PJ-MEDIA alerted me to the passing of a wonderful political commentator. Here is a portion of their tribute, as well as the video:
…He had only seemingly moved rightward from the time of his service to Jimmy Carter as his pollster and adviser, to his embrace of Trump. But Pat had not moved; rather the world had moved around him. Pat remained devoted to the Constitution, to moral goodness, and to the absolute necessity of doing what was right, even at great personal cost. He was the last honorable Democrat, and he knew it.
I’ll miss him personally and professionally — America will miss him even more.
Political parties, neither mentioned in the Constitution nor foreseen by the Founders, arose almost immediately and have, generally speaking, served the nation well. The two-party system as we know it today dates to the 1850s. This first CCA of the 2016-2017 academic year will consider the origin and development of the party system, as well as the history, principles, and current state of the Democratic and Republican parties. (Oct 15, 2016)
A caller asks about the importance of human tragedies visited upon men by fellow humans. Dennis Prager responds in agreement, notes the difference between the Holocaust and other “killing fields,” which allows me to insert the previous weeks segment about a particular Japanese comfort woman, Kim Bok-dong (which starts at the 4:11 mark).
Dennis reads from a NYTs obituary of the 92-year old Korean woman who never knew love in her life. Here is the portion from the NEW YORK TIMES:
…After Ms. Yoon met Ms. Kim, in 1992, she described her as an unhappy woman who drank heavily and chain-smoked. Ms. Kim never married or had children.
“I have never known love in my life,” she once said.
But she proved to be one of the most outspoken, persistent campaigners for the women’s cause, which over time has won broad support in South Korea. They have become a deeply emotional symbol of the country’s suffering under Japanese colonial rule, which lasted from 1910 to 1945….
….She was one of the first to break decades of silence and talk about what had been done to her, and she traveled around the world to testify about it, including at the United Nations…
…that “what Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.” It simply is not true that the farmers of the Chesapeake colonies in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries avidly desired the importation of black slaves, or that the gap between rich and poor widened in the eighteenth-century colonies. Zinn gulps down as literally true the proven hoax of Polly Baker and the improbable Plough Jogger, and he repeats uncritically the old charge that President Lincoln altered his views to suit his audience. The Geneva assembly of 1954 did not agree on elections in a unified Vietnam; that was simply the hope expressed by the British chairman when the parties concerned could not agree. The United States did not back Batista in 1959; it had ended aid to Cuba and washed its hands of him well before then. “Tet” was not evidence of the unpopularity of the Saigon government, but a resounding rejection of the northern invaders.
One should remember that Columbus and his people were not American Settlers, but part of the Spanish Conquistadors, as D’Souza notes:
The white men who settled America didn’t come as foreign invaders; they came as settlers. Unlike the Spanish, who ruled Mexico from afar, the English families who arrived in America left everything behind and staked their lives on the new world. In other words, they came as immigrants. We can say, of course, that immigration doesn’t confer any privileges, and just because you come here to settle doesn’t mean you have a right to the land that is here, but then that logic would also apply to the Indians.
Which causes one to ask JUST HOW GOOD is Zinn’s historical “narrative” from his Marxist “red colored glasses”? Reason.com asks the same question, “JUST HOW POOR IS ZINN’S HISTORY?“
They then answer it:
…After hearing of his death, I opened one of his books to a random page (Failure to Quit, p. 118) and was informed that there was “no evidence” that Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Whatever one thinks of the Reagan administration’s response, it is flat wrong, bordering on dishonest, to argue that the plot wasn’t masterminded in Tripoli. Nor is it correct to write that the American government, which funded the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, “train[ed] Osama bin Laden,” a myth conclusively debunked by Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars.
Of Cuba, the reader of A People’s History is told that upon taking power, “Castro moved to set up a nationwide system of education, of housing, of land distribution to landless peasants.” Castro’s vast network of gulags and the spasm of “revolutionary justice” that sent thousands to prison or the executioners wall is left unmentioned. This is unsurprising, I suppose, when one considers that Zinn recently told an interviewer “you have to admire Cuba for being undaunted by this colossus of the North and holding fast to its ideals and to Socialism….Cuba is one of those places in the world where we can see hope for the future. With its very meager resources Cuba gives free health care and free education to everybody. Cuba supports culture, supports dance and music and theatre.”
There is also no mention of the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot, though in a misleading digression into the so-called Mayaguez Incident, Zinn mentions that “a revolutionary regime had just taken power” in Cambodia and treated its American prisoners rather well. And it is untrue, as Zinn claims, that President Gerald Ford knew Cambodia had released its American captives in 1975 but still allowed a small Marine invasion simply to show American muscle after the Vietnam humiliation.
