According to thespian Emma Thompson, way back in 1998, Donald Trump called her offering accommodations and suggested they could have dinner sometime. If we are to abide by the axiom that what happens between consenting adults is their own business and that he did not unduly threaten her after she declined, does this even rise to the level of a story? After all, Trump was apparently extending his potential conquests courtesies Bill Clinton wasn't at nearly the same time. Just ask Juanita Broderick.

A Virginia man dressed as the Joker and carrying a sword was arrested in part for wearing a mask in public. You think the sword wielding would have been the more obvious charge. Technically, this acolyte of the Crown Prince of Crime was wearing makeup and not a mask. Shouldn't this same law also apply to infidel sows adorned in burqas?

In a lecture titled “Can The Religious Right Be Saved?”, Russell Moore condemned the pastors of his youth that articulated a variety of outlandish statements found nowhere in the Bible. What, sort of like the ones Moore spews forth now?

Outrage has erupted that Trump announced his regime's intentions to enforce immigration law as originally promulgated. But aren't we obligated to obey the law because it is the law? After all, that is what businesses are told faced with choice between providing services for gay weddings or financial ruination.

An HBO producer has plead guilty as an accessory after the fact in the drug death of a 38 year old doctor and mother of three. For the dumping of the body in a hallway, the U.S. attorney said in an issued statement, “Marc Henry Johnson's immediate response to seeing a dying overdose victim should have been to summon help.” That is probably the right response. However, isn't it a bit much to extend the sympathies of victim status? For not only did this woman prefer dope and booze over her children, but as a doctor shouldn't she have known of the impact that results in the overindulgence of these vices? Seems she is responsible in part for her own unfortunate demise.

So if we are supposed to collectively get jacked out of shape over comments made by Bill O'Reilly about a Congresswoman's suspected wig, will society call as vigorously for the condemnation of those mocking balding and graying men? Wonder if those vociferous in their condemnation of Bill O'Reilly's comments ill be as outspoken in their condemnation of the knockout game or when deadbeats pillage after unpopular jury verdicts in order to loot wigs and assorted haircare products.

Jeb Bush has admonished President Trump to stop saying things that are not true. Wonder if the failed candidate was as bold in the criticism of his father's and his brother's respective regimes.

In a Ted Talk, Canadian broadcaster Coleen Christie warned that citizens must be cautious about getting their information from social media because that would mean your neighbor with a thing for cats becomes your news director. By that, she no doubt meant the important task of informing the public cannot be left to amateurs. William F. Buckley once remarked that he'd rather a chance being governed by the names in the opening pages of the phone book rather than the faculty of Harvard University. Along those lines, often these professionals are only groomed for their roles largely because they look good in a short skirt and a blouse with a plunging neckline or because of what secret society they have likely pledged unwavering allegiance to under threat of disembowelment.

In criticism of the so-called “Benedict Option” where it is suggested Christians withdrawal into a quasi-monastic seclusion in order to avoid cultural decay and doctrinal contamination, in SermonAudio remarks Pastor Sean Harris also articulated harsh words about those that retired to the beach or even Christian retirement communities. The pastor counseled that time in these sorts of places needs to be limited because they supposedly keep one away from the body of Christ. What he really must mean is that such alteration to one's life circumstances would end up directing funds away from his particular congregation. For are there not churches in beach communities if one is there that often and not congregations affiliated with or minister to Christians in active adult communities?

Yahoo News is celebrating a child with Down Syndrome as the changing face of beauty. Mind you, these are probably the same pro-abortion ghouls that in any other instance would have pressured parents to eliminate a defective child. Let's see if the public still flocks to support the child when the child is not so cute anymore and he's about a 200 pound middle aged individual still needing to be looked after in a manner similar to a toddler.

There is no winning with some shrill banshee feminists. President Trump is condemned for wallowing in the sins of the flesh over the course of his public life. However, a Washington Post harpy now condemns Vice President Mike Pence for living by a standard where he never dines alone with a woman other than his wife and does not attend functions where alcohol is present without his wife there with him.

