Have you read the really popular story about the young, unmarried girl who runs away from home? Yep. She flees from her guardians for what she thinks is a justifiable reason (kids, what are you going to do? They always think they know what is best, huh?) She really didn’t think it through all the way and didn’t really prepare. So she ends up in this not so great house. It happens to be inhabited by not one, not two, not three but seven single, rugged, burly men. They sort of take a liking to the young girl who is very attractive and naive. They get her to cook and clean for them and in return they provide her shelter. She doesn’t seem to mind because, after all, she escaped what she thought was a “bad situation.” One day when the know it all teenager was alone because the guys were out at work, one of the neighbors come over to visit. She had no clue that the neighbors were bad influences. So, she takes the drinks they give and eats the food. When the men come home, they find the girl unconscious on the floor. Scared they might be implicated in some way, they take her and lay her in the woods trying to get rid of the body. A couple days later, a dashing college kid comes by and stumbles across the girl just lying there. Curious about her, he bends down and kisses her. She wake up and startles her but since he appears to be really handsome and a lot more rich than the men in the house, she plays coy, gives him a sob story and he falls for it. He takes her hand and that’s the last we ever heard of Snow White.
It is all about perspective, isn’t it? I guess in thirty years when Snow and Charming are being vetted for a security clearance and it comes out what a slut she was and how in a drunken state he actually kidnapped an unconscious young girl in distress, it really won’t matter what the real story was? Guess the forest animals that clean might have been credible witnesses had they actually existed, huh?
I do not consider myself to be a professing Christian. I do consider myself to be a practicing Christian. What is the difference you ask? As a practicing Christian, I know I am a sinner who falls short of the glory of God. I deserve death but I am saved by Grace. I do not walk around with a “holier than thou” approach to things. I have a relationship with the one who created me and that relationship is fundamental to who and what I am. I would rather be known in life as an honest sinner than a lying hypocrite. I confess daily and strive every single day to be more Christ like – not more Christian like. I do not pretend to be anything else. Will I tell you I am a Christian? yes, I will but I believe its more important to show you. I know one of the biggest weaknesses I have as a human and a follower of Christ is my mouth. I do not curb my tongue as I should. This is a “kink” in my armor and fruit in my garden that I continuously work on, pray about and lean on the Holy Spirit in regards to. I fall so very short in this area. I freely and openly admit it. As of late, I have been studying and working towards strengthening this area and seeking wisdom and guidance to become more Christ-like. I need to remain quiet more often than I speak.
I do not get hung up on the whole denomination thing. I cannot stand labels. There are distinct differences between denominations. I get that. For some, that is extremely important. Do you dunk or sprinkle? Do you say trespasses or debtors? Do you allow women Deacons or not? Can a woman lead the church? There are some hard stops for me as a Christian – do not get me wrong. The Bible is God’s Holy Word. It is not open for Man’s edits, picking and choosing or interpretation based on feelings or world view. It is as relevant today as it was the day it was written. The church is not a haven for saints; it is a hospital for sinners. I am the church. I will not bow before any man and no, not even the Pastor can absolve me of my sins. I am a follower of Christ; hence, I am a Christian.
Translate that into the world we live in and ta da… I am automatically an evangelical, radical, conservative republican. Funny thing is I have not figured out how that equates or when that transpired. (Now, remember when I said above that I need to remain quiet… I am not going to do so in this post. I have spent the majority of this morning reading scripture, praying, researching, etc. I am fully confident in what I am posting. So before my Armor is repaired and I go tending to the fruit in my garden, I’m going to get this out of my system…)
I looked up the definition of those words. Here is what I found: Evangelical, according to Webster’s dictionary means: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels; emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual; marked by militant or crusading zeal. Radical means: of or relating to the origin; very different from the usual or traditional; favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions; associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change; advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs//radical right. Conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions – traditional; marked by moderation or caution; one who adheres to traditional methods or views; a cautious or discreet person; marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners. Republican: one that favors or supports a republican form of government; favoring, supporting, or advocating a republic; belonging or appropriate to one living in or supporting a republic; of, relating to, or constituting the one of the two major political parties evolving in the U.S. in the mid-19th century that is usually primarily associated with business, financial, and some agricultural interests and is held to favor a restricted governmental role in economic life;democratic, popular, self-governing, self-ruling.