A People’s History is full of praise for supposedly forgotten truth-tellers like “Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger, and W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson,” all apologists for Stalinism. (Both Du Bois and Robeson were awarded the Stalin/Lenin Peace Prize by the Kremlin, and both enthusiastically accepted.) There is no accounting of communism’s crimes, though plenty of lamentations that, after the Second World War, “young and old were taught that anti-Communism was heroic.” Indeed, in the comic book version of A People’s History, Zinn writes that the Cold War “would last for over 40 years” but “to keep it going required political and social repression on both sides” (emphasis in original).
Despite conclusive evidence from Russian archives, Zinn suggests the atom spies Morton Sobel and Julius Rosenberg were railroaded with “weak” evidence and their subsequent trials were simply to show “what lay at the end of the line for those the government decided were traitors.” When Sobel confessed his espionage to the The New York Times earlier this year, Zinn told a reporter, “To me it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not.”
This is a strange sentiment for someone whose job, one assumes, is to mine the historical record in search of historical truth. But Zinn wasn’t, as Schlesinger correctly said, a historian in any traditional sense. Zinn abjured footnotes (there are a number of quotes in A People’s History that I couldn’t verify), his books consist of clip jobs, interviews, and recycled material from A People’s History, and he was more likely to be found protesting on Boston Common than holding office hours at Boston University. But it is clear that those who have praised his work do so because they appreciate his conclusions, while ignoring his shoddy methodology.
This helps explain why few of his acolytes mention the effusive blurbs Zinn provided for David Ray Griffin’s two books of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Debunking 9/11 and The New Pearl Harbor, or why A People’s History uses the work of Holocaust denier David Irving to inflate the civilian death toll at Dresden….
They end this “eulogy” with this thought, “Call him what you will—activist, dissident, left-wing muckraker. Just don’t call him a historian.”
You see, many of Zinn’s critiques came from the left ~ combined from a few sources:
Much of the criticism of Zinn has come from dissenters on the left. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once remarked that “I don’t take him very seriously. He’s a polemicist, not a historian.” Last year, the liberal historian Sean Wilentz referred to the “balefully influential works of Howard Zinn.” …. Socialist historian Michael Kazin judged Zinn’s most famous work “bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions.”
“Virtuous Intentions” is the worst type of tyranny! Many evils on this planet have been done in the name of “good intentions.” CS Lewis says as much in this often used quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292.
Even the socialist magazine DISSENT had to say that,
Pointing out what’s wrong with Zinn’s passionate tome is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the American past.
They continue to point out that this is merely a “polemic disguised as history.” EAG.ORG notes this DISSENT article and more:
Generally speaking, “A People’s History of the United States” is an attempt by Zinn to paint the American experience as one of economic and racial oppression of the masses by the privileged white capitalist class.
Those on the left certainly have no problem with that basic premise. But over time they’ve discovered flaws in his work that bother them to no end.
Georgetown University Professor Michael Kazin, co-editor of Dissent Magazine and one-time member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, offered a blistering analysis of Zinn’s attempts to revise American history. From the Spring 2004 edition of Dissent:
“…Zinn’s big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People’s History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic in which they live?”
In other words, Zinn’s anti-capitalist version of history is not anti-capitalist enough.
Kazin offers other dismissals of Zinn’s work:
“Like most propagandists, he measures individuals according to his own rigid standard of how they should have thought and acted.”
“Given his approach to history, Zinn’s angry pages about the global reach of U.S. power are about as surprising as his support for Ralph Nader in 2000.”
“The latest edition of the book includes a few paragraphs about the attacks of September 11, and they demonstrate how poorly Zinn’s view of the past equips him to analyze the present.”
“Pointing out what’s wrong with Zinn’s passionate tome is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the American past. By why has this polemic disguised as history attracted so many enthusiastic readers?”
Probably because, not long ago, a lot of people who think like Kazin where telling everyone how great Zinn’s books were.
Kazin isn’t the only leftist to offer criticism of Zinn’s “propaganda.” The American Federation of Teachers similarly dismissed “A People’s History” in its Winter 2012-13 American Educator magazine.
“I am less concerned here with what Zinn says than his warrant for saying it, less interested in the words that meet the eye than with the book’s interpretive circuitry that doesn’t,” the author of the magazine article wrote.
The other day a reporter from NPR called me and asked me for my comments on the death of the lifelong Stalinist and propagandist Howard Zinn. I was a little reluctant because I knew that whatever I said, legions of unscrupulous myrmidons on the left would jump on it and say I had spit on Zinn’s grave. I also knew that while I was interviewed for ten minutes, out of what I said only a 20 second sound-bite would make it onto the air. I don’t begrudge NPR this selection. That’s what their obit was and would have to be, a collection of sound-bites.
Sure enough the bottom-feeders at FAIRpounced on my bite and accused me of spitting on Zinn’s grave. So here’s what I said that was cut from the interview. I’m not putting quotes around it because it’s from memory, but it’s pretty close to some of my remarks and captures the sense of others: No one should celebrate the death of another human being unless they are child-molesters or murderers.
