THE EVIL EFFECTS OF DEVILISH DOCTRINES

Red Deer Advocate, December 17^th, 2011. Sins and crimes covered up for decades are finding the Roman Catholic priesthood out. A Scripture promise we are glad to see fulfilled where the most evil cloisters are concerned!

Devout Roman Catholics confess that the Bible is the word of God. Evangelicals who visit the Roman Church and participate in popish services confess the same. But these two groups are either spiritually blind or brazenly stubborn in the face of what the word of God teaches.

What if the Bible clearly predicted that the Church you attend entertains ‘doctrines of devils’? Would you close your ears to that and continue attending there? The Holy Spirit himself warned that ‘doctrines of devils’ would come, and that one of these would be the forbidding of marriage. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils…forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4.1, 3.) Other churches have imposed this unbiblical rule. But the Roman Church is the most infamous one who has done it.

John Calvin on 1 Timothy 4: “Accordingly, although Papists laugh at us, when we censure their tyrannical laws about outward observances, yet we know that we are pleading a cause of the greatest weight and importance; because the doctrine of faith is destroyed, as soon as the worship of God is infected by such corruptions. The controversy is not about flesh or fish, or about a black or ashy color, or about Friday or Wednesday, but about the mad superstitions of men, who wish to appease God by such trifles, and, by contriving a carnal worship of him, contrive for themselves an idol instead of God. Who will deny that this is revolting from the faith?…Not unjustly, therefore, do we maintain that this prediction was uttered against the Papists, since celibacy and abstinence from certain kinds of food are enjoined by them more strictly than any commandment of God.”

Albert Barnes on 1 Timothy 4.3: “This does not necessarily mean that they would prohibit marriage altogether, but that it would be a characteristic of their teaching that marriage would “be forbidden,” whether of one class of persons or many. They would “commend” and “enjoin” celibacy and virginity. They would regard such a state, for certain persons, as more holy than the married condition, and would consider it as “so” holy that they would absolutely prohibit those who wished to be most holy from entering into the relation. It is needless to say how accurately this applies to the views of the papacy….”

It seems clear that the ‘seducing spirits’ are the devils (or demons) and that ‘forbidding to marry’ is one of the their doctrines that they seduce persons (priests) into believing, teaching, and imposing. So this is not about doctrines concerning devils merely, but doctrines arising from them. The worship of idols is rampant among Roman Catholics. Though an idol is nothing, a sacrifice to one, like putting petals before a statue, may result in ‘fellowship with devils’ (1 Corinthians 10.19, 20.) It is no outrageous supposition, then, to assume that fellowship with devils through idolatry may glean doctrines of devils, like clerical celibacy.

Demons (or devils) want what Satan their master wants. The fellowship coveted by demons is to the purpose of causing evil effects. They are no less pragmatic than your modern politician! They have it as their aim to cause something wicked by the devilish doctrines they pass on to idolatrous priests. Demons work within the bounds of what works best. The celibate priest is their perfect match for vulnerable children under priestly care. Some applicants sign up with the Roman Institution fully intending to do good works as priests while remaining celibate. Then temptations collide with opportunities, and sex-mad priests become molesters of children. Others sign up because their proclivities are already perverse, and they are not long in finding opportunities to satisfy what they are tempted to perform.

Now you may deny that there is a union between devils and clerical celibacy. But to do this, you will also have to deny that 1 Timothy is part of Scripture. And you might refuse to allow this evil association between priests and devils to disaffect you from the Roman Church. You might just want to go back to your Roman atmosphere, with its beads, and frosted windows, and statues to kneel down to. Do you not fear that superstitious practice might be the doorway to fellowship with demons? Think, my friend, you might never become a child molester, but what effect will fellowship with devils have on you in the end? Should you not be anxious about that? Should you not be anxious about adhering to a Church that teaches and practices doctrines of devils to such wicked effects? You should be. Your Roman stand might just be a sign that you stand not with Christ, after all. “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Timothy 2.19.) Supporting the Roman Church, either by tithes or attendance, is to support the doctrines of devils that the apostle, through the Spirit, warned Timothy about. Through that support, the evil effects of these doctrines come to pass.

MAD ABOUT MURDERERS

Red Deer Advocate, February 7^th, 2012. Imagine being on the ‘hot seat’ because of a comment against people who should have been executed! Criminal-loving politicians and the media supporting them, how increasingly unreasonable they are! Not one careless word will be tolerated against killers; compassion for victims and their loved ones (who are victims too) always takes a back seat.

Suppose a law were passed whereby convicted murderers should be executed at once, or be allowed the means to commit suicide instead. Would you say anything against that if one of the murderers had murdered your daughter?

Things get emotional when you are the loved one of someone murdered. You should be permitted to wish out loud, anything you please, concerning murderers after that. Furthermore, anyone raising an eyebrow to your comment ought to be on the ‘hot seat’ for being a killer-lover.

Mercy, when taught in the Bible, never runs roughshod over justice. When mercy triumphs over justice, it is only because justice will be, or has been, fully satisfied. Mercy is released by justice being paid in full. The grace of salvation is on account of justice being satisfied by the Son of God. So it is a spiritual reality that he who repents of his sins may be pardoned: for the blood of Jesus Christ covers the sins of repenting men.

The civil reality, however, is that the sword of the State should come down upon all murderers. Romans 13 was not written for nothing, but for States to copy the example of. You may be set free from condemnation leading to hell, if you turn to God and confess your sins through Jesus Christ. But you should not be set free from punishment here on earth, especially if you are guilty of a crime like murder. Church and State have their separate functions. The one may pronounce a pardon regarding the life to come. The other must punish for crimes committed in this life. And so there is a minister of ‘the gospel of God’ (Romans 15.16.) And there is that other minister of God, ‘a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil’ (Romans 13.4.)

