This explanation begins to explore the interconnection between the offices of the five fold ministries. Hopefully the author will continue with the other offices and why they need each other.
---------------
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Prophets need... - by Jeremiah Johnson
I liked this, because I've been studying the five-fold ministries and am hoping to see God-ordained leadership reinstalled in the the Church.
Friday, October 27, 2017
HERE COME THE TRAVAILING PROPHETS - Jeremiah Johnson
Jeremiah Johnson Ministries
God is releasing a new breed of travailing prophets in the earth right now who have been convinced that their greatest privilege in life is to make intercession to the Lord of Hosts. These burning ones are being forged in the context of night and day prayer. They are more devoted to the secret place than the public place.
These travailing prophets are more familiar with a prayer room than a playroom called a stage. These men and women would rather minister to an audience of One than an audience of hundreds or even thousands. They crave the attention of the throne room more than the praise afforded to them on a platform and is the very generation Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 27:18 when he said, “But if they are true prophets and if the word of the Lord is really spoken by them, let them now make intercession to the LORD of hosts…”
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Sermon notes, 10/22/17
NEW SEASON, NEW PARADIGMS
We’ve heard about:
a new season
how we need to examine our thinking
how we are entering a time of shaking and change and new things and vision and course corrections and fasting.
ideas about how church should look
how we need to better discern what our role in the Kingdom might be
a cohesive message in a variety of voices
this season is a little uncertain, sabbatical
we aren’t overthrowing the pastor/going weird
heresy creeping in? historically speaking, having credentialed pastors or being part of a denomination hasn’t done a thing.
We’ve heard about:
a new season
how we need to examine our thinking
how we are entering a time of shaking and change and new things and vision and course corrections and fasting.
ideas about how church should look
how we need to better discern what our role in the Kingdom might be
a cohesive message in a variety of voices
this season is a little uncertain, sabbatical
we aren’t overthrowing the pastor/going weird
heresy creeping in? historically speaking, having credentialed pastors or being part of a denomination hasn’t done a thing.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Actually, hate speech is protected speech - by Ken White
Found here. A good explanation.
-------------------
Free speech and its limitations are on Americans’ minds. In the past year we’ve seen Nazis and white supremacists rally in our cities, angry protesters chase provocateurs off of college campuses, a comedian wield a bloody effigy of the president’s severed head, and slurs and overt racial animus made a staple of political discourse. Controversial speech has people talking about what restrictions, if any, society can enforce on words we despise.
That inquiry isn’t inherently bad. It’s good for citizens to want to learn more about the contours of our constitutional rights. The dilemma is that the public debate about free speech relies on useless cliches, not on accurate information about the law.
Here are some of the most popular misleading slogans:
“Not all speech is protected. There are limits to free speech.”
This slogan is true, but rarely helpful. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct. First Amendment exceptions are not an open-ended category, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to add to them, especially in the last generation. Merely observing that some exceptions exist does not help anyone determine whether particular speech falls into one of those exceptions. It’s a non sequitur.
Imagine you’re bitten by a snake on a hike, and you want to know rather urgently whether the snake is venomous. You describe the snake to your doctor. “Well, not all snakes are venomous,” your doctor responds. Not very helpful, it is?
“You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
-------------------
Free speech and its limitations are on Americans’ minds. In the past year we’ve seen Nazis and white supremacists rally in our cities, angry protesters chase provocateurs off of college campuses, a comedian wield a bloody effigy of the president’s severed head, and slurs and overt racial animus made a staple of political discourse. Controversial speech has people talking about what restrictions, if any, society can enforce on words we despise.
That inquiry isn’t inherently bad. It’s good for citizens to want to learn more about the contours of our constitutional rights. The dilemma is that the public debate about free speech relies on useless cliches, not on accurate information about the law.
Here are some of the most popular misleading slogans:
“Not all speech is protected. There are limits to free speech.”
This slogan is true, but rarely helpful. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct. First Amendment exceptions are not an open-ended category, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to add to them, especially in the last generation. Merely observing that some exceptions exist does not help anyone determine whether particular speech falls into one of those exceptions. It’s a non sequitur.
Imagine you’re bitten by a snake on a hike, and you want to know rather urgently whether the snake is venomous. You describe the snake to your doctor. “Well, not all snakes are venomous,” your doctor responds. Not very helpful, it is?