Howard Zinn lived to a ripe old age (87), and bad human being that he was, I wouldn’t begrudge him an extra few years; he’s done about as much damage as he could.
Howard Zinn was a Stalinist in the years when the Marxist monster was slaughtering millions of innocent people and launching his own ‘final solution’ against the Jews. Put another way, Howard Zinn was helping Stalin to conduct those slaughters and to enslave all those who had the misfortune to live behind the Iron Curtain. Howard never had second thoughts about his commitment to leftwing totalitarians and never flagged in his political commitment to freedom’s enemies. In the years since Stalin’s death, Zinn supported every enemy of the United States in every war, and devoted his writing talents to every socialist tyrant including Mao Zedong who killed 70 million Chinese in peacetime because they got in the way of his progressive agendas.
When the Cold War was over and freedom had won — thanks to all the political forces and figures (e.g., Reagan and Thatcher) that Zinn opposed – Zinn continued his malignant course. He supported America’s enemies right to the end including the Islamic Nazis whose first agenda is to finish the job that Hitler started and then to impose a totalitarian theocracy on the infidel world.
Pointing out what’s wrong with Zinn’s passionate tome is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the American past. By why has this polemic disguised as history attracted so many enthusiastic readers?
All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn’s life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere.
…one last note…
(First Video) Dennis Prager speaks with Howard Zinn, leading leftist, professor emeritus at Boston University and college campus icon discusses American Indian history. In this gracious interview excerpted herein, some real numbers emerge of what killed most of the Native American population:
From the 16th century through the early 20th century, no fewer than 93 confirmed epidemics and pandemics — all of which can be attributed to European contagions — decimated the American Indian population. Native American populations in the American Southwest plummeted by a staggering 90 percent or more.
(Editor’s note: A recent federal bill memorializing as a National Historic Trail what has come to be known as the Cherokee Indian Trail of Tears is based on false history, argues William R. Higginbotham. In this article, the Texas-based writer delves into the historic record and concludes that about 840 Indians not the 4,000 figure commonly accepted died in the 1837-38 trek west; that the government-financed march was conducted by the Indians themselves; and that the phrase “Trail of Tears” was a label that was added 70 years later under questionable circumstances.) The problem with some of our accounts of history is that they have been manipulated to fit conclusions not borne out by facts. Nothing could be more intellectually dishonest. This is about a vivid case in point.
The “Sweetheart of the Silent Majority” passed away surrounded by family in her home in Ladue, Missouri just a short 10-minute drive from where she was born in St. Louis on August 15, 1924.
Her death marks a palpable loss for the conservative movement which, just last month,celebrated the grassroots heroine’s 92nd birthday.
An accomplished lawyer, activist, author, and mother of six, Phyllis Schlafly has been described as the embodiment of the ideal American woman.
As Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote in a statement submitted for the Congressional Record, “dynamic, smart, beautiful, and articulate,” Schlafly has “fearlessly” and “tirelessly… championed the American family and American values.”
In 1963, the publisher of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat put it this way: “Phyllis Schlafly stands for everything that has made America great and for those things which will keep it that way.”….
The UFC women’s bantamweight champion told Ariel Helwani on the FOX Sports 1 post-fight show she sat down and spoke to Piper “for hours” at his home during her training camp preparing forBethe Correia. Piper died Friday at the age of 61 from cardiac arrest.
“I actually got a chance to sit down and talk to him for a couple hours before this fight,” Rousey said. “I didn’t have time for anything, but I was like, ‘No, I have to go see Roddy. I have to go to Piper’s Pit.’ We talked for hours. I even told him, I promised I’m gonna do the name proud, ‘I’m gonna do you proud, I’m gonna go beat this chick.’ I told him that.”
Rousey (12-0) backed up her words, retaining her title by knocking out Correia in just 34 seconds Saturday night in Rio de Janeiro.
Piper is the one who bestowed upon Rousey her nickname of “Rousey.” The pro wrestling legend, who helped shape WWE as we know it, was the protégé of “Judo” Gene Lebell, one of Rousey’s mentors. Lebell wanted Rousey to use the nickname years ago and he had Rousey call Piper to make sure it was OK. Piper, of course, agreed….
Many years ago, my father was the road manager for a short time for Wilson Pickett and then was involved with Mitch Rider and the Detroit Wheels. Before this time period of my father getting into all aspects of the music industry (drugs, traveling, and the like), I was born in 1970. One-year later my mother and father were divorced. It was the seventies, so the hippie/vagabond lifestyle was chic and my mom traveled a bit, finally settling down in Detroit [proper], married to a wonderful man. My father settled down in North Hollywood California, the other side of the country.