We are a long way from executing civil justice when you can’t say a word against murderers without being put on the ‘hot seat’ for it! Someone was even seeking legal action against the senator for his comment! Maybe he still is. Stunning stuff! But normal for Canada! Those who jump to the defense of murderers, even to the point of defending their ‘honor,’ ought to be told by as many of us who have the guts to speak up, that sympathy for murderers has to take a back seat to compassion for victims! Murderers have earned the right to be executed, not merely insulted.

But there is a hot seat in hell for each one of us who dies without having Jesus for our Saviour, be we little sinners or large. Let’s put that in before closing.

CANADA'S BLACK HOLE OF INJUSTICE

Red Deer Advocate, April 21^ST, 2012. Unjust judges will argue anything in order to acquit murderers. This is why verdicts come laced with strange language in Canadian courts. This judge argues that a ‘black hole’ forbids a murder rap.

Who cares what led you to kill defenseless kids? Who cares if your mind was ‘clouded’ by pills and depression when you did the crime? What should matter is if you took lives unlawfully or not. If a self-imposed altered state is all it takes to get you a charge of manslaughter instead of murder, then all you need to do is take a pill before you kill in order to secure for yourself an easy-go in the courtroom and a light sentence. Really, in Canada, just say that you were depressed, and you can get away with double-infanticide!

To say that you may get away with it even though manslaughter becomes your charge is not a contradiction. Compared to the death penalty you deserve, a few years in a posh pen full of amenities and opportunities is a sentence that is tantamount to getting away with it. In Canada, this woman might not do any time at all for killing her two kids! If she does, it will be easy time and short time, so easy and short, that we might as well call her sentence an acquittal. Manslaughter, in Canada, is often just another word for acquittal. But you are not supposed to realize that. Wink, wink, it is a secret among unjust judges.

What about the black hole of death that these infants were plunged into? What about the black hole of depression that those who loved them were plunged into after that? Do these black holes matter? This judge cares about the black hole the woman put herself in, that is all. No, don’t hold her to account for the black mental state she was in! Even if she took pills to put herself there and to brace herself for what she was intent on doing, do not hold her responsible! It does not matter if she murdered, so long as she was in a black hole while she did it! 

There is a black hole reserved by the LORD for unjust judges and the murderers let off by them. Liberal philosophy will cease to gain acquittals on the Day that matters most. That part of logic called ‘inference’ is little used these days. The Puritans were correct in their copious use of it in their expositions of Scripture. After Judgment Day happens, the bliss of eternal life is at hand, but “without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” (Revelation 22.15.) This sentence is on the supposition that such sinners die without repenting first. There is little need of proving this. King David contrived a murder and Paul the apostle consented to one, yet both are magnified as eminent saints in Scripture: because they repented. So, murderers are ‘without,’ by which is meant: they are kept outside the blessings mentioned in the preceding part of the text. No water of life, no light of God, etc., this is to be shut out of heaven and to be shut into its opposite: hell. There is an inference. But here is the inference that I want to emphasize. If murderers are to be kept without, judges who turn a blind eye to their crimes must be kept without as well. To deny justice is to stand with the unjust. Unjust judges and the criminals they pamper stand together as sinners on the same page of God’s ledger. Both parties are on the same side, and both will be ‘without.’ This inference is hardly necessary to make, for such judges are those persons mentioned in the verse alongside murderers, ‘whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.’ To maintain that this woman is not guilty of murder, and not guilty to fully suffer as a murderer, is to ‘make a lie.’

I take comfort in the truth about how matters will turn out, not because I want souls to be ‘without’ the goodness of God to all eternity, but because there will be some relief, in the end, for those of us who want the precious lives of infants to matter. Their lives matter; and we will witness just how much one Day, when unjust judges get judged alongside the infants’ murderers. The murder of infants will stir up the vengeance of God. God will be glorified by the execution of his justice. Amen. 

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION FROM ARGENTINA

Red Deer Advocate, April 12^h, 2012. This Argentine baby was pronounced stillborn by mistake. The doctors in charge are guilty of the sin of negligence. The greater sin is to make a baby stillborn, which is done across Canada with regularity.

Babies born at 6 months, or 24 weeks, gestation can survive. Yet, according to Statistics Canada, abortion is legal in this country throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Since 1988, there has been no law curbing abortion here at all. The only thing preventing more late-term abortions is the lack of doctors to perform them.

But some doctors do perform them: 534 abortions were performed after 20 weeks gestation in 2005. Abortionmyths.ca: “Since the gestational age is reported by less than half of hospitals and clinics, the number of post-viability is likely doubled.” Margaret Somerville, ethicist at McGill: “It is known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year and the actual number is probably more than twice that.” Abortions of 32 and 34 weeks gestation have been reported in Quebec. Late-term abortions are sometimes also partial-birth abortions, which is infanticide.

Research at hospitals in London, Ontario, indicate that 72% of babies born at 24 weeks (6 months) gestation survive. Not surprisingly, therefore, a baby that is aborted at 22 weeks gestation looks like a fully developed infant. Go see for yourself, if you dare, at priestsforlife.org.

Pro-abortion hard-liners claim that those of us who cry against late-term abortions would have abortions outlawed altogether. We would; those of us who have thought the issue through, that is. Is that not the humane law to press for, considering that a beating heart may be listened to by day 21 and brain waves can be detected by day 40? What do beating hearts and brain waves point to but life? Should life be terminated just because the bearer of it says so? Or should life be terminated just because it has been found, in the womb, to be imperfect? Would you like to be terminated because you have an imperfection? It would not take long for us to find one.