Franklin Graham film insists that doctors surviving ebola was a miracle. On Fox News, Graham said this was a story of God saving the lives of these missionaries. If one is going to say that, isn't it conversely the story of God not saving the lives of the thousands He allowed to succumb to this epidemic? Don't like that observation? Why not just say those not weakened by living in squalor and filth might have a bit more of a chance of battling the disease? Perhaps Christian filmmakers ought to give a bit more consideration the implications of what they are saying.

Activist busybodies are now calling for the end of public applause because the gesture is offensive to the deaf. Instead,the emotion once conveyed with this gesture is to be expressed through jazz hands. But doesn't that exclude the blind unable to notice waving hands? But then again, most blind people --- unlike a significant number of deaf --- haven't organized themselves into borderline terrorist groups threatening violence against those pursuing cures to this affliction.

The State of Mississippi considered a proposal where parents would be graded regarding the extent of their involvement in the education of their children. Like it or not, report cards are part of a permanent academic record used to either reward or punish students in terms of future opportunities or the lack thereof. As such, what is to prevent such an assessment from being used against parents in terms of the child protection racket?

Wonder if those so jacked out of shape at a Canadian license plate roughly reading “Assimilate” in reference to the Borg battle cry from Star Trek but not because of any opposition to cybernetic varieties of Transhumanism but out of a desire of minorities to retain the lifestyles of their native lands still demand handouts from the Western societies that they despise so vociferously but can't seemed to renounce the creature comforts of.

The latest buzz surrounding Cinco de Mayo is lamentation regarding cultural misappropriation. In other words, even when they abandon the celebratory commemorations of their own culture in favor of those of a preferred demographic, White people are apparently still obligated to sit around glum-faced in reflective self-loathing.

New York Magazine insists that the Second Amendment makes America vulnerable to ISIS attack. Does the magazine plan to publish a similar article regarding potential terrorism resulting from lax immigration enforcement and swarms of refugees pouring over the border?

On Facebook, I stumbled across a church with a recycling ministry where used items such as furniture and other related things are being collected for international students matriculating at a nearby university. Theoretically, why would the offspring of Alibaba founder Jack Ma or even Prince Harry himself be more worthy of such eleemosynary than the progeny of a Appalachian coal miner or a laid off factory worker? In the vast majority of cases, foreigners coming to study at American universities aren't Kalahari bushmen. Rather they are going to have a significant degree of wealth to begin with if they are coming here just to study. As such, isn't it just as wrong to limit one's charity to those of this particular origin as it would be to limit one's charity to White's only? Furthermore, if these items are no longer good enough for you, isn't it racist to assume that these cast offs are good enough for foreigners? Isn't it about time Christians end this underlying contempt of their own countrymen?

Fox News talking heads applauding Trump's Libery University commencement oration insisting critics are never successful. But doesn't the network's ratings success contradict that message?

In his Liberty University commencement oration, President Trump insisted critics never really accomplish anything. But didn't Trump ride a continual drumbeat of incessant criticism to electoral victory? There is nothing wrong with that. He just shouldn't now attempt to market himself as perennial positivity.

These pharmaceutical commercials make it sound if you aren't in the doctor's office constantly that you aren't blessed but rather missing out on life. Most of the folks on these medicines aren't out riding horseback or climbing mountains. Their trips to the doctor's office are about the only place they go at all, that a struggle, and takes it out of them to the point that they never recover.

Interviewee on Fox News insists that a good parent ought to find and nurture a child's talent. As Donald Trump's unofficial propaganda office, would they endorse that message if the child's greatest skill was criticism?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany is destined to become an Islamic state and that is something that the native population is just going to have to come to terms with as a demographic and political reality. At least there is the consolation that they can hope she will be forced to put a bag over her head as well in compliance with Sharia law.

Bill O'Reilly will appear weekly on Glenn Beck's radio program. But according to Glenn Beck, Trump's carnal proclivities will lead to the acceleration of America's cultural decline but it is apparently. Yet it is apparently acceptable for Beck to finance O'Reilly because it's doubtful someone as full of themselves as O'Reilly is going to pontificate for free.

Maybe if Microsoft just sent out security updates and not attempt to download entire new copies of Window's onto customer's computers, people would be more diligent in updating their devices.