In 1976, my father was saved through the ministry of Ma Bean, a skinny little charismatic woman who had a ministry in Southern California. It was part of the early “Jesus Movement,” where hippies were giving up their drug highs for the “high of Holy Spirit.” After my dad was born again, he started to contact us in order to be involved in his son’s [my] life. He would travel once-and-a-while to Detroit to visit with his family and also see me. In 1982, one of my mom’s aunts who lived in California was sick, so my mom went to visit. During this visit, my dad was key in bringing my mom to the Lord. After her return to Detroit my mom divorced her current husband [a very tough time for me, any child] and we moved to California where she was remarried to my father in a charismatic Catholic church service.
We attended Church on the Way (Jack Hayford’s church), visited the Catholic church when there was a Charismatic service, and TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) was on 24/7 in the home. While the A-Team was the discussion point at school, any programming other than TBN was “devilish.” (I am sure some can relate.)
Years later, my mother and father were would find themselves divorced again. I attribute this to a few factors. First, mainly due to no real doctrine being present in their life, just emotional Christianity. Their subjective wills were not firmly based in the immovable will of the revealed God of Scripture. This is not to say they were-not-or-did-not have a real conversion moment… I did at thirteen. But replacing the sound doctrine of the Cross with “kingdom now/word faith” theology stretches the boundaries of Christ’s salvonic work (1 Samuel 16:7). Secondly… my mother is a hippy [vagabond] at heart — unfaithful to her Lord and her husband. This isn’t ideal, but she i-s my mom. Thirdly, my father became almost unbearable in his later years. You hear about person’s becoming “grumpy” later in life… this was my dad. He should have brought these issues confidently into God’s throne room and asked for a softer heart rather than by relying on his own merits/faith for miracles to be done in his life.
Side-note: Men struggle primarily with two things… that is, anger issues [temper], and/or lust, fidelity, pornography. These are best fought with God on your side… in case you were wondering… because: “‘No weapon formed against you will succeed, and you will refute any accusationraised against you in court. This is the heritage of the Lord’s servants, and their righteousness is from Me.’ This is the Lord’s declaration.” (Isaiah 54:17) I inherited my father’s temper and it took a Godly wife and a group of Godly men and the Holy Spirit’s daily intervening to work through this. My real heritage is God’s loving patience and GREAT mercy.
Some time after my parents divorced this second time, I remember my dad having just enough to pay another month of his mortgage… or… paying TBN during one of their faith marathons.
During this particular drive, TBN had a fire pit built in back of their California studio and promised that no matter what a person’s financial need and situation was, that they could receive 10-times the amount given — and very possibly more. So my dad took his last $2,000 and sent it in. Obviously he lost the house, and ultimately his life (I will explain further shortly).
It is this type of thinking that has devastated my family as well as taking the life of my father. It is not just another form of Christianity, it is a killer form if taken to its logical end.
An additional point. This type of thinking is VERY legalistic. You will often hear about some Baptists practicing strict legalism over behavior. However, in the “Health and Wealth Gospel,” often time you HAVE to show the evidence of tongues in order to to show that you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you do not speak in tongues, you do not have the Spirit in you. This is legalism that changes even Jesus’ promise to us (John 14:15-31).
In this set of verses He [the Holy Spirit] is called Truth v. 16-17):
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”
This is important because for all the evidences we give for the faith, we KNOW it to be true because of the inner witness of the Spirit. And “knowing” truth [Truth] is important when confronting a culture with God’s attributes that not only include love, but equally: justice, hatred of sin, and even judgement. Without truth [Truth], a Christian does not KNOW God, cannot express the Truth in love or in standing against evil. True evil.
It interferes with what Scripture is meant for as well:
All Scripture is inspired by Godand is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
What a daunting rejection of God’s grace and plan for His church/people. Pride comes before a fall, and this is hubris on steroids!
Which is why I must participate in such a site and post articles like this, if only to reach one soul with the true freedom found in a proper understanding of Law and Grace.
There is freedom for those who take up their cross, in this case, it is a cross of understanding what Jesus died for… it wasn’t for my father’s mortgage.
Jesus died for something more valuable than that, more valuable than all the money racked in by TBN…. He died for your and my soul.
My father was sent home to “live” with my wife and myself with a diagnosis of two-months to live. On October 25th I was reading Scripture to my father when his breathing started getting worse than it already was. I stopped reading from the Word and started to fluff the pillows and blankets surrounding my father. He managed to gasp “help” and shortly thereafter was strong enough to cry a bit…
(as I did as well)
…while telling him that I loved him and wiping the drool from his mouth and the sweat from his brow. I could not dial 911 or call for help because my father was sent home with us for this reason… to pass as comfortably as possible.
All I could do is watch my father suffocated to death.
He looked scared.
Not because he lacked faith in God, but because the natural tendency of mankind is to live. He was also coming to the understanding that the doctors were correct and his theology flawed… realizing your life is slipping away and having so many open ends in it can be daunting. Even terrifying, to say the least.
You see, his lungs were full of cancer due to his colon cancer.
