Metaxas on Saving America [Again]

Meeting Eric Metaxas

Socrates in the City founder, Eric Metaxas, isn’t a typical Christian fundamentalist. Socrates in the City certainly includes a curious range of past speakers. But then, Metaxas himself makes some odd statements:

‘I am a conservative Christian … even more important, I’m an American…’
‘Being a Christian always comes first…’
[explains the above comment].
‘America exists for the world.’
[No national chauvinism there, people]!
‘A beacon of liberty to the whole world…’
[See preceding comment]!
‘If Hillary Clinton is elected, I do not believe we’ll get a second chance.’

The brave can play the video.

Weighing Metaxas’ Screed

From my perspective, one of the most irritating features of ‘Christian’ political discussion is its assumption of false premises. Since the premises are false, discourse cannot help even if the logic is impeccable [which it seldom is]. As I see it, such ‘Christian’ political discourse/action is sub-christian in nature as well as effect. It certainly is devastating to Christian witness to anyone who is actually aware of public issues.

For example: the Democrats — working hard at achieving open borders? How does one begin to square this with highest ever deportation figures which occurred under the Obama administration? The church I frequent has a member who is an immigration lawyer [maybe soon, a judge]. This woman is highly intelligent and very well informed on refugee issues and immigration issues. She is also a deeply, committed Christian. Knowing what she does, how is she supposed to reply to the ‘open borders’ line?

Discussing his assertion is impossible since the premise is incorrect. And while my friend would set him very straight very quickly, not all believers have her intellectual capacity or experience in this area.

Also, am I the only one to sense that to support Donald Trump, you must invariably talk like Donald Trump? Suddenly, misogyny, bigotry, racism, swindling or corruption either become politically fabricated lies, or else they simply don’t matter for election purposes.

I must ask whether Eric’s politicized religion prostitutes Jesus’ body by making it a mirror reflection of the world. The apocalypse has multiple calls to repent for worldly behavior. Are there any grounds for exempting current behavior from those calls, together with the attending warnings?

‘“…repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth”’ [Re 2:16].

Whatever Metaxas’ church or sectarian affiliation, he speaks a political line that would resonate very effectively with many IFBs.

Eric Metaxas doesn’t mention that beside any Christians, some founders were deists. Nor does he consider that his faith and public order idea might support Marx’ dictum that religion is the opiate of the people [in the sense that the church served to direct the proletariat [working class] to support the state [politics] in God’s sacred Name as their Christian duty.

Balanced Coverage, Right?

For any Fundie lurkers about, this in no wise constitutes an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, who explains why the rich should rule. Also note the corruption revealed by Senator Clinton’s emails, and the baseness of this campaign as a whole. That these critiques come from the far left show that Senator Clinton is in no wise a ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ or communist.

Where is Christ in This?

In fact a critical point not mentioned by anyone is that this entire campaign displays the utter bankruptcy of our US political parties and the entire political class. Why confessing Christians of all people endow the powers and principalities of this age with redemptive import, and then insist that we buy into them is beyond me.

Friday Challenge — Correcting Compromise:

Compromise

Compromise Revisited:

Two months ago, SFL addressed the political compromise of Liberty University and Donald Trump under the title, ‘Suspending the Rules on Compromise.’ Apparently, some people agreed with us. A number of them are students at Liberty University. Calling themselves ‘Liberty United Against Trump,’ they published a statement censoring Jerry Falwell Jr.

Worse, they’re calling others to give it an endorsement of their own!

The opening paragraph states:

‘In the months since Jerry Falwell Jr. endorsed him, Donald Trump has been inexorably associated with Liberty University. We are Liberty students who are disappointed with President Falwell’s endorsement and are tired of being associated with one of the worst presidential candidates in American history. Donald Trump does not represent our values and we want nothing to do with him.’

Now I would not have written those words. I agree with the words and their sentiment. But I wouldn’t have written them. I would have said:

By consummating their civil union, Jerry Falwell Jr. inexorably tied Donald Trump and Liberty University. As Liberty students, we are disgusted by Mr. Falwell’s utter lack of spiritual sensibilities. We feel outraged and violated that without our consent, we are associated with an openly fascistic narcissist who holds both Christian faith and our system of governance in unmitigated contempt. Donald Trump does not represent our values; and if he represents Mr. Falwell’s values, we want nothing to do with either one of them.’

