On the Bible

A question: What is the Bible?

The Bible is many things to many people.  Of course, like anything else in the world, the reality is that it can only be one thing to everyone.  There must be one absolute truth and observation to the Bible.  Otherwise, multiple interpretations would obviously contradict themselves.

The only question is, what is that thing?  What should the Bible be seen as to the people who read it?

Traditionally, the Bible is seen as the unerring, everlasting word of God.  It was God-inspired, indicates what we are to believe regarding Him and shows us how we are to live.  In the modern era, some say this interpretation is wrong.  Many seem to believe that the Bible is an allegorical, philosophy book.  This latter interpretation brings up two important questions.

Can it be and is it?

The answer to the former question is, technically, yes.  Though one should not detach God and Christ from the principles we have been given, His principles are still timeless.  We go much farther as human beings following them because God knows what is good and healthy for us.  Following those precepts without the Holy Spirit in our hearts and guiding us will only take us so far, however.

The answer to the latter question is no.

The Bible is far more than philosophical guide; it is a promise.  We are promised salvation from eternal damnation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  The Bible and Christianity itself mean nothing without that event.  Furthermore, that event is dependent on fulfilling hundreds of disparate prophecies scattered throughout the history that is the Old Testament.  If only one of these are untrue, if only one is allegorical, then our faith is for nothing.  Christ died for nothing.

If the Bible can not be counted on for its truthfulness, then God is a liar.  God claims to keep His promises, but if we cannot trust His words to us (as we are told in 2 Timothy 3:15-17), then we cannot trust Him.  The Bible would contradict itself if it was only meant to be taken as philosophical allegory, as God makes important promises to people in it, whether it is land to the Hebrews or salvation to all of mankind.  Also, if God lies to us, He has no reason to expect us to follow His commandments (Deuteronomy 5:6-21; note God Himself would be violating verse 20), as He would be holding us to a double standard.  If He is just, this cannot be so.

It also suggests that the millions of martyr's through history died for a simple philosophy.  It denies them the honor of having been executed for an unshakable faith in the saving power of Jesus.  Their deaths merely become trivial and possibly foolish.  This makes no sense.  For the 11 apostles, ten of whom were executed and the last exiled, it would be senseless to die for a mere philosophy.  As noted earlier, the Christian philosophy has no power without Jesus or God behind it.  For those men who walked with Jesus Christ, they would know better than anyone whether it would be worth dying for.

Under pressure, they did not renounce their faith.  They had found a line they would not cross in their lives and it was their faith in Jesus.  Not a faith in a nebulous philosophy, but faith in the son of God, who gives far more than mere words ever could.

A big part of why many people relegate Christianity and the Bible to "philosophical guide" status is that they assume it is a just like other religious texts.  However, this assumption creates false equivalency between Christianity and other world religions.  Other religions and philosophies are not dependent on having unerring accuracy or internal cohesion.  Indeed, most do depend on their philosophies, not their histories.  The Bible, however, is different.  As noted earlier, the Bible requires its history and prophecies in order for the New Testament to make sense.  Without either, it falls apart.

We should not be tempted to concede to the idea that the Bible is allegory or philosophy.  Doing so is to claim that God's promises are false and serve only to lead people astray from salvation.

On Conservatism's Future: News Media

The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is to protect us, the citizens of the United States, from federal encroachment on our personal freedoms.  The First Amendment in particular is well known for its protections, particularly of religion and speech.  Just as important as these well-known foundations of American freedom is the freedom of the press.

Something the Founding Fathers understood was the importance of a press independent of government control.  They lived in a time where independent sources of news truly became common place.  Indeed, the war for independence may never have gained support were it not for colonial newspapers spreading the news of the fight for liberty.  That was the beginning of the proud American tradition of the free press.

Governments can always be counted on to try and exceed their mandates.  Those in power often wish to keep power.  Even those who accept the limits on their power will try to push and circumvent those limits as they are best able.  The purpose of a free press is ensure that these abuses are caught and exposed, so that free people may hold their officials accountable.