This cancerous barrage spreading through his body was the result of him feeling sick but not going to the doctor to get checked up. Rather, he would claim his wellness by faith.
F-i-n-a-l-l-y, he was so sick he HAD TO go to the doctors for a look at what was wrong.
he was diagnosed with colon cancer and it was recommended he be operated on immediately. He pushed off the operation a few times, canceling dates of the operation in order to claim his healing by faith.
I will never (never) forget this next visit I drove him to at his primary physician’s office. His doctor was at her wits end. When she walked out of the examination room, I told my dad that if he did not get the operation that I was through with helping him. He yelled at me this favorite saying of word-faith teachers,
“GET BEHIND ME SATAN!”
This is important and should not be lost on the audience. I am his son telling him to follow his doctor’s suggestion and quit canceling his operation dates… and I am Satan according to his theology.
He finally acquiesced and got the operation.
The operation proved successful, you could see a marked improvement in even how he looked.
I went with him to his follow-up appointment with his regular, primary care doctor. [Turned out to be his only.]
She showed amazement — as did I upon finding out the information — that he didn’t go to his scheduled meeting[s] with the specialist (the doctor that did the operation).
My father ended up rejecting any form of recommended chemotherapy (his doctor even explaining a new pill form that wasn’t as invasive as radiation therapy).
The doctor was worried that the cancer had spread and they wanted to kill as much of the cancer as they could thus extending my father’s life. My father rejected this and refused to even see his regular doctor. AGAIN, claiming his well-being through faith.
You see, this type of thinking is ingrained in the word-faith movement that was popularized by TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and taken from the writings of Kenneth Hagin and later Kenneth Copeland. My father had just about every Hagin booklet known to man.
Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago (11-3-08) and my father was being told that he had cancer all over his body. Especially in his lungs, BECAUSE he had a) initially waited too long allowing the cancer to perforate the wall of his colon… and his later b) refusing and post-treatment allowing the cancer to spread quickly.
I was present in the hospital when it took TWO doctors to get the point across that there was nothing more they could do.
I watched as my father begged them for chemotherapy to help extend his life.
Obviously, it was too late for that. And they forcefully explained that.
It was sad to see him put in a corner of the one-for-one odds of our death. It was a bit tougher in his case because it was hastened by his own actions and bad theology.
It did not take long for my dad to revert to saying that Satan was a liar and that he was going to be healed.
It is regrettable that many at this church [my father’s church] commented positively upon reflection of my father’s rebuking of Satan and his claiming his healing by faith.
I wonder if his fellow church members knew what he was really saying? It is this:
He was i) denying his sickness in the hope that his ii) positive confession would express iii) enough faith to iv) receive his healing that he believes is v) promised to him via the atonement. His sickness/faith… and thus his “atonement” are intimately tied up with his outcome.
atonement:the reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.
A Quick Break
Here are some audio files from some leaders in the Word-Faith Movement.
And this is the crux of the matter which I will explain more in the actual eulogy I did at my dad’s service.
After my presentation (again, below), one woman came up to me after and said she would love to have seen my father and I heatedly discuss the issue of healing in the atonement.
I did not know what to say.
I wanted to say that what she did not realize was that my position had been proven in my father’s death. There was no need for an argument, death was unfortunately on my side of the argument.
Obviously, there will be a time when all of creation, hence mankind, will be in perfect harmony again as the creation God intended… anyone listening to my presentation thoughtfully would realize such when I read from Romans chapter 8 from two different versions. However, I fear that not too many listened with a sharp ear.
So now I am anguished a bit at my dad’s last attempt to shed a tear right before he took his last breath.
Was it because he faltered in his faith and was frightened that he had been wrong all these years due to his non-healing?
Was it because he had unfinished business with loved ones… namely his son?
Did all the stuff he accumulated in his apartment supplant what he really needed, a family, his grandsons, daughter-in-law?(He drove for years past our condominium three-or-four times a week going to his church without stopping in once.)
W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r his reasoning was, I couldn’t do anything but cry and tell him I loved him.
(like I am now)
And these folks at his church ~ as wonderful as they are and were to him ~ are soo caught up in their emotional stances of Scripture that a healthy-well-balanced understanding of scripture is too much to ask for.
The charismatic and Pentecostal tradition has a lot to answer for in the proverbial “By-and-By.” Mind you, while I truly believe some of these people at my dad’s church are saved and are going to heaven, they are destroying lives of people around them. They just don’t see it.
Here I am adding a caveat.
If people follow the Word-Faith theology to its logical conclusion, then the person may not in fact be saved at all. My father rejected much of the following… I know because we argued this stuff for years. Some dangerous views that could lead some to eternal separation from their Creator are:
Just like the early movement in the Corinthian church that had a similar emotional outburst and rejected a healthy-well-balanced theology that Paul spoke to in 1 Corinthian 14:23. Thus, Paul would have rebuked gracefully and doctrinally my dad’s church.