A nation that slaughters its most vulnerable persons, yes, persons, will reap a harvest of hurt in return. Do you know how we are reaping? People who refuse to admit the obvious: that stopping a beating heart is murder, are the kind that God gives over to what the apostle calls a ‘reprobate mind.’ Read the final verses of Romans 1 to see what sins the reprobate mind ends up steeped in. The reprobate mind goes with a hardened heart; hearts that are hardened to a petrified state will not repent, will not be saved, will not take forgiveness, and will scoff at heaven and laugh at hell. Is that not what we see at the mall? downtown? in office cubicles? in schools? in colleges? in universities? on the rigs? in churches?

Take a look around you and then consider your soul. Are you a reprobate like that? Does the beating heart in a womb convince you of life? Do you think that a person not convinced of that may be chosen by God to inherit life eternal? Would that not be a contradictory association? Pro-life is not the gospel, but unlike pro-abortion, it is consistent with it. The gospel yields life; pro-life preserves it.

Jesus gave his life on the cross in order to save sinners from the penalty of hell and to grant them life everlasting. That is the gospel. Anybody believing that gospel and embracing it for his own eternal good will be on the side of defenseless life, maybe even to the point of wanting ‘life for life, tooth for tooth’ legalized in its honor.

Abortion should be made illegal; and those who kill infants in the womb ought to have their own lives taken away by the State. That is how far this issue needs to go in order to prevent the blood of babes from being spilled. That blood cries up into God’s ears, count on it. And there will be literal hell to pay by persons who refuse to listen to what God hears. Murdered babes will have their day! Politicians beware! Abortionists be afraid! Killers of babes watch out! Apathetic souls wait for it! God will get you yet! His ears are open to the blood of babes! Unless you repent, not only of being on the side of that idol called ‘choice,’ but of all your ungodly sins and misdeeds, God will not hear your pleas for mercy on Judgment Day. The blood of babes will then be something you will answer to. The babes are heard by God as their blood spills out on our hospital beds; they will be heard by all of us eventually.  

“The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Genesis 4.10.)

“The land was polluted with blood” (Psalm 106.38.) 

SHAMEFUL CROSS-COUNTRY GLOATING

(October 2013.) Alice Munro has gone down in history as the first Canadian to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. It is always wrong to gloat. But sometimes, like this time, it is especially wrong to do so.

The Nobel judges may have lived up to their mandate by their choice in one respect. I do not dispute that. They are supposed to pick a writer whose body of work is idealistic; Munro’s body of work is idealistic feminism; feminism is just now the popular idealism; therefore a writer like Munro must win. Where feminism is not popular, it is at least shocking. This is why Munro’s books cause a sensation in many languages. One of her short story collections, Runaway, is summed up by her like so in an interview (my paraphrase): “Women flee from relationships [the bondage of marriage] and predictability at the age of about forty because a new pattern of life is desired.” This particular trend in feminism is already dated, for feminists are against marriage now. Now they just have to flee shack-up situations. But it does fit in with the feminist ideal. 

CBC radio personnel, in response to the news of Alice Munro winning the coveted crown in literature, briskly rummaged through their archives to rebroadcast all of their Alice Munro material. They did not have far to dig, for stuff like that is always kept near the surface over there. They also did their best to create some new material. And so the Nobel win was chosen as the subject for CBC’s Cross-country Checkup, the Canada wide radio phone-in program. On there it was made to appear as if everyone from coast to coast was happy about Alice Munro’s prize. This was an appearance, nothing more. Cross-country Checkup runs for two solid hours. My call was received before the first half-hour was up. Because CBC determined to allow no dissenting word on the subject, I did not get past the screener. This was a kind of replay of the other time I phoned in to recommend a Christian book when Rex Murphy solicited calls about favorite books on any subject. The Existence and Attributes of God is not something that CBC would like the nation to hear about through its airwaves, though it is a public station that is supposed to represent all Canadians, not just atheists, Muslims, and liberal activists.

My dissenting word was going to amount to this: Alice Munro writes commonplace prose; unlike the great short story masters, she describes, rather than intimates, the grosser sins, which is easier to do; and she won the prize because her feminist views run through her stories in an age that is particularly accepting of feminism. In effect, I communicated this to the screener. She then desired some particulars from me to back to up my remarks, hoping that I would not, or thinking that I could not, submit a shred of proof. But I was ready with the three stories of Munro’s that I had read, and with my notes. To my comment that these stories do not compare well with those of Hawthorne or Poe and that they contain vulgarities, the call screener simply threw out the old line that ‘times have changed’ and then promised to call me back to put me on the air. That never happened. If our criterion for greatness in literature is whatever body of work boldly promotes the idealism of the day, there is no limit to how low literature will sink. And if ‘the times’ is our rule for what we accept and celebrate, then feminists better rejoice if the age comes to male chauvinism and books are given prizes for waxing mundane upon that!

How can I judge a woman’s award for a body of work when I’ve read just three of her stories? Having listened to her interviews, and now to many of the comments from readers who phoned in to praise her, I know that her body of work is fairly represented by these three stories. Moreover, the reviews on Amazon substantiate this.