Outrage has erupted over a group of “White nationalists” that organized a protest in response to the removal of a number of Confederate memorials. Do these same mainstream media outlets emphasize the radical proclivities and ideological backgrounds of the activists behind Black Lives Matter demonstrations or the shrill banshee rallies where the psychotics on weekend release from the looney bin parade around the nation's capital in vulgar costumes? Likewise, in reference to President Trump's commencement oration, WTOP referred to Liberty University with the modifer “ultra conservative”. Are the network's listeners similarly systematically informed of the political correctness endemic to the Ivy League each time one of those expensive indoctrination centers is referenced?

It was remarked from a pulpit that someone cannot be prayed for unless the need is communicated. Isn't this essentially saying that, if God has to be told the juicy details of a specific need by the hired help, He is not quite as omniscient as assorted sermons make Him out to be.

So does the sermon claiming that it is acceptable to outwardly display our depression and to tell these feelings to God now repudiate past sermons that if you are depressed it was probably because you were in a state of sin to begin with?

In a podcast, Russell Moore claimed that the current church does not mobilize WOMMMENNN to the same extent as in the past. This actually translates as ecclesiastical functionaries jacked out of shape that the pool of free labor has about dried up.

In a message on family, a pastor suggested if young people his puberty at between 10 to 14 years of age, they should be allowed to get married. And who is supposed to provide for this couple? The pastor lamented that, in some countries, 15 year olds fight wars and, in America, 30 year olds play video games. But so long as the 30 year old has some sort of gainful employment, doesn't that comparison actually summarize the superiority of American system and way of life? Because in most instances these child soldiers are actually taken from their families against their will.

A congressional aide was condemned in the media for criticizing the deportment and behavior of the Obama children. It is claimed the condemnation was justified on the grounds that to mention the families of politicians violates an “unwritten rule”. There is nothing really wrong in violating an unwritten rule. Such a standard has not been implemented through the established procedural channels nor necessarily agreed to be binding upon those not willing to abide by it. If a subjugated population is forbidden from criticizing the progeny of their rulers and thus by proxy the the rulers themselves, shouldn't the spouses of those holding elected office also refrain from criticizing how Americans raise their own children as well as refrain from imposing their own dietary peculiarities upon public institutions over which they exercise no legitimate authority?

An episode of Generation's Radio was titled “Filmmaker Chastises Christians For Watching Films: Film Has Usurped Church”. In the discussion, a Christian filmmaker provided a summary of his upcoming projects. In the synopsis, he namedropped that one film featured actor Harry Anderson. The producer reminded that, before his decline to has-been status, Anderson starred as the judge on the sitcom “Night Court”. So if the sanctified believer is to refrain from these sorts of worldly entertainments, how is anyone in the listening audience even supposed to know what “Night Court” is? Admittedly, I saw a few episodes of “Night Court” in my youth. It must be pointed out that a significant percentage of the comedy on the series derived its humor from double entendres. I will admit that at times I enjoy that sort of borderline risque humor more than I really ought. But neither do I host a podcast where it was once insinuated that your daughter might turn out to be a lesbian if she is fascinated with The Little House On The Prairie books.

Trump's Ramadan remarks have been condemned for largely being aimed at terrorism. If terrorism is what comes to the mind of the average person when they hear terms associated with Islam, isn't that largely the fault of the violent Muslims? Buddhism seldom suffers from similar bad press. How is Trump's hijacking Ramadan as a pretext to discuss terrorism any worse than the litany of leftwing politicians co-opting Christmas in order to guilt-trip voters into supporting calls for increased social welfare budgets?

By Frederick Meekins

As those following the news over the past several years are no doubt aware, a leftist protest movement has galvanized under a banner referred to broadly as “Occupy Wall Street” This name was selected almost as an after thought by a coalition of converging groups and causes in order to appeal to the sympathizes of a significant swath of the American population.

For there really aren't many that have not been perturbed at one time or another over the shenanigans of Wall Street. To those on the Left, these often stand out as ostentatious displays of greed. Those on the Right, though having little problem in theory with the accumulation of considerable profit, are as just as much in principle disturbed by the government intervention rushing to prevent economic collapse as a result of imprudence on the part of investors and other fiduciaries carelessly overseeing delicate financial assets.