In the modern day, a vast majority of media outlets have abdicated that responsibility.  Many have become poorly disguised or open advocates for (primarily liberal) agendas.  The way stories are reported seem to always put a positive spin on the liberal perspective.  Often, that is the only viewpoint that will be expressed, leaving many ignorant to the fact there is a counterpoint.  Most egregiously, the media's adoration of Barack Obama has caused serious journalism on his administration to take a back seat.  He can do no wrong.  Any real attempt to find out the truth on the numerous lies of this White House (Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Obama's radical past, etc.) are either ignored or met with skepticism and scorn.

The objective of the press is the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to find.  Yet, the modern press lies.  Not directly, but by omission of relevant facts, opinions and entire stories.

As it operates now, the modern press is possibly the greatest threat to the republic.

Fortunately, this may also be the easiest problem for conservatives to solve.

While the mainstream media generally tries to discredit outlets that are less liberal-leaning, it is clear that there are already many fine sources for news that are not major networks and newspapers.  Many have been started by average citizens.  Indeed, becoming a journalist does not require schooling or any sort of credentials.  All it requires is a thirst for truth and a desire to find it, no matter the cost.  Bloggers tend to discover and blow open major stories long before any mainstream outlet is inclined to even start sniffing around.

One thing suggested is the creation of more conservative-leaning television networks to counter liberal dominance.  This is an excellent idea.  While there is Fox News, there are a couple of problems.  First, Fox is not particularly conservative.  While it does have a strong right-leaning commentary and host base, this is primarily because conservatives aren't welcome at other networks.  Second, a right-leaning network would also create for a place to get a clear conservative message out on television.  It would also help remove the "stigma" Fox currently receives, despite FNC being a good journalistic outfit.  Once people see an actual conservative network, the smears will no long stick.

The logo that launched a million progressive nightmares.  We need a million more nightmares.

Ultimately, conservatives need to circumvent the current media establishment.  As I noted just now, conservative points of view are often ignored, lent less credence or shut out.  Barring a dramatic change in the leadership of the networks and the newspapers, this will continue to be so.  Thus we must continue to make our own, as we have, and push harder than ever to make our outlets appear legitimate in spite of the left.

Only then can we begin to turn around the chaotic world that is the press.

On Judgment

Yesterday, commentator and comedian Steven Crowder published a rather brilliant article on why marriage is a good thing that is worth aspiring toward.  Due to his blunt and direct style, many took immediate offense. Their offense was compounded by this tweet.

Now, on the one hand, I can see why people would be uncomfortable with Crowder's style.  I can also see the argument that such bluntness does not help our cause.  It does not personally make me uncomfortable, as this article on messengers attests to.  I have no problem with these criticisms, however.  What I found truly maddening were the people whining about Crowder "judging them."

People, this next paragraph may be the hardest you may ever read.  Everyone judges you.  Your friends judge you.  Your family judges you.  Your dog judges you.  God judges you.  Only one of those in that list is guaranteed to be right.

Unfortunately for you whiners out there, Crowder was completely in the right.  How do I know?  Because he was judging you not by his own personal standard, but by God's.  He wasn't saying you (female or male, despite that tweet focusing on the former) is a concubine because he thinks it.  He said it because God thinks it.  The Lord did not make moral law just to mess with our heads.  He made it because He knows what is good for us, what will make us healthy and happy.

"But Jesus would never say it like that!" you might say.  "He would be kind and gentle and not try to drive people away!"  To which I ask (just like a certain Clinton), "What difference does it make?"  As I have pointed out, not everyone is swayed by gentle messaging.  In the end, how the message is delivered does not matter as much as whether or not the message is correct.  Even if Jesus himself wouldn't be as blunt as Crowder (and I have no idea nor do you, unless you walked with Him 2000 years ago), you can bet that He would still be telling you to repent and shape up.

Yes, He is judging you.  He has also given you a way out of sin and into God's love.

No, this does not mean you can keep sinning.