So why is it especially wrong to gloat about this win for Canada? First, because the stories lack literary merit. The stories are disabled by insufficient differentiation of characters, poor composition, poor construction, confusing content, and flat endings. Some of these disabilities were haplessly admitted by some of the callers. One caller tried to speak in a positive way about ‘mundane detail,’ for example. Another caller was more careful to call this boring content ‘subtle detail.’ A third caller even confessed that she could not always understand Munro’s stories, but quickly reproved herself for being too ‘analytical,’ which dumb reproof was immediately seconded by the host. Of course, more highfalutin comments were the norm: Munro “carves a groove through the psyche that goes straight to the soul” and some of her sentences “make you gasp and wonder how she did it.” Here is one of the best lines from her story, Dulse: “until he turned into a ropy-armed old man, shrunken, uncomplaining, hanging on to a few jokes.” That’s okay, but it does not make me gasp and it certainly carves no groove to my soul. Mostly, what you find in a story like Dulse is modern cliché writing like this: “Lydia the poet. Morose, messy, unsatisfactory Lydia. The unsatisfactory poet.” The sentence fragment is a modern cliché that passes for poise in prose. When overused, it can only show up lack of skill, tact, and good sense. And why must feminist writers choose female writers for characters? They do so because they are continuously writing their own biographies into their stories, and if not their biographies, then their fantasies. They can’t get beyond themselves as subjects.

The second reason why it is especially wrong to gloat about this win for Canada is because the stories are indecent. School boards from the 1970’s did not reject Munro’s books without good reason. They rejected her books because of the corrupting morals they contain and the vulgar language. The times have changed in a bad way, for her books are widely accepted now, probably even in schools. It is one thing to curse and to speak filthily; but to put that kind of garbage into writing and to push it upon students is worse by a great degree.

From a replay of an interview given in 2004 (by Wachtel), I learned that Alice Munro must be credited with getting the F word in The New Yorker. To this fact she proudly replies that each story she submitted had something like that in it. I learned that in one of her short story collections, infidelity occurs in seven out of nine stories. Without even reading these stories you can tell that that sin is not set in the context of shame and moral rectitude, for Munro says that she doesn’t like stories in which the adulterous woman can’t go out and about in society. Stories like that “are like claws trying to fasten me down,” she admits. What are these claws? These claws may be defined as the moral conviction arising from an accusing conscience. Suppressing these claws is what Romans 1.18 is about: “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The passage in which this verse appears is one of the only places, maybe the only place in all of Scripture, where lesbianism is explicitly forbidden and condemned. That story called Dulse is about, among other things, a man in denial of his writer idol being a lesbian. But it’s not like I have to prove that lesbianism is cast in a good light by Munro. It’s not something that she would deny.

If gross immorality invites the wrath of God (Romans 1.18), and gross immorality is what Alice Munro celebrates in her stories, can it be a good thing to gloat about her Nobel Prize? When we gloat over this win, we are declaring that we take pleasure in the gross immorality that her fiction promotes. By gloating over this win, we inject ourselves into the italicized portion of the following verse: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1.32.)

If Alice Munro is the maker of grossly immoral stories for people to take pleasure in, she stands condemned by that verse even more than her gloating readers do. How wise is it to screen her from negative criticism such as I was prepared to give out over the radio? The higher that sinners go in the world with their sins, the less they are likely to be reproved for them along with warnings to repent. This woman is in her 80’s now, and frail, maybe too frail to travel. Who is going to have access and courage to warn her that she is ready to drop into the claws of God’s wrath? A word of caution to her, however curt, might turn into a cry upon her conscience causing her to reconsider her whole body of work and the sin that put it all into motion. Alice Munro rejoices over the fact that these days women her age live with their lovers, by which is meant, in fornication. She calls this a freedom to live a pleasanter life. Compare that opinion with Romans 1, and if you believe the Bible to be authoritative, you must conclude that Alice Munro is not ready to face the Judge of all the Earth. Alice Munro forsook her family in need in order to attend university. She says that she did this ‘without qualms.’ Now (according to the interview in 2004), even though she is glad to have done that, she feels guilty about it. She is still conscious, then, of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, though she would never phrase it biblically like that. So there is a faint hope that she might repent before she dies. But who is going to preach to her? 

Shameful cross-country gloating about Alice Munro’s Nobel Prize for Literature is especially wrong to do. Those who gloat about this win reveal that they are blindly patriotic or ignorant of literature. They act like those persons spoken of in Romans 1, who take pleasure in gross immorality, upon whom the wrath of God will soon descend. This shameful cross-country gloating is the worse thing that can happen to the guilty victor because praise tends to puff persons up and steel them in their sins. 

DOES THE GOSPEL NEED HIP-HOP?

Christianity Today, July/August, 2013. Judging by the content and enthusiasm of this letter to the editor, it seems that the people over at Christianity Today think that the gospel needs hip-hop. If the gospel needs hip-hop, that is news to the New Testament. Strictly speaking, the gospel needs nothing but God. Since, however, God has instituted means for the communication of the gospel, we may say that the gospel needs those means. “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10.14.) Nobody but a complete foreigner to the interpretation of Scripture will assert that this ‘preacher’ who is needed includes the hip-hop artist. The New Testament gives us dynamic examples of what a preacher is in the four narratives and in the book of Acts. There is no song, no music, and certainly no hip-hopping in any New Testament account of multitudes being converted. The gospel, then, does not need music or song, much less hip-hop.

Music and song are appendages to the gospel. The ‘spiritual songs’ commended for use among converts must convey truth ‘in all wisdom’ and be sung in a spirit of ‘submission’ and ‘fear of God’ (Ephesians 5.19-21; Colossians 3.16.) Hip-hop, like most of today’s contemporary Church music, is antichristian. We know this because of its lack of wisdom, submission, and godly fear. Now that kind of New Testament news hurts a lot of people. But it is the truth no matter how many conversions and bouts of edification are attributed to hip-hop and contemporary Church music.