I think my eulogy, then, is fitting for what I wanted to express… what I needed to express.
This eulogy I entitled:
O’ Sweet Exchange
I love the smell of Scripture…
It even smells like grace…
In fact, we have a smell as well… did you know that?
We are truly a new creation, even down to our aroma!
And I have seen Pastor Andre after he has worked on one of his tanks, so I am sure this substitution of aroma wrought by Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary is much appreciated by him and his congregation.
[So the reader knows, the pastor of my dad’s church works in the movie “prop” industry and has many of real military equipment one has seen in the classic war movies, from Saving Private Ryan to Heartbreak Ridge.]
Many of you probably know by now that I am Ron’s son. I will always be his boy, but am nonetheless a man with my own family.
And the very recent passing of my father got me thinking about our lives and the promises we have in Scripture in regards to our eternal security.
Now let me confess that there is no “holy theology.”Man is corrupt from the inside out and we tend to corrupt most things we touch, even the plain and simple promises of the Word. All one has to do is study church history or read the letters to the churches to get a good grasp at how quickly we can goof things up.
One example is found in Galatians 1:6 where the apostle Paul admonishes the church in Galatia when he says: “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel.” Another version reads, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.” Yet another version says the apostle was amazed. Why amazed? Paul was writing the Galatians in A.D. 49, a church he founded on his first missionary journey only three years earlier.
You see, we tend to corrupt things quickly and efficiently, and it takes the Holy Spirit daily infecting our lives through the Word of God and the body of Christ to keep us focused on the goal that Paul says we are to strive for.
My father had a clear understanding of this goal and I have no doubt he is present with the Lord because he is definitely absent from his body.
My goal here then is not to mourn his gain, that would be futile. My goal is to bring a deeper understanding to something he struggled with here that may offer some clarity in your own walk.
You see, we do not see as clearly as my father now does for he has lived on both sides of 1 Corinthians 13:12, which the Message translates thus:
We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!
My father see’s as he was once seen.
He F-U-L-L-Y realizes the cost for his soul that Christ suffered on the Cross for, which we still only dimly see.
“Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.”
Sin is not only a crime, for which we were condemned to die and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease, which tends directly to the death of our souls and which Christ provided for the cure of. By his stripes (that is, the sufferings he underwent) he purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God to mortify our corruptions, which are the distempers of our souls, and to put our souls in a good state of health, that they may be fit to serve God and prepared to enjoy him.
Bible scholars John Walvoord and Roy Zuck comment that Isaiah here “refers to illnesses of the soul. His healing many people’s physical illnesses (though not all of them) in His earthly ministry anticipated His greater work on the Cross. Though He does heal physical ailments today (though not all of them) His greater work is healing souls, giving salvation from sin.” 1 Peter 2:24 & 25 sheds some light on this promise:
who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Walvoord and Zuck make mention that this verse “does not refer to physical healing for the verb’s past tense indicates completed action, the “healing” is an accomplished fact. The reference is to salvation. Christ’s suffering and death accomplished ‘healing,’ the salvation of every individual who trusts Him as his Savior.” They continue:
1. The apostle Paul couldn’t heal Timothy’s stomach problem (1 Tim. 5:23); 2. nor could he heal Trophimus trof-i-mus at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) 3. or Epaphroditus ee-paf-ro-DAI-tuhs (Phil. 2:25–27). 4. Paul spoke of “a bodily illness” he had (Gal. 4:13–15). 5. He also suffered a “thorn in the flesh” which God allowed him to retain (2 Cor. 12:7–9). 6. God certainly allowed Job to go through a time of physical suffering (Job 1–2).
In none of these cases is it stated that the sickness was caused by sin or unbelief. Nor did Paul or any of the others act as if they thought their healing was guaranteed in the atonement. They accepted their situations and trusted in God’s grace for sustenance.
It must be noted as well that on two occasions Jesus said that sickness could be for the glory of God (John 9:3; 11:4).
Other Scriptures as well reveal that our physical bodies are continuously running down and suffering various ailments. Our present bodies are said to be perishable and weak (1 Cor. 15:42–44). Paul said “our outer man is decaying” (2 Cor. 4:16). Death and disease will be a part of the human condition until that time when we receive resurrection bodies that are immune to such frailties (1 Cor. 15:51–55).
Going back though to Isaiah 53, let us suppose that these verses did teach the panacea or elixir of physical healing some claim it does. This interpretation carries an unwelcome corollary. That is… If healing is in the atonement and is accessed by faith, then those who die due to lack of faith must remain in their sins. They die without hope. Why? Because if both healing and salvation are included in this passage, they must be accessed in the same way. And if one does not have enough faith to make oneself well, it follows that he cannot have enough faith to be saved.