“You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
CAN A SUPREME COURT RULING BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS RICK SANTORUM SUGGESTED? - BY TAYLOR WOFFORD
Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------
This is an article published a couple of years ago, but the issue raised is still relevant.
-------------------
As part of the "undercard" debate for second-tier Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the United States Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage, was "unconstitutional."
Santorum's comments came after candidates were asked to respond to the incarceration and subsequent release of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses on religious grounds.
It is technically impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional, as the Court is endowed with judicial review, a right derived from Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution. (It is not impossible, technically or otherwise, for the Supreme court to render unconstitutional decisions. History is riddled with egregious decisions that have been reversed.)
Judicial review allows the Court to decide if actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, and, if not, to rule them unconstitutional. The right to judicial review was codified in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison. (Waaait. So the Supreme court rendered a decision about its own power? And that's constitutional by definition? The author has an odd idea about what is and isn't constitutional. In actual fact, what the constitution says is what is constitutional. What the court opines about the constitution is a Category Error.)
-------------------
This is an article published a couple of years ago, but the issue raised is still relevant.
-------------------
As part of the "undercard" debate for second-tier Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the United States Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage, was "unconstitutional."
Santorum's comments came after candidates were asked to respond to the incarceration and subsequent release of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses on religious grounds.
It is technically impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional, as the Court is endowed with judicial review, a right derived from Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution. (It is not impossible, technically or otherwise, for the Supreme court to render unconstitutional decisions. History is riddled with egregious decisions that have been reversed.)
Judicial review allows the Court to decide if actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, and, if not, to rule them unconstitutional. The right to judicial review was codified in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison. (Waaait. So the Supreme court rendered a decision about its own power? And that's constitutional by definition? The author has an odd idea about what is and isn't constitutional. In actual fact, what the constitution says is what is constitutional. What the court opines about the constitution is a Category Error.)
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Peeling the Whitewash From Our Myths: Susan K. Smith and Bill Moyers talk about the Bible, the Constitution and Race
Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------
There's a lot of leftist agitprop here.
------------------
(...)
Moyers: Does this help explain why you have spent so much of your adult life grappling with the myths of democracy, as you did in that speech I heard last summer. You are trying to correct the faulty perception of black people by exposing the myths to scrutiny?
Smith: Absolutely. I believe in the power of words. And I said at Chautauqua that I think that America has two guiding sacred texts, the Christian Bible and the US Constitution, and within both those texts are words that should lead us to a place of community and understanding of humanity on pretty much the same level. But the words in those texts have been violated, or perhaps it is that we have ignored them, but whatever the reason, they have not been successful in bringing us to a place where we can use them to destroy racism and sexism. So “all men are created equal” does not mean what we think those words should mean. (Um, that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution...)
At their very inception they meant white, male, Christian property owners were created equal. These are powerful words, life-giving words, but at the time they were never meant to apply to African-Americans — or women or Native Americans, for that matter. (That's not true in the least. The Declaration's statements are universal in nature, even if the political climate of the day didn't allow for their full expression.)
By the same token, the words in the Bible, which are also life-giving, are not interpreted (Emphasis added.)
the same way by whites and blacks, by people who study the same words but who belong to different races. I don’t remember if it was the late Strom Thurmond or the late Sen. Robert Byrd, but both were religious men and one of them was asked if he knew the Bible, and he said yes, of course. And he was asked, “Do you believe the words that say that you should love your neighbor as yourself?” And the senator answered, “Sure, I know those words, but I get to choose my neighbor.” (Byrd was a Democrat and a former KKK leader.)
Well, if we get to make decisions about the validity of those words being something universally applied or not, the words lose their power. (If there's anyone trying to selectively apply the Bible, it would be the Left.)
The Bible is said to be “holy” but the definition of “holy” seems defined by culture — different cultures in different ways.
So I’ve come to believe we are really a polytheistic society. We have at least two different Gods — the God of the oppressed and the God of the oppressor. The God of the oppressor seems to sanction and agree with the practices of those who oppress others. This God sanctions and supports militarism, sexism, homophobia and capitalism. (Capitalism is oppression? Only to a socialist.)
We also have one Bible — but at least two groups of people who interpret the same words in a radically different way. (It surprises Ms. Smith that there are a variety of biblical interpretations? Indeed, she goes to great pains to explain to us why hers is correct.)