I will show, now, the lack of wisdom, submission, and fear of God in contemporary Church music by examining the music and artist mentioned in the letter. I could do this in regard to other genres and others artists. But the subject here is hip-hop and a man called Lecrae. Okay, Mr. Lecrae, let’s check out one of your popular songs: ‘Church Clothes.’ Does this song convey truth ‘in all wisdom’? One has only to read the comments below the youtube video of this song to see the proof that the song lacks wisdom. So many of the comments down there are about what this song might be about. What point is Mr. Lecrae trying to get across? If the point were clear, the debates would be about whether the point is valid or not. But since the point is unclear, the debate is about what the song is about. Whatever truth Lecrae is attempting to point out must not be conveyed ‘in all wisdom.’ The problem is not that the people looking and listening do not discern spiritual matters. The problem is that Mr. Lecrae communicates in a confusing manner. Taking a passage from the song that is clear, do we find wisdom? Here are some lyrics from the song: “I walked in the church with a snapback, and they tellin me that that’s a ‘nono’? That’s backwards, and I lack words, for these actors called pastors…I don’t wanna face no scrutiny.” A ‘snapback’ is street-slang for ‘cap.’ Is it a ‘nono’ to wear a cap in a church? It is a nono in 1 Corinthians 11.4, which verse is part of a passage that forms part of the rule for worship in the churches of God. Now pastors might want you take your snapback off for the wrong reason because they may be no more educated in the word of God than Lecrae is. Wearing your snapback in a church is, nevertheless, wrong. Mr. Lecrae doesn’t want to face any ‘scrutiny.’ How is a Christian supposed to ‘prove all things’ in order to ‘hold fast that which is good’ (1 Thessalonians 5.21) if he doesn’t scrutinize Lecrae’s lyrics? Lecrae’s lyrics not only lack wisdom, but they renounce the scrutiny that Christians are commanded to apply. And this is unwise. Next, is Mr. Lecrae’s video done in a spirit of submission and godly fear? Singing about sacred matters in a muscle shirt while standing beside a pulpit is not submissive to God’s people, and it is rebellious and irreverent to God. The same rebellious attitude that confronts us in secular rappers confronts us here in the person of Lecrae. The man sings, walks, and gestures in a spirit of defiance, dissent, and bitterness. No godliness appears in his manners or demeanor at all in this video. Aggression and confrontation are inherent in the rap art form, says Drake, another popular rapper (CBC’s Q, October 17^th, 2013.)

The gospel does not need hip-hop because God has not ordained it as a means of grace, and hip-hop is not conveyed in wisdom, submission, and godly fear. Hip-hop, as an instrument of grace, is unbiblical, unlovely, misleading, and sure to fail. It may be as rude an object as the jawbone of an ass. But unlike that famous jawbone, it will slay no sinner down. It will convict no one who is proud of sinning. And conviction of sin must be, if anything is, a necessary factor in salvation coming to pass through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

WORLD VISION'S POOR CANADIANS

(World Vision Gift Catalogue, Christmas 2013.) I do not support World Vision. Their catalogue comes in the mail anyway. A few years ago, the items that one could buy for needy people through the World Vision catalogue were more limited in variety than now. Back then, one could buy some chickens, a goat, or maybe a piglet, pretty simple. Now you can buy, in addition, a cow, ducks, a fish farm, antibiotics, winter clothes, mosquito nets, balls, blankets, lunches, art, music, education, school supplies, rescue, solar power, fruit trees, and more. It is not specified where exactly the items that one buys would go. But who cares? Are we supposed to be such stewards with our money that we need to know this? Ah! but wait! “How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship” (Luke 16.2.) The people running World Vision must be aware of the fact that today’s professing Christians do not abide by the cautions in God’s word. Christians and churchgoers will give even when they cannot prove to the Lord that their money is well spent. World Vision counts on that, and exploits rampant carelessness. Is it not convenient for World Vision, and should it not be suspicious to their donors, that the items that may be bought are so numerous and impossible to account for? Well, the buyers, if they have any scruples, can soon forget about them by diverting their attention. They can smooth over their concerns by spending a little money in this catalogue on things for themselves, like ornaments, tote bags, and coffee.

If World Vision is not a scam through-and-through, it is at least a scam in part. Now, besides helping poor people the world over, donors may, thanks to World Vision’s acute vision, ‘feed hungry Canadian families’ too. Reader, pull your chair up close to that computer screen. I have a modern revelation to whisper in your ear. I’m whispering now because you might not want your friends to hear what I hope you will believe. Are you ready for the shocking disclosure? Here it is: There is no poverty in Canada. ‘What?!’ you say. You heard it right. There is no poverty in Canada such as you find in Bombay, Bangladesh, North Korea, or in a Charles Dickens novel. Travel left and right and up and down this great mass of land, sir, and you will not find such poverty as that in Canada. Travel from coast to coast to coast, madam, and you will find no Oliver Twist in this country.

I am not saying that no Canadian children go to bed hungry some nites. I am saying that the children who go to bed hungry in this country are not poor. When they go to bed hungry, it is because their parents or guardians have wasted their funds and neglected their children. How do you solve a problem like that? By giving the parents or guardians even more money to waste? What do you think will happen if you give money through World Vision to feed a ‘poor family’ in Canada? Supposing that the money will get dispatched, will it ever get spent on food? Have you ever seen a Canadian family ‘in want’ that was not already on government support? Is the money that the family already receives wisely spent? Most often, much of that money is wasted or spent on bad habits, isn’t it? Yielding even more money into such hands will only feed indolence and addictions. And I say ‘more money’ for a good reason: responsible citizens are already furnishing these families with all they need through burdensome taxes. Years ago a coworker told me about his neighbor who, on welfare, was able to take a vacation while he, an electrician, could not afford to do the same (because he was taking care of his family’s needs.) Few people on welfare spend wisely; most of them spend sinfully. If you are one of the few who is truly disabled from working, and not scamming the system, no one would begrudge you taking a trip if you can. I am not speaking against that.