This logical conclusion of faith teachers I reject of course, but I reject it based on Scripture telling us in Romans 8:22-25 that:
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
The Message Bible paraphrases these verses thus:
All around us we observe a pregnant creation. The difficult times of pain throughout the world are simply birth pangs. But it’s not only around us; it’s within us. The Spirit of God is arousing us within. We’re also feeling the birth pangs. These sterile and barren bodies of ours are yearning for full deliverance. That is why waiting does not diminish us, any more than waiting diminishes a pregnant mother. We are enlarged in the waiting. We, of course, don’t see what is enlarging us. But the longer we wait, the larger we become, and the more joyful our expectancy.
This healthy-well-balanced understanding of Scripture and the atonement led famous hymnist Thomas Chisholm (1866-1960) to pen this song about Isaiah 53:
Verse 1 He was wounded for our transgressions, He bore our sins in His body on the tree; For our guilt He gave us peace, From our bondage gave release, And with His stripes, And with His stripes, And with His stripes our souls are healed.
Verse 2 He was numbered among transgressors, We did esteem Him forsaken by His God; As our sacrifice He died, That the law be satisfied, And all our sin, And all our sin, And all our sin was laid on Him.
Verse 3 We had wandered, we all had wandered Far from the fold of the Shepherd of the sheep; But He sought us where we were, On the mountains bleak and bare, And brought us home, And brought us home, And brought us safely home to God.
Verse 4 Who can number His generation? Who shall declare all the triumphs of His Cross? Millions, dead, now live again, Myriads follow in His train! Victorious Lord, Victorious Lord, Victorious Lord and coming King!
D.A. Carson concludes that the meaning of Isaiah 53 “grows in clarity through these verses: the pain Christ is bearing in verse 4 is ours; it is the punishment of sin in verse 5a; it is the price of salvation in 5b.” Warren Wiersp takes notice that to say there is “healing in the Atonement,” and that every believer has the “right” to claim it, is to misinterpret Scripture. He goes on to say of 1st Peter 2:24 that “God is not obligated to heal all sicknesses. He is obligated, however, to save all sinners who call on Him.” It is this obligation of salvation of the man and healing of the soul that my father did take God up on, I hope you will as well.
End of “O’ Sweet Exchange”
At the end of others talking about my father, I had a recording of my father which he apparently recorded on accident during one of his church services on his camcorder. With some help from Pastor Russ from my church the two video files were joined into one audio file. This posthumous find is a very special find and was equally so at the end of the service… enjoy:
“We have two parties here, and only two — one is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party,” he said. “I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.”
You can hear his humorous side work it’s way out in the lecture at the bottom of this tribute.
Even so, constitutional government as we conceive it was not attained in England. On the contrary, the principal lesson English Whigs derived from struggling with the Stuarts was that Parliament should wield the supreme, unchecked authority that had been wrested from the crown. While constitutional-ism and the rule of law continued to be talked of, the British concluded, in so many words, that Parliament could do whatever it wished, up to and including making changes in the constitution. The king accordingly was “under the law,” but Parliament wasn’t—since law was whatever Parliament decided.
As we have seen, this idea was never accepted by the Americans, and it became the focus of bitter conflict with the English. In the American theory, all political power was subject to a higher law, and this included legislatures as well as monarchs. In constitutional terms, the War of Independence was fought about this issue, and the political arrangements arrived at in the aftermath of fighting reflected the identical thesis. “In all free states,” Sam Adams put it, “the constitution is fixed.” Hence the method of establishing and tightly controlling power through conventions, the written Constitution, federalism, the doctrine of “enumerated powers,” and other techniques for limiting all authority whatsoever.
Why the Americans arrived at these particular notions, as opposed to the purely common law approach, is an intriguing question, though one omitted in the usual treatment. Part of it no doubt is the “freezing” effect of colonial living, which tends to keep political (and other) thought close to the baseline at the era of departure. Also important was the reliance of the settlers on written documents: colonial charters, the New England compacts, the constitutions and bills of rights adopted in the revolutionary era. While certainly not immune to change, as we well know, a document defining government powers is less susceptible to slippage than an evolving scheme of precedents and customs.
Undergirding this reliance on written agreements, also, was the habit of consulting Scripture. And while this too is open to variant readings, the Scriptural-theological element was a major prop of “fixity” in colonial doctrine. By keeping the original sources of the tradition to the forefront, this axiomatic stress restrained the drift inherent in a purely common law approach, which goes wherever precedent leads it. “Fixity” thus became the distinguishing feature of our founding epoch, and in limited-government terms was as much an advance beyond the British system as that was beyond the absolutism of the French. Rather than affirming the “rule of law” as a sentiment or theory, the Americans made it a definite principle of statecraft, enforced and strengthened by as many devices as they could muster.
