Calls for the flag’s removal have grown in the wake of a shooting at a historically black church in Charleston Wednesday night that left nine people dead at the hands of a white gunman. NAACP President Cornell Brooks also called Friday for the flag’s removal and a White House spokesman said President Barack Obama thinks the flag belongs in a museum.
I know of no biblical reason to maintain or remove the flag. The flag did not twist anyone’s arms to make its citizens to enslave other human beings nor did it force Roof to shoot 9 people. From what I read and have read about the flag, people seem to only view the negative and may not want to be reminded of how sinful we get when we do not follow God correctly. But it is a reminder and maybe if South Carolina keeps flying it, its presence will deter people from delving into such evil practices.
I know that if we remove reminders, it is easier to forget the past and return to evil which is why God probably left the desolation of Sodom and Gomorrah to this day– to remind us of how much God hates sin and to motivate us to live better.
#2. Please Get The Facts Right— http://jamestabor.com/2015/06/17/essays-on-john-the-baptist-the-q-source/
In this new six part series I present responses to essays offered in my course at UNC Charlotte on “John the Baptist.” John is the most underrated figure in Christian tradition, rarely given his due as a messiah and inaugurator of the movement Jesus himself arose from.
John the Baptist was neither a messiah nor an inaugurator of Christianity. He was a herald proclaiming the coming of the Messiah and the Bible is very clear on John’s duties;
17 It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Lk. 1)
There is no labeling him as a messiah or the originator of a new faith thus people like Tabor get it wrong and they seem to get it wrong all the time. It is only because of their unbelief that scholars cannot get the facts right about Christianity, Jesus, God or even the OT. They cannot seem to grasp the simple words used by God in the Bible. There is another problem though with that article. Tabor writes like Q actually existed
The Q source is widely held to be the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not found in Mark. Scholars believe that is was a collection of the sayings of Jesus around the time of 50 C.E. Basing the discussion on the Lukan version of Q, a very distinctive portrait of John the Baptist emerges within the text. It is clear that John plays an important role from the beginning as the Q material begins with him instead of Jesus
Just to remind everyone, Q has never existed, it was not a source document and no church father or other ancient biblical writer attest to its existence. What Q is, is a figment of scholars’ creative imaginations. That is it. There has been no Q, there is no Q and there will never be a Q.
#3. Actually, The Government Has More Rights Than You Think— http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/06/is-child-marriage-wrong-if-the-parents-consent.html
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see Farris state that the government has legitimate moral authority to punish parents who do evil.
There are very few restrictions placed upon Governments by God in what they can or cannot regulate. Governments also enjoy the right of free choice and if they choose to be secular then they will give an account for their governing. Governments can interfere in many areas of life and have the right to do so, which is why the English forced Prince John into singing the Magna Charta and most countries have constitutions. They regulate the power their governments can possess.
The problem is earthly checks and balances are not infallible and do not usually have divine authority attached to them thus they can be swept aside at any time by those in power. But that isn’t the only thing that bothers me with that quote and article.
First, is the word ‘evil’ in that quote. It is a very subjective term and that writer’s definition of evil probably doe snot line up with God’s but contains her personal views only.Under that ambiguous wording, Governments can punish people who use corporal punishment as a discipline when that form of discipline is not wrong though people do go too far in the methods that they use in their adherence to the biblical view of ‘spare the rod.’
Second, what bothers me is that author’s definition of the word ‘child’. If we educate and train our children correctly, they should not still be children in their teen years. It has been a great dis-service to children and families by falsely extending childhood for another 7-8 years. Do I think that 40-year-old men should be romantically involved with teenagers? Of course not but teenagers are hardly children.
We fail our children by not allowing them to grow up properly and by isolating them from things they need to be aware of and taught how to handle properly. We fail them by not teaching them the truth and by dumbing down their educational process. Since the 80s we have raised generations of people who are afraid of their own shadows, who are incapable of handling problems or knowing where to get help.
Jesus didn’t isolate his disciples. He taught them, corrected them, guided them and even picked them up when they fell but he never isolated them. We should do the same for our children so that they can be strong and capable of handling what evil throws their way.
#4. It Isn’t God’s Dream— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amardeep-kaleka/american-dream-disturbed_b_7627764.html
South of the Mason Dixon line, during bible study, the hard-earned American dream of nine beautiful worshippers came to a murderous end.
The American Dream is not the goal of the believer, in fact you will not see it mentioned anywhere in the Bible. You will see instructions like:
And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.(Lk. 9:23)
20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be [j]complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mt. 19)
and other such passages. Though these words do not mean that believers are to be poor or that they cannot have wealth, it means that our goal is God and his kingdom over what the world offers as John reminds us:
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.(1 John 2:15)
The American Dream is a distraction to the believer and gets their eyes off God and his will. We need to be careful that in our pursuit to support and take care of our families that we do not get sidetracked by the offerings of the secular world.
#5. Please Get The Facts Right 2— http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/06/12/can-a-christian-husband-deny-his-wife-equal-access-to-his-income/
So no, Biblically speaking both spouses do NOT have an equal right to what the other makes. The husband is the authority of all income that comes into the home, whether through his wife or himself.
I am talking to Christians here. if you are going to expound upon the Bible and apply the ideas you think are correct then make sure you are getting the verses correct and not importing your own ideas into what God is telling us. Depriving your wife of the money you may make only shows a lack of trust not love for your spouse.
It does nothing to enhance the relationship, bring each other closer together and will open doors for evil to get in and work its destructive power upon a family. Does this mean that a wife has carte blanche to spend as she wishes? Of course not but it does mean that the husband and wife need to sit down and talk this issue through so that each person knows how the other feels about spending, saving money and for what purpose it is to be used. A man may make the money but that does not give him license to gamble it away, drink it away or even spend it on foolish things. He has a responsibility to take care of his family
Even though the husband is the head of the family, his wife is his helpmeet and she cannot do her duties properly if her access to money is hindered by a selfish or untrusting husband. I think that author is a bit naive as he says:
In a worst case scenario if a husband refuses to provide for his wife and children after being confronted by his authorities and she has consulted with her Pastor and he agrees, she could divorce him for breach of the marriage covenant which includes his responsibility to provide for her if he is physically able to work.
That is not one of the criterion for divorce and this error undermines his whole case. If he is going to be biblical in the area of the husband being the head of the home then he needs to be biblical in the area of divorce. Finances are always a difficult issue with husbands and wives so both partners need to communicate with each other how they want to handle this issue. The man cannot pull the trump card of being dictatorial saying ‘I am the head I will decide…’ nor can the woman abdicate her helpmeet’s role by saying ‘whatever you think is best…’
The two must be together on this issue and support each other because outside influences will put pressure on one or the other to violate their financial path and they need to rely upon the other to help them withstand such destructive forces.
Then when you deal with the Bible make sure you are getting it right, using God given wisdom, understanding and so on while following the HS to the truth in how to handle your finances as well as every other aspect of married life.