Because of those assembling under such a banner, a number of the nation's leaders from institutions such as government and media have spoken favorably of these protests. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have often assumed a John Belushi “Thank you, sir. May I have another” posture in gratitude for protesters speaking out with such boldness and direct action.

But before Americans that (unlike these protesters) actually work for a living or take an assortment of steps to see that they minimize their dependence upon public assistance march in solidarity as we are told to by revolutionary leftists, perhaps we should take a look at what movements such as Occupy Wall Street actually profess, what kinds of deeds they have committed, and what elites such as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi endorse by default as a result of their favorable remarks and lack of condemnation.

For example, participants in these sorts of upheavals have, like disgruntled apes in zoos, relieved their bowels in police cruisers. Did President Obama speak out against such outrage?

If not, shouldn't it be construed that he has no problem with such an act? After all, he found it appropriate to interject himself into the misunderstanding between a police officer and a Harvard professor so full of himself that he did not think he had to comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement like a mundane, run of the mill American.

More importantly, if there is nothing inherently wrong about pulling down one's pants and relaxing one's anal sphincter against a police cruiser, then what would be so wrong about perpetrating a similar outrage against a presidential motorcade? After all, are we not acculturated that, in our federal system of government, ideally the local level is just as important as the national and no one person or official more worthy of deference than another?

Another aspect worthy of note is how these leftist elites respond to Occupy-style movements in light of their to the Tea Party movement. One such example is none other than Hag Pelosi.

In one interview, the crone about broke down into tears how the kinds of frustrations vociferously articulated in the earliest days of the Tea Party movement were what led to the violence of the 1960's, especially as epitomized by those carried out in her beloved San Francisco area. President Obama echoed similar sentiments insinuating that Tea Party activists needed to watch what they said in light of the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords not by a proponent of constitutional government and fiscal responsibility but rather by a psychotic motivated by the occult as evidenced by the Voodoo shrine he erected in his parents' backyard.

But while members of the Tea Party can hardly be linked to any actual incidents of violence and are more likely to have assaults perpetrated upon them as evidence by a Black gentleman beaten to a pulp by union goons for simply attempting to sell “Don't Tread On Me” paraphernalia, those allied with Occupy Wall Street and related upheavals have actually perpetrated outrages that about bring tears to any but the most calloused news hounds.

In Italy, mobs in solidarity with the Occupy Movement desecrated and vandalized religious objects and works of art in a church. Had such an act of deliberate animus taken place on the part of the Tea Party movement at a Jewish synagogue (especially of the liberal variety where those that gather do so more out of a passionate disregard for Christianity rather than out of any affirmative embrace of the revelation of a monotheisitic God to mankind), every news bureau in the country would have a correspondent on the scene with Geraldo especially ripping out his mustache in an act of lamentation.

And in another act of religious hostility occurring on the Italian Peninsula, a protester set ablaze a Bible during a mass conducted by the Pope. Just see what happens to you if a similar act of disrespect is perpetrated to a particular venerated Islamic text. The next video footage of something set on fire is likely to be you.

Did the Obama Administration release any kind of statement condemning such acts of hatred against Christianity? Yet this was the very same regime that propagated the impression that mentioning the terms “Islamic” or “terrorism” to describe the contemporary documented phenomena of violence committed in pursuit of specific theo-political ends is going to spark an epidemic of bias related incidents directed towards Muslims that are in no way participating in this covert yet not so subtle attempt to destroy the Western way of life.

Among crimes, there rank gradations of offense. Since the structures are ingrained culturally into our psyches as places exuding goodness and holiness at least to those that frequent them, most Americans of sound conscience would not think of vandalizing a house of worship even if it was of a tradition other than their own. The only other acts that strike the descent individual as more shocking would probably be assaults of a sexual nature and outright homicide.

It has been said that in the eighteenth century that the Bible was killed, in the nineteenth century that God was killed, and in the twentieth century man was killed. This rhetorical flourish shows how a total disregard for the basic mortality of Scripture leads to a disrespect for God which results in the catastrophic death that results as man perfects his technology but certainly not his morality. Experimental sociologists of the twenty-first century do not necessarily have to waste centuries any more to watch such a process play out. It is unfolding before their very eyes in the form of Occupy Wall Street and derivative protest movements.