By those definitions alone – clearly stated, published and used by Miriam Webster’s Dictionary – not made up by me – and public record – the authoritative go to for clarification whether one is in elementary school or college – a few things are clear. #1 – the word evangelical has been a wee bit skewed. By the definition given, it is just restating the definition of a Christian with a few “words” thrown in which if not paid attention to can make a Christian believe they are one. For example, “being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four gospels.” well, Christians believe in the whole Bible not just the gospels or as it is presented in the “four.” Also, Please note in the second definition – yep, salvation thru Jesus, yep to the authority of scripture but I challenge you to be careful with the last part of, “importance of preaching as contrasted by ritual.” Some may argue with me on this point and it is semantics. True, we do not have a lot of rituals. (Ms. Vera’s & Mr. Bob’s sheep are safe!) However, this eludes to evangelicals as preachers and I guarantee you that is the picture painted. True, we preach sermons with our actions and lifestyles; the way we are as human beings – those sermons are much louder than any speech driven sermon delivered. But the one definition that is regarded and held in the public square about evangelicals – marked by militant or crusading zeal. This in and of itself is not necessarily bad but it is made out to be. The word militant alone has a negative connotation. Now you understand why folks use evangelical in a negative light. I don’t think that radical needs a lot of explanation. However, I did find it interesting that in the dictionary, “radical right” was used in the definition. Being radical is not always a bad thing. I would like to point out that by definition alone, the words radical and conservative cannot be used together. Read the definitions again. They are a contradiction in terms. Strictly by definition one cannot be a radical conservative. A conservative, by definition, is a traditionalist. One who cautious, values core principles and manners. Because of this, a conservative is in no way a radical. Which leads to a Republican. In the truest definition of the word, a Republican can have conservative thinking and radical thinking and still be a Republican because a Republican by very origin is one who supports the Republic (which last time I checked the United States was) and is democratic by nature (not meaning they are a democrat; it means they believe in listening and everyone has rights and they believe that government should be limited not all powerful. Let all that sink in for a few minutes. Go ahead. Take a break.
I posted previously on Judge Kavanaugh. There are a few things that have come up that I didn’t address in my earlier post that goes along with what I was just talking about. To be fair (to be fair….) I also wanted to look at all sides, too. Was I jumping to conclusions too quickly? Again, I actually did some research and did not merely fall for the smear or catchy, haughty headlines:
Republican Hypocrisy: it has been said this is a clear case of Republican hypocrisy. For instance, there is no reason to smear a good man – well what about President Obama? Republicans were relentless about his birth certificate. He did not deserve that. What hypocrites! Let’s look at that. Did President Obama ever provide his birth certificate? No. His college yearbook clearly stated he was from Kenya. In his own book, he talks about his roots and it is not clear on his birth origins. If he had nothing to hide, why not just give it up? A good man has nothing to hide, right? Oh and while we are on the topic, when he was in high school and in early college, Obama admits to being in “a daze” from drinking and smoking pot. No one, not one single person questioned his ability to be Commander in Chief. He held no political office other than senator (which he held for less than one term) no real job yet he was not under scrutiny or crucified in the public for ANY of this. Pictures of him smoking were photo shopped so you did not see the sitting president with a cigarette in his hands. Yep, a bunch of hypocrites…. It is said that the Republicans are hypocrites because they are screaming, “Innocent until proven guilty” but did not act this way with Hillary Clinton. In her case it was, “lock her up.” If I recall correctly, Mrs. Clinton was not only not locked up, she was not even indicted. She sat in front of Congress, bold facely lied, directly responsible for the deaths of innocent Americans, shredding of countless documents, leaking top secret documents, basically committing treason and not only was she not convicted, indicted, slapped on the wrist, she was allowed to run for President of the United States. The evidence was all there. There was even proof she tampered with all sorts of things. But there is in no way hypocrisy except by the Republicans; Mrs. Clinton is and shall remain a victim (and I shall remain a runner up for Mrs. America.) Now the one I do actually agree with is Merrick Garland. Republicans had no right to sit on his nomination for over 283 days. Judge Garland, if you look into him, is and remains a fair and balanced judge. He is moderate. He is neither left or right leaning in his rulings. In all the rulings I read, he seemed to be truly unbiased. It truly came down to the fact that Republicans did not want Obama putting a Judge on the Supreme Court and that, no matter how you spin it, was wrong. They need to own that and make amends.