It is pretty obvious that many were riled up by Crowder precisely because what he said resonated in their hearts.  Though they might be loathe to admit it, they were convicted by the truth in his words, causing them to lash out.  Now, if you don't want to shape up according to God's standard, that's your choice.  Expecting no one to say anything about it is ridiculous.  Complaining when they do is pathetic.

We are commanded to make righteous (not frivolous) judgments based on God's moral law.  How else do you expect sinners to repent if they are not confronted by their sin?  Some people claim to convert to faith in Christ without changing a single thing in their lives, no matter sinful they are.  One cannot be saved without repentance and one cannot repent without knowing they are sinning.

Before you ask, no, I am not perfect nor do I claim to make these arguments from an angle of being so.  No one is perfect.  We all make mistakes and we all have our flaws.  I can assure you, I am convicted on a daily basis for my shortcomings and I try my hardest to correct them.  However, that does not make it wrong for me or anyone else to take God's morality and show another their own shortcomings according to said law.  Indeed, you should be glad someone is saying that what you are doing is wrong.

I get it.  It hurts to be confronted by truths that say we are doing or have done wrong in God's eyes.  Struggling against the truth, however, will not make our lives better or happier.  Indeed, the more we dig into our sinful ways, the farther we will fall when it all crashes down upon us.

One final thought: Before you condemn the next person to judge you by God's standards, consider why they are doing it.  Is it because they are self-righteous?  Is it because they think they are better than you?  Or is it for a greater purpose?  Perhaps they are worried about you.  They don't have to have met you.  Jesus most certainly did not personally meet everyone on the planet, but He died for all of them regardless.  He died for you too.  We are commanded to love others as Jesus loved the church.

Sometimes, love is a tough pill to swallow.

On Conservatism's Future

Of late, you have seen me talk about what I believe is the necessary internal battle we, as conservatives, will need to face and are facing.  I have also addressed my beliefs on what President Obama, the Democrats and the progressive movement in general will try to do in the coming years to discredit and destroy us.  This leaves only one real question.

Once our internal affairs are sufficiently sorted, what do we do to stop the progressive cause?

Honestly, there is really no easy answer to this question.  While we most certainly have short term goals, such as taking the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016, that will not nearly be enough.  They are important, but small goals.  They do not solve the bigger problems the movement faces.  Almost every true solution is long term.

For decades, everything from the media (both news and entertainment), education and the society in general have steadily slanted left, to the point where conservatism is shut out almost entirely today.  Immersed in curriculums that emphasize "self-esteem," our institutions of learning churn out leftists by the millions.  Our young adults have been told what to think, not how to think.  News corporations continually ignore stories that do not fit their agenda.  The media fills our minds with ideas that are not ideal from a young age in a constant bombardment of loose morals.  Our society has been desensitized to the deciet foisted upon it and the evils in its midst.

Yet, none of these problems can be solved in the short term.

It will require a slow creep by conservatism to counter progressivism in the culture.  As much as it pains me to recognize this, it will easily take years, maybe even a generation, to gain a respectable amount of parity in the media and education.  That's not to say there will not be advances on any front, or that some aspects of the culture will not see greater advances by us quicker and sooner than others.  However, to see all of those elements I mentioned (and those I forgot) present a unified conservative counter-balance to progressivism will take a long time.

It is truly a shame that any of these areas, let alone all of them, have been allowed to slip so far against us.  In many ways, it is a testament to the enduring nature of conservative principles that they have managed to endure under the pressure from progressivism.  Indeed, conservatism is the political equal of progressivism, despite being shut out and slandered for so long elsewhere.

Now the movement is at a tipping point.  With many institutions in the country unabashedly progressive and emboldened by the election to start actively pushing conservative thought out completely, we must begin reversing the course now.  We already have millions of people my age who believe all the wrong things.  It will require starting now to change that for the next generation, to a point where conservatives are more than a silent minority.

The long road is only just beginning.

Why is this here, you ask? Well, I couldn't think of a more appropriate picture.  I'm sure I'll be talking about the misfits before long.  They are part of that future...and I don't say that just because I contribute articles like this to them.