Following the shocking vandalism of the Italian churches, participants of the Occupy Movement having expressed such outright contempt for the things of God have expunged themselves of perhaps the greatest hurdle up until now preventing them from afflicting similar atrocities upon their fellow human beings. Perhaps the likes of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi would care to comment on any number of these since they certainly don't mind foaming at the mouth at the alleged behavioral shortcomings of the Tea Party Movement.

For example, in a number of Occupy “shanty towns” and indigent enclaves, a number of women have been sexually assaulted and even raped. It was been reported that one of these victims was a 14 year old and, another , a woman with cognitive disabilities.

At one Occupy demonstration, a tent for women only had to be established in order to provide a sense of comfort to women reluctant to sleep amidst a group of men whose appearances alone often reveal a lack of discipline and self control. However, given the nature of the mob mentality, is a sign reading “Women Only” going to dissuade a bunch of lust-filled hooligans when they don't have much respect for law, rules, and basic human decorum to begin with?

Even when such unconscionable acts occur, often it is the preference of Occupy organizers that such infractions be settled within the confines of the demonstrating collective. After all, when these beatniks believe we are nothing more than animals to begin with, such assaults really aren't that evil after all. Categorizing such acts in that manner is a manifestation of the bourgeois notions of the uptight and sexually repressed.

Perhaps it is this notion that the likes of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi embrace so heartily. That notion is of course that the laws that govern we mere common mortals should not be used to bind those consciences and minds so revolutionary that, as Hegel taught, they are already attuned to the new epoch unfolding before us.

For example, among those thinking that the sexual predators within the ranks of the Occupy Movement should not be remanded to bourgeois justice are those probably insisting that Herman Cain be placed on some kind of offender registry for commenting that one woman was about his wife's height and for requesting another to doctor his tea.

Throughout history, though many revolutions start out galvanized around a noble principle, eventually since they do not yield to the laws of God nor respect the rights of those that disagree with their conclusions, end up in violence and eventually loss of life. As has been seen in terms of the desecrated church and sexual molestations, this movement has already tottered over the edge into violence. The discerning and concerned must ask how long until the loss of innocent life?

Already a number of Occupy participants have succumbed to overdoses on pharmaceutical compounds. Proponents of the Occupy Movement will respond that this was the result of the deceased individual's own hand.

Fair enough. One only need glance at the vast numbers of Occupy participants for no more than fifteen seconds to tell that these types aren't exactly renowned for pursuing lives of ascetic self-control and mortification of the flesh.

However, incidents have occurred that could lead one to conclude that the Occupy Movement could turn violent or even homicidal at the drip of a pin. Or perhaps, in this case, rather a pen.

For just such a writing implement was plunged into the neck of one particular broadcast journalist covering one of these activist enclaves. One supposes it only logical that the proper use of such communication technology no doubt evades those unable to master the techniques necessary to aim their respective digestive effluents into the designated sewage receptacles.

Often the mouthpieces of these uprising throngs claim that their goals are of a nonviolent nature. Yet these malcontents then proceed to smash windows, flip over automobiles, and now desecrate religious objects.

To the average person not educated beyond the point of usefulness, such acts embody the notion of violence. However, to such leftists that have conscientiously abandoned established moral norms, such acts are not construed as violent.

To them, such an ethical appellation only applies if forceful actions are directed towards particular types of human beings. But among the first steps of systematic demhumanization is to either take away the property of your political opponents or to exhibit some kind of overwhelming disrespect towards it.

For example, bricks through windows and setting trashcans afire is a favorite tactic of this kind of movement in its early stages. As such acts become second nature to the perpetrators, they may even move to even more shocking acts of vandalism such as the painting of yellow stars on the property of those belonging to a particular ethno-religious category.

After what might even include a little nocturnal breaking of the glass, the shock troops of the New World Order are well on their way to eroding what little remains of the human conscience to allow not only for the destruction of the things owned by the despised demographic (be they Jews, Christians, property owners or even those driving automobiles deemed too luxurious by the proponents of anarchistic collectivism) but the snuffing out as well of the very lives of those deemed a hindrance to progress and the next stage of social development.