Nothing that I have said needs to be corrected if World Vision aims to give food, not dollars, to ‘hungry Canadian families.’ Families who are already living on the tax money that laborers dole out do not need more food. They need to spend the free checks that they presently receive on food, not on habits, trinkets, niceties, or luxuries. Giving them food will only tempt them to use their welfare money on junk. They do not need more money, nor do they need more food. Take a peek inside the living rooms of these ‘poor’ families and you will see the big flat screen television set. I have seen this myself down the street at the ‘low rentals.’ An old tube television set is not good enough for the ‘poor.’ No, they need the latest luxury item, even if it has to come at the taxpayer’s expense and at the expense of groceries for the kids. And what do they do with their tube television that works perfectly fine and transmits a perfectly good picture? Recycle it? No, why care for the environment when you don’t care for your dignity? Just dump it out back for the garbage man to deal with. Today’s ‘poor’ people (no one who lives in a Canadian city dare deny it) take taxis to the grocery store, the liquor store, and back and forth from the casino. When you’re spending other people’s money all the time, you have no stomach for curbing your bad habits, and no time for doing anything the hard way, no matter how much money you might save by doing so.

About the supposed poverty in Canada, consider those citizens who are presented as the most downtrodden segment of all: the Natives. I am part Indian myself; sometimes I am even mistaken for one; bear that in mind as I lay out some truth about the ‘impoverished’ Natives. Some Indians are noble and do very well. I am not talking about these exemplary characters, like this man named Muskrat that I knew. I have in view, those Indians who claim to be hard done by. Who in Canada is more subsidized by the taxpayer than the Indian communities? Who has not witnessed Indians driving around in new trucks that they haven’t paid for and going to bingos regularly with them? Do you know what it costs to put gas in a free truck and to play all those bingo cards on a regular basis? It costs more than many hardworking taxpayers are able to afford. Why are so many hardworking taxpayers not able to drive around in new trucks to go to bingos with? It is because they are paying for new trucks for Indians to go to bingos with. And what do these Indian bingo players do after their games are over. They go into the supermarket next door and fill their baskets with junk food. Lots of poverty to allow that to happen! When you see Native kids walking around with garbage bags full of gas to sniff, you are not looking at poverty, but at the effects of neglect and abuse. Relocating these families into new houses down the road changes nothing, as recent history has proven. More money is not the answer because lack of money is not the problem.

What was ‘Idle No More’ all about? It was about Natives already on the take, making loud demands for more. What should it have been about? It should have been about Natives resolving to be idle no more by contributing, instead of taking, from society. Suppose that you are an Indian who was abused from infancy to adulthood. Does that mean that you should just take for the rest of your life and destroy your body and brain while you do nothing but sniff, drink, smoke, pop, or stuff your face with junk food? Does being abused give anyone the right to abuse the innocent taxpayer by wasting hard-won coin?

At the very least, I would counsel obstinate Indians to lay off the mouthwash and drink cheap wine instead. That way, when the time of repentance draws nigh, if it ever does, the body and faculties might still be of some use. These are hard words, maybe, but each guilty Indian would do well to acknowledge their truth for his own good. The kingdom of God must be far away from every person who will not admit his most noticeable faults. “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest” (Proverbs 6.6-8.) The Natives want to rule themselves. That’s what they say. Well, let them rule themselves on the basis of having to provide for themselves too.

There are no poor people in Canada. I have yet to meet one, anyway. Are we obliged to listen to World Vision, and send in ‘$60.00 to feed 2 hungry Canadian families’? No, not until World Vision gives us some evidence of the poverty they allege. We should like to see some proof of poverty before sending our money in to relieve the ‘poor.’ Reader, realize that even your conscience is ill affected by sin. If you feel your conscience pulling at your heartstrings and telling you to give to a certain cause, it may be that your conscience is telling a lie on account of your intellect being misinformed. 

Calling a Canadian citizen poor is an insult to every person who has ever been poor for real. Bring a serf from the Middle Ages back to life, put him on Canadian welfare, and I guarantee you that he would think himself quite rich! And pay attention to this: “They spent less than 6d. a day each on their food: for breakfast, porridge, and, for dinner, broth and a little meat, or bread and milk, or potatoes and herrings. In the evening they usually settled for a cup of tea and had no supper unless invited to a professor’s house” (Stuart Piggin and John Roxborogh, The St. Andrews Seven, p. 25.) These seminary students did not consider themselves poor, as near as I can tell. Why do so many Canadians believe they are poor? It is because of the propaganda that says so and the arbitrary ‘poverty line.’ What family in Canada can boast of having as little to eat as these students of St. Andrews had in the 1820’s? If we were to use this quote to establish our poverty line, no family in Canada would be stigmatized as poor, a sense of dignity might be restored, and like the St. Andrews men of old, ‘poor’ people might begin to apply themselves instead of recline, repine, and whine. Some Canadians may be moderately impecunious. But my informed guess is that not one Canadian is poor.        

But some people are so poor that they have to eat cat food—this is what we are told. About this rumor, think about it for a second. Is it an urban legend? I hope it is, because if it isn’t, then the people eating cat food are not very smart. Rice is much cheaper than cat food. Why not eat rice instead? ‘I had to eat rice’ is not as emotionally affecting as ‘I had to eat cat food.’ If you want to eat cat food when an abundance of rice is available at a cheaper rate, more power to you. You have no one to blame for your bellyache but yourself.