Headline: Mexicans aren’t sending rapists to the United States, the Republicans are sending them to the Supreme Court. I looked at numerous sources. I even called the State Department. I could not find one source that confirms Mexico was or the accusation that Mexico was sending rapists to the United States. In fact, some reports indicate Mexico encourages citizens to stay in Mexico. No rapist has ever sat on the Supreme Court. If this headline is referring to Kavanaugh, I advise people to choose their words carefully. He has never been convicted of a sex crime less alone accused of rape. None of the women who have stepped forward, none of them, have used the word rape. That is a blatant exaggeration of the terms, explanations, descriptions and words used.
Headline: Kavanaugh’s Hidden Documents are an Unprecedented Abuse of Power by a Sitting President. That is a stretch. The President of the United States has no jurisdiction or say in what is or is not released. Also, it has already been established that Kavanaugh has more released documents than the 5 previous nominees. What has not been released are documents when he worked in the White House. No security clearance is authorized for those documents and both Democrats and Republicans know this. His job allowed for his clearance at the time. Plus, let’s go back to Hillary’s documents for a moment. When they surface, then maybe, just maybe, you can grill Kavanaugh. He followed the law – which he was supposed to. She left them on the seat of a car and knowingly destroyed them and destroyed servers and servers full of them. That was an abuse not only by the sitting Secretary of State but by an actual candidate for President.
Headline: Trump Wants Kavanagh to Avoid Prosecution. You can find all sorts of articles, interviews, podcasts, etc. that elude to the fact that Donald Trump is trying to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court so he can end the Muller investigation and avoid charges. News Flash: In May of 2018, Muller announced he would not indict Trump. Could he subpoena him? That is debatable. However, they have turned over 1.2 million documents and are cooperating with the Muller investigation. Keep in mind, Members of Congress enjoy “privilege from arrest” in civil cases and may not be criminally prosecuted for “any speech or debate” in Congress, thanks to the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution did not directly protect the President. Bill Clinton was charged because 1) the offense was before office and 2) Kenneth starr as independent council. In this case, Muller falls under the Department of Justice. Guys, President Trump can merely fire him. Supreme Court cases going back 150 years emphasize that the President retains complete authority to control federal criminal prosecutions. Without a statutorily appointed special counsel given tenure, Trump can fire anyone who tries to indict him. He doesn’t need to wait for the appointment. And for the record, more than one legal adviser (both democrat and republican – look it up for yourself) have reached the conclusion that the case against Trump does not stack up legally. The facts do not come close to making an obstruction case and there is no evidence he engaged in any underlying crime.
Senator Dianne Feinstein allegedly asked Judge Kavanaugh if a president should be forced to respond to a subpoena. The reason behind this question is Trump is, “an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony and is under investigation for committing treason.” Judge Kavanaugh’s response to the question was, “I cannot give an answer to that hypothetical question.” Hence, Kavanaugh is a threat to our democracy. What folks do not realize is under the law and the constitution, Judge Kavanugh answered correctly. First, Trump is not being investigated for either of those reasons. But more importantly, if you study the law, you’ll find Thomas Jefferson was the first President to be subpoenaed. Read what the Supreme Court ruled. Also, read the difference between subpoenaing evidence, as was the case with Nixon, and the actual President. In the case with, yes, the beloved Bill Clinton, even he claimed Presidential immunity. But Republicans are hypocrites.