Already the mental and philosophical preparation is being put into place to ratchet things up to the next level. Even the godless amoralitsts need to be conditioned for the pending taking of human life.

In a story posted at the Blaze.com titled, “Anti-Capitalist Teach-In Leader: 'We Have People Organizing Inside The Military”, a member of the Progressive Labor Party boasted that he and his comrades are infiltrating the military, college campuses, and among industrial workers in preparation of a pending uprising. In essence, this is totalitarian as it mirrors the orders of society laid out since the Middle Ages encompassing nearly everyone in terms of those who work, fight, and pray.

Infiltrating the churches and colleges is essential in order to mold the masses in compliance with one's own warped worldview. It is essential to seize control of the means of production in order to bring society to a grinding halt. For if you can cut off access to food, other necessities and assorted luxuries, you can coerce quite a few to go along with your demands even if they are not inclined to because of the ingrained drives for food, shelter, and clothing.

There is only one reason that one would want to take over the military as articulated by a mentioned Occupy spokesman. That reason is to none other than kill or intimidate into compliance those within education, industry, and religion unwilling to surrender this side of the grave to the brutalizations of totalitarian collectivism.

Some snobs might sneer down their noses since Blaze.com is the news portal of ideological flip-flopper Glen Beck. However, how that refutes the veracity of an Occupy subversive speaking in his own words is never really explained. That's one reason they want to seize control of the military. So the will never be required to explain themselves.

However, there was another statement documented that verifies that desire for what the vast majority of Americans would categorize as violence. One agitator participating in Occupy Movement activism enunciated how he would like to hurl a Molotov cocktail into Macy's.

Such an act is an act of terrorism not all that different than that perpetrated by Islamists around the world. Anyone claiming it is not because of the animosities they harbor against the symbols of capitalism such as department stores should be asked how they would like such an horrible deed perpetrated against their own homes or economic establishments more to their own likings such as food coops and organic markets featuring what is claimed to be locally grown produce.

In response to a brief blog entry I posted, a commenter remarked that I had better stop watching Fox News or Rush Limbaugh and wake up to how the so-called 99% disapprove of how the 1% are living. This also raises a number of questions.

For starters, what if I refuse to? As a free individual, I am permitted to consult whatever sources of information and media that I desire. We call that freedom of thought and expression. It is obvious that with such threats that those sympathetic to the rampagers do not respect liberty of conscience.

But more importantly, does the fact that the 99% approve or disapprove of something make that thing in question good or evil? It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. To configure that sentiment in a more dignified elocution, the Biblical idiom insists that broad is the path that leads to destruction.

For example, it has been said that pure democracy is a group consisting of 51 men and 49 women where the 51 men vote to rape the 49 women. Some conditioned into the notion that the only way to express things is in the most docile manner possible so as not to spark offense will recoil, insisting that such an extreme example could never take place. But given what has taken place at a number of Occupy encampments such as unsolicited toe sniffing, outright sexual assault, the establishment of female-only tents surrounded by barbed wire and a leadership so spineless that it is reluctant too hand over such criminals to the justice system, those that would consider them themselves adjusted human beings had better think long and hard about basing their convictions upon a foundation no more secure than the whims of a drug-addled mob.

Global society indeed totters along the edge of destruction. Though anyone aware of a world beyond themselves is outraged by the gross excesses wallowed in by those atop the system, one must also be constantly aware of the threat posed by those fanatically insistent that the only way to rectify the perceived outrages is to nearly destroy all of civilized existence in the process.

By Frederick Meekins

Sometimes a notion or a concept can seem insightful upon its initial articulation, but after additional consideration it seems rather vapid or out of touch with reality. For example, published in the December 2016 edition of “Christianity Today” is a column titled “Christianity Without An Adjective”.

On the surface, such a goal seems laudable as it is a reminder not to sublimate Christ to any particular ideology or social philosophy. However, such an admonition fails to take into consideration why many today feel the need to articulate a modifier when describing their particular brand of Christianity and how this admonition to avoid doing so just as easily plays into the hands of the adversary.