Maybe some of the Inuit are poor. I should address that before I wrap my article up because one of them was just interviewed on CBC’s The Current, March 28^th, 2014. This Inuit woman’s case is represented on this program as typical among the Inuit. Groceries cost a lot of money in Canada’s north. The Inuit woman says that she spends about $300.00 per week on groceries for her family. And food is just one of the necessities that she has to pay for, she says. Listen, if you are spending that much money on groceries and then more money on top of that on necessities, are you poor? No, you are not poor. You have lots of money. And where is that money coming from? The question is not posed. Why not? Probably because all that money comes from hardworking, mainly white, taxpayers in the south.

Maybe some homeless people are poor. Maybe, but unlikely. On CBC’s The Morning Edition for March 30^th, 2014 I heard an interesting documentary about panhandlers. This panhandler was making between $80.00-$90.00 a day for a few hours of begging while his girlfriend was pulling in between $200.00-$300.00 doing the same. Probably they were receiving all kinds of other help too, like free food at soup kitchens and welfare checks from the pockets of those who actually work for a living. 

If there are any poor people in Canada, my guess is that they are sick righteous persons who have been denied due to unfair treatment by government social workers who discriminate against white Christian people. There was this man who had just enough money leftover for a cup of tea at the end of each month, and sometimes not even that much. But was he poor? No, he was not. He did not think so. Are there any poor people in Canada? Maybe, but if there are any, count on it, they are probably sick, male, Christian, and white.    

Do we need to ‘feed hungry Canadian families’ through World Vision? We are already feeding them abundantly through taxes to our government. It is time to feed these families advice, commands, and ultimatums. It is time to point an accusing finger. It is high time to do so.

CARNAL CRIMES CONDONED IN CANADA

Red Deer Advocate, April 9^th, 2011. If you are, or if someone you love is, sexually assaulted, you don’t want the perpetrator to just walk away without doing time, do you? If the villain is judged in Canada, he has about a 50% chance of being just that lucky. And if he gets any jail time at all, that will be of short duration in a facility full of creature comforts, not to mention luxuries: like barbells to make him strong, television to entertain and further corrupt him, and cigarettes to maintain his bad attitude.

Why is Canada like this? By voting in politicians like Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chretien, Canadians have paved the road that sex offenders walk upon, unmolested, outside the prisons they deserve to spend so much time in. The norm in this country, for a long time now, has been to judge sex offenders lightly or not all. Voters elect morally weak politicians who are for rehabilitating criminals instead of punishing them; the politicians draw up legislation to suit that philosophy; liberal-minded judges are appointed by these politicians to put into practice their ‘judge not’ ideology; and the criminals are free to continue their carnal crimes against Canadian citizens. That’s how it works. And then a runaway Supreme Court is hard even for Ottawa to reign in. Indeed, mandatory minimums have been struck down even by the lower courts.

We must turn our judicial system into the right way: actual and adequate punishment for crimes committed. If persons with mortal contagion ought to be quarantined for the safety of everyone else, why should sex offenders not be locked up for the same reason? God will lock every rebel up in a cell called hell come judgment day. Rebels against decent conduct and moral order ought to be locked up by us until then. That we have no room nor money to imprison criminals is an absurd objection, for Canada wastes piles of money on less important matters and there is room enough in the tundra to house all the criminals on the planet. Why not go so far as to build a penitentiary for prisoners from around the world? That would go over well the world over and criminals from far and wide would be safe from all the torture techniques they would otherwise be subject to back home. And hard labor would instill a sorely needed work ethic and furnish the capital that it takes to run such a facility, or facilities.

If you are a citizen who supports the notion that sex offenders ought to go unpunished, and therefore be permitted to walk freely among the people at the risk of every person they next come into contact with, you may not be adversely affected. You could be, of course, for you, or maybe some member of your family, could be next to suffer at the hands of a fiend. Your support of lawlessness, either through your vote, your voice, or your silent unconcern, will affect you very largely in the end. “What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?” (Job 31.4.) Support, wherever and whenever you can, the ‘outdated’ notion that sexual assault is a crime that should be punished by the judges (Job 31.11.) The righteous Job, so highly commended by God (Job 1.1), is on the side of punishment, not rehabilitation (which is often just a euphemism for letting the offender go unpunished.) ‘Conditional sentence’ and ‘house arrest’ are other euphemisms for acquittal. It would not be convenient for judges to call such sentences what they in fact are, for citizens, especially those who have been victimized, would then demand that we rehabilitate the judges. Be on the side of the righteous. Be for the prevention of sexual assault by the punishment of predators who commit the carnal crimes that are presently condoned in Canada.

A QUEER CAUSE CARRIES THE DAY IN CANADA

Red Deer Life, May 13^th, 2012; Red Deer Advocate, May 20^th, 2012. I haven’t watched a beauty pageant since about a dozen years ago (which is not long enough.) Does anyone believe that a beauty contestant is the most beautiful woman in the region she represents? Every time you go downtown, in the city or town or even village you live in, you see a woman more beautiful than the one you just saw on television. Contestants for pageants are determined by the whims and fancies of a few persons. As whims and fancies evolve to suit the ‘progressive’ values of our society, it is certain that pageants must eventually become circuses. Eating disorders and plastic surgeries are just as likely to win you a crown today as natural beauty and fitness. It won’t be long before a completely manufactured woman (like a man made to look like one) will win, not just compete in, a major beauty pageant. Queer causes must prevail in societies wherein the politically correct crowd always wins the ear of persons in charge.