The First Black President

Author's note: I published the original version of this shortly before the election. I present it to you again, edited and lengthened for the inauguration and maybe with a funny parenthetical line here or there.

I am very, very disappointed in the administration of President Barack Obama.

"Yeah, no kidding," you're probably telling yourself right now.  It is not a secret I find the current administration contemptible. I could fill an entire book on why (something I will leave to those actually good at writing books).  By disappointment, however, I do not mean my usual angst against his policies or behavior.

I refer to nothing more than a deep, profound sadness.

Let me tell you a story. When I was a little boy in Irvington, New Jersey (not as long ago as I make it sound), I attended a school that was, as I recall, majority minority.  Thus we always had presentations regarding the heritages of various minority groups. “African-American heritage” was stressed in particular.  We even had a yearly assembly for Kwanzaa.

One thing that always seemed to stick in my mind, though, was the suggestion that we could, one day, have a black president.  We were told the usual childhood encouragement ("If you work hard, one day, you could even become president!").  I was taught about our nation's “racist heritage” and how we had yet to have a black man in the White House.  The racism never really stuck, though it was approached in a subtle, subversive way.  Historical racism stayed just that for me: historical. I automatically assumed that it was gone and dead.  However, for a long while, there was a little place in the back of my mind that always hoped to one day see a black man in the Oval Office.

At the beginning of 2008's primary season, long before Barack Obama became a viable contender for the presidency, I finally stamped out that little corner of my mind.  I had come to recognize that it did not matter what the person in the White House looked like.  Only their character mattered.  So I found myself immune to his charm and his teleprompter-based style when Senator Obama ascended as the candidate of the Democrat Party.  That immunity kept my eyes open as I saw all the warning signs of radicalism, despite the media's shameless attempts to hide it.

Yet, on election night 2008, when it became clear that Barack Obama had won the presidency, I saw my Facebook page explode with friends who were excited to have made history. Obviously, it is a silly way to think, as “making history” can be both good and bad.  Yet I will admit that, on the inside, I felt a small resurgence of pride in that a black man had just been elected president of the United States, just as I would have as a child.  Like most conservatives, I resolved to give him a chance, despite my apprehensions.  Perhaps it was the old dream that allowed me to soften my heart just a bit and hope for the best.

That dream has made the past four years all the more painful, disappointing and shameful.  Instead of being a beacon of hope and an example of America's greatness, the past four years have been dismal. Instead of bridging divides between Americans, the president has intensified them. He lies about and impugns the motives of his opposition, preferring to beat up strawmen than debate facts.  He has ignored the Constitutional limits on his power time and again and deceived the public on matters ranging from gun running to terrorist attacks.

With his first term having drawn to a close, his only major accomplishments will prove far more destructive to the country than those of his predecessor. With each day that passes, the country becomes a little more in debt, a little poorer. We, the people of this great nation, become a little less free with each dollar that binds us to creditors and foreign nations. For a man that promised change and promised that our best days are ahead of us, he has failed to deliver on both.

Despite his policies yielding negligible or bad results, Barack Obama refuses to take responsibility.  He blames his predecessor incessantly, even after being in office for four years.   He spends more time golfing and hobnobbing with celebrities than he does in intelligence briefings.  His office is empty more often than not as he speaks at rallies filled with screaming fan boys and girls, rallies that are easier than even fielding questions from a (very friendly) press corps.

I feel that Barack Obama has been robbed of his sense of personal responsibility.  A man with no real accomplishments, he has been handed nearly every position he has held in life.  Some will say he excelled in college, but he has never released his transcripts.  Judging by how peculiar that is and a lack of real accomplishment in his professional life, that leads me to believe he did not do well at all.  Penning no papers on the Harvard Law Review, considered intellectually lazy as an adjunct professor and voting present more often than not in elected office, he is little more than a self-entitled shell.

I often hear older black people say they were taught by their own parents and grandparents to be a "credit to their race."  They had to endure racism and thus had to work harder to achieve and succeed.  Yet now, the president seems to be nothing but the antithesis of a "credit to his race."  In the end, the first black president has been everything he should not have been.

And it is a shame.