And when it comes to the Constitution, we have two groups who interpret those words in radically different ways. As for democracy, well, for me there is no such thing as the egalitarian democracy we were told about as children, where the worth of all people is respected and appreciated. That’s a myth. You know, the Pledge of Allegiance thing about “liberty and justice,” or the Declaration on equality. The white supremacist and I worship different Gods. The white supremacist’s God is okay with somebody going out on a Saturday night and lynching somebody else, then going to church on Sunday morning in a three-piece suit and giving communion. (Hyperbolic nonsense.)
The God that my mama taught me, the God that I learned about in my Sunday School lessons, was different than the God that is evident in our society today. That God taught us to love our enemies. When my mama told me that, I would look over at the white folks on the other side and say, “How come they don’t have to do God like I have to do God? (Ms. Smith is making things up. Either people are like her or they are hypocritical racist homophobes. There are apparently no other categories.)
------------------
There's a lot of leftist agitprop here.
------------------
(...)
Moyers: Does this help explain why you have spent so much of your adult life grappling with the myths of democracy, as you did in that speech I heard last summer. You are trying to correct the faulty perception of black people by exposing the myths to scrutiny?
Smith: Absolutely. I believe in the power of words. And I said at Chautauqua that I think that America has two guiding sacred texts, the Christian Bible and the US Constitution, and within both those texts are words that should lead us to a place of community and understanding of humanity on pretty much the same level. But the words in those texts have been violated, or perhaps it is that we have ignored them, but whatever the reason, they have not been successful in bringing us to a place where we can use them to destroy racism and sexism. So “all men are created equal” does not mean what we think those words should mean. (Um, that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution...)
At their very inception they meant white, male, Christian property owners were created equal. These are powerful words, life-giving words, but at the time they were never meant to apply to African-Americans — or women or Native Americans, for that matter. (That's not true in the least. The Declaration's statements are universal in nature, even if the political climate of the day didn't allow for their full expression.)
By the same token, the words in the Bible, which are also life-giving, are not interpreted (Emphasis added.)
the same way by whites and blacks, by people who study the same words but who belong to different races. I don’t remember if it was the late Strom Thurmond or the late Sen. Robert Byrd, but both were religious men and one of them was asked if he knew the Bible, and he said yes, of course. And he was asked, “Do you believe the words that say that you should love your neighbor as yourself?” And the senator answered, “Sure, I know those words, but I get to choose my neighbor.” (Byrd was a Democrat and a former KKK leader.)
Well, if we get to make decisions about the validity of those words being something universally applied or not, the words lose their power. (If there's anyone trying to selectively apply the Bible, it would be the Left.)
The Bible is said to be “holy” but the definition of “holy” seems defined by culture — different cultures in different ways.
So I’ve come to believe we are really a polytheistic society. We have at least two different Gods — the God of the oppressed and the God of the oppressor. The God of the oppressor seems to sanction and agree with the practices of those who oppress others. This God sanctions and supports militarism, sexism, homophobia and capitalism. (Capitalism is oppression? Only to a socialist.)
We also have one Bible — but at least two groups of people who interpret the same words in a radically different way. (It surprises Ms. Smith that there are a variety of biblical interpretations? Indeed, she goes to great pains to explain to us why hers is correct.)
And when it comes to the Constitution, we have two groups who interpret those words in radically different ways. As for democracy, well, for me there is no such thing as the egalitarian democracy we were told about as children, where the worth of all people is respected and appreciated. That’s a myth. You know, the Pledge of Allegiance thing about “liberty and justice,” or the Declaration on equality. The white supremacist and I worship different Gods. The white supremacist’s God is okay with somebody going out on a Saturday night and lynching somebody else, then going to church on Sunday morning in a three-piece suit and giving communion. (Hyperbolic nonsense.)
The God that my mama taught me, the God that I learned about in my Sunday School lessons, was different than the God that is evident in our society today. That God taught us to love our enemies. When my mama told me that, I would look over at the white folks on the other side and say, “How come they don’t have to do God like I have to do God? (Ms. Smith is making things up. Either people are like her or they are hypocritical racist homophobes. There are apparently no other categories.)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? - By Daniel Villarreal
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
The author's refreshing honesty about the gay agenda is no surprise to anyone. We all know that it's about power, not equal rights. And we have to shut up if we don't like it.
---------------------
In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.
Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?
----------------------
The author's refreshing honesty about the gay agenda is no surprise to anyone. We all know that it's about power, not equal rights. And we have to shut up if we don't like it.
---------------------
In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.
Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)