All of this focused on Trump. Why? Isn’t it Kavanaugh who is interviewing for a job? Have we lost sight of that point? Why, yes, yes we have. I think we also lost sight of the fact it is a job interview, too. As one who is in the job interview, I have to say, I am so glad, I am not at that interview. One of the headlines, seriously now, read, “Brett Kavanaugh is an Asshole.” Of course I had to read that article. The person who wrote the article must know him pretty well. Let’s get the real story. Spill the beans, dude. I knew it was going to be good when it started, “…Brett Kavanaugh, an unqualified Supreme Court nominee who was chosen for corrupt reasons by an illegitimate president…” You don’t say? So it goes on to say that he was the father of a school shooting victim and he went to introduce himself to the Judge at a break in the hearing. There is a picture. A picture that has apparently gone viral. Apparently, the Judge ignored him. This makes him an asshole. I read the article twice and stared at the picture. Could it be just maybe after taking it on the chin and up the rear for hours, the Judge really wasn’t paying attention to anything or anyone around him? I think under the circumstances, anyone in his situation would be in “there own little world.” I know I would be. Is that possibly considered rude or insensitive? Absolutely… but selfish people with their own agendas. Do you think the man who went to introduce himself to the Judge – obviously they did not know each other – went to be nice, or supportive or to offer kind words? Let’s be honest, I thinkest notest. In the end, who was really the rude one? So based on this one encounter by this obviously opinionated driven individual, Judge Kavanaugh is an asshole. Well, then, there you have it. It must be true. I’d like to see how “Polly Anna Sunshiny” he was in his moment of difficulty. And I hate to tell you Skippy, Donald Trump is legitimately the President of the United States. Your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the outcome. (personal note here: do I agree with President Trump on everything – no. I am; however an American. Thus, once the oath of office is taken, I support my President and stop whining. I suggest you all do the same.)
Judge Kavanagh has been asked about abortion. He has been asked about his thoughts on the government’s lack of power to make decisions about the male body. I find that interesting. He responded and got grilled because he appeared dumbfounded because he responded when he said he knew of no medical procedures affecting the male body. It all goes back to Roe v. Wade. Folks are all in an uproar thinking it will be over turned. Get your panties out of a twist. First it will not be overturned. Now will new legislation be put in place – quite possibly. I have to ask the obvious questions here – how can you oppose the death penalty but favor abortion? If you favor abortion in any form under the pretense that it is a woman’s body, who advocates for the baby? If you say it is not life, then why do we spend millions of dollars exploring the galaxy looking for new life forms? How is a cell on Mars a “life” but a human baby just tissue? If guns kill, and killing is wrong, then what is abortion? Take it a step further, why is it acceptable that a woman have privacy to her body when it takes two to get pregnant? Why does the man not have a say at all in the matter when a woman opts to have an abortion? If the man wants to keep the child and the woman does not, he has absolutely no right and his child is murdered and there is not a thing he can do about it. However, if he wants to abort the child and she does not, he is on the hook for child support payments for 18 years regardless of his wishes. How in the world is that fair? Oh, that’s right, it is her body. The one she shared with him. How is it inhumane to kill and eat a deer but perfectly acceptable to conduct a partial birth abortion? Don’t tell me a woman’s rights issue.
The propaganda is unreal. This one man will single handedly eliminate rights of women, LGBT people, minorities and others. How? I cannot figure it out. Have we forgotten there are checks and balances in place? The Supreme Court is comprised of 12 Judges not 1. Half the cases that make it to the supreme court really do not belong there. When does the legal system have the right to dictate morality, human rights, civility, dignity and self worth? Has society degraded so much that it cannot and will not step up and do it itself? What rights are you eliminating? Any right not specifically taken away from you, you have, morons! You live in the freest country in the world. You can accomplish whatever you want to accomplish, do what you want (as long as there is not already a law prohibiting it) and the last time I checked women, LGBT, minorities and others (whoever that is) all have rights, privileges and everything else. I cannot think of anything you are oppressed or prevented from except in your own head. You want to marry? Then go someplace where you can – get married then come back. Don’t get me started on health care – I do believe you should be able to cover anyone you want on your health insurance as long as you are paying for it. Other than that, I really can’t see anything. Everything else, you create yourself – so stop! Seriously, one man is not going to change all of that. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
It’s like the story of Snow White. We can tell it as though she was a slut or a princess. She was either a victim or an over comer. She either was kidnapped or rescued. Its how we spin it. How do you chose to tell the story?
Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-control. I have some gardening to do. I think we all do. I’ll get to it right after I finish fixing my armor…
Comments are closed