There is much about the Liberty United statement that is good. For me, the heart of the statement was this:

‘Associating any politician with Christianity is damaging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’

Friday Challenge — Correct Them!

Today, you get to ‘set ’em straight!’ This means that you get to rewrite some statement, paragraph or line from this, or another statement that you heard/endured in Fundystan. If you wish, you can reply to something that ought to have been addressed but never was. The use of [brackets] may help to clarify such changes as you intend to make.

Two rules apply this time:

1] Use your own discretion as regarding the use of identifiable names. You’re welcome to address those involved if you want … but you never know who may read it. So, use your own discretion.

2] Make this FUN [or therapeutic, as you wish]. Blessings!

Operation Clean Sweep

T-Party Church Persecution

Meet Jospeh Farah

Joseph Farah was an early a cheerleader for the Bush administration’s discretionary war on Iraq. April 10, 2003, Farah wrote:

‘I’ve been saying for years that all people yearn to be free. It’s a universal feeling. The Iraqi people were brutalized into submission. They could not have achieved their freedom without U.S. intervention…That’s the way it always works…Remember how we were told Iraqis would resist? The only demonstrations I saw yesterday were jubilant rallies by Arabs in the streets of Baghdad and by Arab-Americans in the streets of the USA.’

Farah’s article, ‘Liberation’ closes saying:

‘Celebrate! Praise God! This is a great day in our history and a great day in the history of the people of the Middle East and the people of the world. It’s a day reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s a day reminiscent of the liberation of Paris. It’s a day reminiscent of the toppling of the Taliban.’

One year less four days later, Farah wrote:

‘The temptation of Americans is to be too cautious…in the next few days – the U.S. should pound Fallujah like it has never been pounded before.’

He adds:

‘…we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.’

Astonishingly, he continues with:

‘Quite frankly, we need to make an example out of Fallujah. Here’s a chance for justice. Here’s an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn’t pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism.’

How a scorched earth policy and barbarism differ is not explained. Collective punishment is a recognized war crime.

Meet World News Daily

Joseph Francis Farah owns and operates World News Daily. WND is said to be ‘one of the most unhinged far-right “news” sites on the Internet.’ WND [Whirled News Daily?] acts as a permanent political operation to disorient and confuse the most backward and regressive layers of society. ‘And what might that mean,’ you may ask?

Have you ever wondered from where those bizarre political operations that replace rational discussion of serious issues come? Say — the birther nonsense of intellectual leprechaun, Donald Trump, who now realizes that it was really Hillary Clinton’s idea all along. Try checking WND first.

Before Mr. Trump boarded the birther bandwagon, WND knew that President Obama was hiding something. Why do you suppose he paid his ‘eligibility lawyer‘ the big bucks? Mind, birther theories were discredited all along. That didn’t stop WND from attempting to torpedo the Obama campaign. After all, having written the book on swift-boating John Kerry, why not go after Obama also?

Is There A Pattern

Whether it is Iraq, John Kerry or Senator Obama, Joseph Farah’s playbook is the same. Start a campaign. Lay the consequences at an opponents’ feet. A political pyromaniac, WND is at its best when it is starting ideological fires, fanning the flames, and watching Rome burn. Or Iraq. Or the USA.

So when the Tea Party runs an article, ‘Holy War: Government Tries to Control Church Sermons’ first published by WND, it’s difficult NOT to suspect chicanery. This is especially so when the Tea Party inserts into the WND screed its own declaration of a ‘clean sweep of all corrupt officials, no matter who wins in November…’

T-Potty Pledge

  • A political operation targets churches with the intent of acquiring them as assets for a partisan agenda.
  • When a church bites and adopts the agenda, repercussions follow. The state must respond.
  • Awake America or similar groups get involved. A lawsuit results. The church is now at the center of controversy.
  • Other churches and confessing Christians are canvassed and rallied to the cause, building ever more political momentum.

The issue is different. So is the theater. And regardless of the outcome, Mr. Farah and his World News Daily will continue to profit by stoking the fires of extremism. Face it–WND is good at it. The article on Fort Des Moines Church of Christ Congregation begins so innocuously.

‘An Iowa church just wants to be free to preach the gospel…’

Who could object to that!

‘…but the state’s so-called nondiscrimination requirements could block the house of worship from doing just that.’

Just that easily, many evangelical/fundamentalist Christians will fall for this devilishness instead of recognizing and renouncing it as the very epitome of worldliness that it is. But more on that later.