“Christianity Today” began in the second half of the twentieth century in order to defend sound Biblical Theology in an intellectually respectable and rigorous manner before a public whose institutions of thought had already turned markedly hostile towards religiously orthodox ideas and perspectives.

In particular, “Christianity Today” was intended to stand as an alternative to more leftist publications such as “Christian Century”, “Commonweal”, and “Sojourners Magazine”. These publications often tended to promote a more liberal outlook on a variety of social, cultural, and theological issues to the point where the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith were denied but the Christian terminology retained as a way to understand reality even if these definitions were reconceptualized in compliance with the radical fads of any given moment of the lengthy print runs of these respective publications. Coming briefly to mind was an article published a few years ago suggesting in violation of Hebrews 9:22 that the shedding of blood really wasn't all the necessary for the remission of sins after all.

Those holding to a more traditionalist understanding of the faith once delivered unto the saints were not the ones that attempted to alter the rules in the middle of the game or the very game itself. As such, why are we obligated to be the ones verbalizing a flagellating remorse in order to differentiate ourselves from those that deny essential doctrines such as the Incarnation of Christ, His Resurrection, and heterosexual marriage as the only valid form of carnal relations between human beings?

From the article, the discerning reader also comes away with the impression that this crusade against descriptive modifiers is also a front through which to ensnare Evangelical Christianity in the leftist fads of White privilege and racial guilt.

K.A. Ellis writes, “A Christianity qualified by any adjective now feels restrictive for good reason.” That means that, .by tying Christianity to any one particular understanding, one ends up feeling guilty when making common cause with universalists, moral subversives, and any number of garden variety unbelievers.

The author continues, “...As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why some are calling themselves 'Christian Americans' rather than 'American Christians'.” In other words, the truly pious or devout (those truly “sold out to Jesus” as they used to say hoping to manipulate prospects into “surrendering” to full time missionary work) have severed all meaningful ties with an identity other than their Christian one.

Yet while this is praised with one hand, the author turns around and ignores this ideal with another. What the writer probably intended to convey was that this condemnation of Christians identifying themselves in part by their particular nationality is only to be applied to those that invoke the term to signify a sort of benevolent sternness that, while desiring to advocate as much goodwill as possible to the external world, when the time comes is not going to be passively kicked around by the advocates of malevolence and tyranny.

For example, K.A. Ellis referred to Stanley Hauerwas as an “American theologian” and not as a “theologian from America”. It should be pointed out that Hauerwas is noted for markedly leftwing views.

Those that like to pat themselves on the back by playing word games in the attempt to trip people up but in the process expose just how devoid of actual wisdom and commonsense those whose primary purpose in life is to put on display just how broadminded they think themselves to be will no doubt make a fuss that in this particular instance the word “American” was paired with the word “theologian”. As such, this new standard being advocated does not apply.

However, this was not the only instance it was violated in this particular article. Ellis writes, “...we are more in concert with the orthodoxy of the two-thirds world Christians, especially those in the underground church.”

Shouldn't Ellis have formulated the phraseology as “Christians in the two-thirds world”? So if we are to so despise America that we get jacked out of shape upon hearing the linguistic combination “American Christians” why ought those living elsewhere get an easy pass?

Worthy of note is the admonition to be “in concert with the orthodoxy of two-thirds-world Christians, especially those in the underground church.” Just what exactly does that consist of?

Does Ellis mean the strong stance against homosexuality and similar carnal lifestyles that have prompted a number of ecclesiastical functionaries to take a bold position against the wanton licentiousness allowed to fester in certain branches of the Anglican Communion by seeking their apostolic oversight under a select number of African bishops rather than traditional Western prelates? Or instead, is this sentiment articulated more in solidarity with the tendency of some in these less developed lands to prefer a less than free market and more communal distribution of resources where profit does not so much accrue to those that earned it but rather to those that shout their grievances the loudest or are perhaps the most proficient at acts of violence?

It is imperative that Christianity be articulated in such a way as to grab the attention of those that are spiritually adrift. However, their eventually comes a point where those attempting to reach the lost by adopting much of the way that the lost view the world around them become virtually indistinguishable from the lost and end up losing much of their way as well.

By Frederick Meekins