It is a short step from calling this queer (word used in the original sense) contestant ‘hot’ (which some men have done) to confessing a homosexual proclivity. This queer contestant is nothing but a man. And I am glad that a pageant makes itself look ridiculous by its own political correctness. Now men may compete alongside women. They just have to look the part they are pretending to be. I do not see this ‘transgendered’ person competing in a pageant for women as a victory for men, though, for normal men would never push for a chance to compete among women. But it is a victory for those of us who want pageants to implode through bombs of their own making. If queer agendas go much farther, beauty pageants will become pageants about nothing specific, and shows lacking direction and focus are not likely to survive for long.

What if this contestant became born again by the power of God? What could he (I refuse to call him she) conscientiously do but live the celibate life of a eunuch? What could he do but bewail his fate, as Jephthah’s daughter did (though we doubt that he would have cause to bewail his virginity.) It is a sad pickle he has gotten himself into. There will be (mark my words) no happy lifetime partnership for him.

‘Beauty is vain,’ the Bible says (Proverbs 31.30.) It is an empty possession and pursuit. This includes all outward beauty, be it natural or manufactured. It is a remarkable fact, and totally in line with what we should expect, that Jesus, when he came to save, possessed ‘no beauty that we should desire him’ (Isaiah 53.2) He who came to save the soul would not be hindered through attracting sinners to his looks. We are not to trust in our own beauty (Ezekiel 16.15), nor even in the physical beauty of Jesus (as many do through depictions of him, which is idolatry.) We are to trust in what is naturally repulsive to us: the shed blood of a Man who was not pretty to look upon but who was the beauty of holiness incarnate.

“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15.50.) Beauty that is made of flesh and blood comes to corruption, and cannot inherit Bliss Above. We must be justified through Christ’s blood (Romans 5.9.) Blood is gory; but blood that saves is beautiful. To trust in Jesus’ blood is to trust in his death for your sins. Once that is done, your sins are washed away, and the gate of heaven must open up for you, and you must gain access to a pageantry fit for those who have been made ‘meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light’ (Colossians 1.12.) 

A BEAST AND A BABE

Red Deer Advocate, March 2^nd, 2012. What strikes the eye as we survey this sorrowful piece of news? Lots of love and concern for a beast, but not one affectionate word about the babe killed by it! This is not just the fault of whoever wrote the article, though he is to blame. The parents of the dead babe are no doubt blameworthy as well. The family pet, they are anxious to inform us, was put down under careful, professional supervision!

Immoderate love for ‘family pets’ is a widespread phenomenon: offers from across Canada to save the beast that just killed the newborn baby! Yes, that would make a nice pet over by the fireplace! He just mauled the defenseless infant to death, so let’s adopt him, poor thing!

Through lust for luxuries and mindless entertainment the people of this country have become increasingly ignorant of the Bible. Because of this, their behaviors and affections have become disordered. Basic distinctions are no longer regarded, if known at all; indeed, they scarcely apply.

The Bible will always set you right on the basics of life. It will do so on this present phenomenon of loving family pets. It would do every child well, if, long before the family pet dies, he has been informed that the pet should be liked but not loved, and that the pet is a lower animal form: what the Bible commonly calls a ‘beast.’ Anything less than wrath and outrage toward a beast that kills, maims, disfigures, or even bites a babe is unacceptable, unbiblical, cold, and unloving to humanity.

Both man and beast are liable to death (Ecclesiastes 3.19.) God waters the beasts of the earth (Psalm 104.11.) He feeds them too (Psalm 147.9.) None of this needs proof from the Bible. Experience soon teaches us these things. But while man is allowed dominion over all beasts (Genesis 1.26), he is commanded to especially care for certain of them, like those that do him service. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25.4.) And man has it in him to care for his beast (Proverbs 12.10.) Observe, though, that in this proverb, the regard a righteous man has for his beast is only mentioned to set that low affection in contrast with how cruel wicked men are. And observe, too, that the command to feed the working ox is written down with a higher purpose in mind: as a reminder to sustain the laboring minister of God’s Church (1 Timothy 5.18.) Not to say that comedy pulpiteers ought to be supported, mind you, but only the few ministers who minister the knowledge and wisdom of God to God’s people.

Dogs, by nature, are beasts, nothing more, no matter how cute and ‘smart’ some of them are. To love a pet as a family member is to set a creature possessing life and sense (the wherewithal to smell, see, and hear) on the same level as a creature possessing life, sense, and reason (the ability to contemplate and make logical distinctions.) It is a foolish error, and a repugnant one. Once your beast kills your babe, the wellbeing of your beast is no longer an issue to be concerned with. I remember when people were more sensible, not extraordinarily noble or moral, but more sensible than what is now the norm. The neighbor’s dog bit the face of the owner’s daughter back in 1975 or so. That dog ceased to be the ‘family pet’ the moment that happened. The dad (or it might have been the son) promptly took the dog out back and shot him dead. The family soon learned that a family pet is a beast whose rights are nothing but temporary, precarious privileges.

Whatever animates the dog or beast is of a lower order than what animates man. “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward [not necessarily up into heaven], and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” (Ecclesiastes 3.21.) Too many people know too little of the difference between man and beast. We know this at least and for sure: dogs are beasts, not humans. Now if that man deserves to die who sheds the blood of man (Genesis 9.6), is it reasonable to extend compassion to a ravaging beast? We need to distinguish between man and beast, love and like, and right and wrong. Babes and beasts are not created alike; they are not to be treated alike. Biting dogs need to be put down without delay and without mercy. Who knows, maybe this dog had bitten before. Maybe danger signs were seen but ignored. More carefulness would have preserved the baby’s life. We can say at least that. If you’re going to have a beast and a babe at the same time in the same house, then it should go without saying that the beast that you choose to have as your ‘family pet’ should be too small to pose a danger to the babe.