Viewed this way, American constitutional doctrine is the product of an immensely long development, unfolding over two millennia of Western thought and practice. It starts with the religious insight that there is a higher law above the state; finds backing for this stricture in the church, and thereafter in the feudal order; deduces from these a system of contractual statecraft, representative bodies, and written guarantees of freedom—all translated to our shores and undergirded by the methods we have examined. Taken as a whole, this history tracks a series of ever-narrowing and more definite limits on, the reach of secular power—of which the American Constitution is (or was) the ultimate expression.
So construed, the measures adopted at our founding were an extension of the medieval outlook—though modified by religious changes, the colonial setting, and years of struggle with the British. Self-professed traditionalists that they were, the framers were more conservative than they knew. They were in a sense the last survivors of the feudal-medieval order, insisting that all earthly power must be subject to some limit. And, like their medieval forebears, they backed this up with pluralist, decentralized arrangements that gave practical content to the doctrine.
If this reading be accepted, a number of important conclusions are in order. One is that the chief political tradition of our culture is, above all else, a tradition of limited government, in the interest of protecting personal freedom. Those who profess this view today accordingly defend a legacy passed down to us, at considerable hazard, through many generations. The oft-stated conflict between traditional values and libertarian practice in our politics is therefore an illusion—a misreading of the record, or an artifact of special pleading. In the Anglo-American context, “big government conservatism” is the oxymoron—whatever its vogue among paternalists in Europe.
Also, it is worth repeating that this tradition is rooted in religious faith, not secular abstraction. The very concepts of the limited state and personal liberty, and the institutions that gave these practical force, grew from the religious vision of the West. Likewise, the specific ideas and political methods of our republic were products of this background—as seen in the theology of the early settlers, the arrangements they derived from this, and the religious customs of the founding era. All this is irrespective of whether Americans have always lived up to their faith, whether religious people have resorted to oppression, and other charges brought (sometimes correctly) in the conventional treatment. The point is rather that the conceptual building blocks and main political features of the free society were derived from these religious sources.
Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Traditions (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1994), 310-313.
If you have the time and can stomach silver ware hitting plates as people eat, this Alger Hiss lecture is a fun watch:
I was/am out of the loop. I was seeing stuff pop up about Noel Sheppard, and glossed over it. But then my mind started seeing a theme… I am saddened to find he passed. I used a lot of his stuff over the years, and I pray for the family and loved ones he left behind. Although I didn’t “know” him, I knew him. God’s Speed. And keep his “greatest hits” alive.
(PJ Media) Noel Sheppard, prominent conservative media critic and one of the founding contributors and editors at Newsbusters, died of cancer March 28. He was 53 years old.
Newsbusters publisher Brent Bozell posted a short, elegant tribute to his friend and colleague:
Our Noel Sheppard passed away yesterday (Friday) morning at about 5:00 AM. Say a prayer for the soul of a man we’ll all miss professionally, and many, many of us will miss personally as well. Noel was not just a force of nature, he was a very good man.
How quickly this all happened. Just two months ago, Noel wrote about suddenly getting cancer at 53 called “Cancer’s Ray of Hope.” Nine days ago, he wrote us and said he was interested in writing about his “progress” — and he put “progress” in quotes. We were all wishing for better news, and really couldn’t imagine this was a battle that would end this way.
Noel joined us and was introduced to us by Matt Sheffield at the founding of NewsBusters in 2005, and he became our Associate Editor. It must be said that no blogger here was more prolific and more popular.
See more goodby’s via Twitchy. The below video is via Newsmax’s YouTube. It is from 5-months ago right before-or-after his diagnosis on the Steve Malzberg Show:
Brent Bozell goes on the Malzberg Show to talk about the quick loss of his friend:
Not related, but something Noel would approve of surely, is how the Left responds to these matter ~ the TOLERANT, CARING LEFT... the most recent attack on conservatives… or those that buck the “narrative.” If you do not know Julie Boonstra’s story, I am not surprised… the legacy media does not report on Obama-Care horror stories:
I am sure some “nice things” will be said about Noel via the TOLERANT, CARING LEFT, and I may post them… but remember Tony Snow’s passing… and how HAPPY the Left was? To remind us, I reach back to a WND post:
Moments after White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s new personal battle against cancer became public yesterday, a vicious assault was launched at left-leaning websites, with some message posters hoping for a swift death for the presidential spokesman.
“Under the heading of ‘What goes around comes around’, the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene,” wrote TDoff on the D.C. gossip site Wonkette.com.
Omnilation wrote, “Dear Tony, I hate you. -God.”
A contributor called homofascist stated, “It is a bitch that I wouldn’t wish upon even a smarmy, evil f—face liar like Snow. Because really, isn’t he OUR smarmy, evil f—face liar?”
America is a poorer place today, a place whose reservoir of valor and determination has been depleted, because George “Bud” Day passed away over the weekend at the age of 88. He was a synecdoche for heroism, a military man’s military man. At Medal of Honor get-togethers, his fellow recipients, all of whom had accomplished legendary feats of bravery of their own, would pay special attention when Bud Day appeared.