desire to slow gun violence by going after with the most vehemence, the class of firearm least used in American crime. But I won’t because semi-automatic rifles are just the tip of the spear; they want all guns out of the hands of civilians.

I was born in the middle of the last year of the Baby Boom, 1964. Growing up in Detroit in the 1970’s, I didn’t know a single father who did not own a gun. It would be absurd to suggest to a man back then that he shouldn’t have the means to protect his family.

My father owned a .38 Special and an M1 Carbine, both of which he taught me to use,  care for and fire. These weapons were no mystery to me, so I never felt the desire to touch them without my father’s supervision. He didn’t hide them, I knew exactly where they were. In fact he wanted to be sure that if something occurred when he was away from home, I knew what to do.

All of my friends lived in similar circumstances and the whole neighborhood shot their guns off on New Year’s.  We even brought our empty brass to school to show each other My Uncle died last summer and we discovered, to protect my aunt, he had guns we never knew about, distributed all throughout their house.

So this latest leftist stratagem offends me to no end, namely, the inane notion that the 2nd Amendment was meant as a means to perpetuate the institution of slavery. This is nothing less than an attempt to sway Black Americans to the anti-gun side of the ledger by associating the right to bear arms with the nations greatest past evil.

This salvo began in earnest with the pig ignorant statements made by Hollywood Actor Danny Glover. A man whose greatest financial successes came in films like the guns a blazin’ western Silverado and the wildly popular “Lethal Weapon” (the irony almost takes on physical form) films. Recently whilst speaking to students at Texas A&M, Mr. Glover stated:

I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.

He continued, a revolt from people who were stolen from their land, or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is.

In an attempt to curb violence in Venezuela, Last June, Danny Glover’s pal Hugo Chaves outlawed all private ownership and sales of firearms. Only the military, police and certain entities like security and private investigation firms can now possess guns in the Latin American nation. And then they can only purchase arms from the government.

In 2011 Venezuela had some 19,000 murders, in 2012, the year of the ban it jumped to over 21,000. But don’t confuse the left with facts.

Glover is not alone; I read an article by a Thom Hartman on a site called Truthout that attempts to make the same assertion in a more scholarly manner. To prove his point, Hartman quotes Patrick Henry (among others) who opposed the language James Madison intended to include in our Constitution with respect to civilians bearing arms:

In this state, there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.

Hartman goes on to quote Madison who rightly expressed incredulity at Henry’s fears: I was struck with surprise, when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.

Mr. Hartman’s article is titled: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery. The title argues intent. Another thing I cannot abide is bad scholarship, especially when it is used to advance a very dangerous idea like gun control.

James Madison wrote both the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment--it is impossible for you to say protecting slavery was the 2nd Amendments’ intent when as the article points out, Madison, the author himself expressed surprise that Patrick Henry would consider it in regards to slavery and suppressing abolition.

All one needs to do is read Federalist #46, again written by Madison before the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment, to know exactly what the purpose of the Amendment is:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. 

What Madison expressed was a combined might of the whole nation to repel a potential tyrannical Federal Government. This can by no means be construed as a measure used by slave states in an attempt to halt the steadily encroaching abolitionist movement enflamed to end chattel bondage.

Madison himself knew that slavery had to end:

American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country. The same just and benevolent motives which produced interdiction in force against this criminal conduct will doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means of suppressing the evil. -- James Madison, State of the Union, 1810

You don’t call something evil that just a couple of decades earlier you created an Amendment to preserve. But the left counts on emotion ruling the day rather than reason and truth. As was pointed out to me earlier this week by a friend, it is far easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

The left often uses such measures because they truly believe that you can obfuscate and lie and that doing evil can and will result in good. In other words, the ends justify the means.  However, tragically, all too often, the ends that the left lusts after are in and of themselves evil and therein lies the philosophy of the faithless.

My fellow American Black folks, the liberals think we are stupid and will believe anything they feed us, please don’t prove them right by accepting lies! The Second Amendment to preserve slavery is just one more scheme to manipulate and control Black Americans. We don’t have to stay victims.

Digital Publius