| Page 2 ----- Original Message ----- From: Curtis Kekoa III To: James Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [God, Family, Republic] Mrs. Bush's Remarks Embarrassing, Lacking in Discernment Hello! I see an attempt at meat here, which is good! Now, I'll attempt to remove the milk! I thank you for sticking it out with me, James. In my experience, most folks just don't bring themselves to think critically. I don't necessarily mind if they disagree with me - just do something instead of waiting to watch the next episode of American Idol or another mind-numbing football season. Anyway, thanks for your input concerning mine. It's kind of like what we learned in class: THESIS VERSUS ANTI-THESIS BRINGS SYNTHESIS or something like that. I like God's version: "Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Pr 27:17). In order to have kept the issues in some sort of order as well as to stay on point with them, I used some of what you wrote as "starting points" for my responses. Yours are bolded and italicized. [Italicized and in Aqua color.] But first, I must apologize to you. While reading your last response, it occurred to me I never sent you a response from way, way back. (December, I think.) Some issues you raised in this correspondence I thought I addressed to you already. Turns out I didn't. Sorry, very rude of me. John the Baptist: "His message was repent and be baptized for the kingdom is at hand. His role was baptizing those who accepted this message, out of love and concern for their future." I cannot find one reference to John's "love and concern" for those who repented or didn't. Seems as though John the Baptist was there only to "Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; [and] Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God" (Is. 40:3) by preaching eternal life through belief in Christ as opposed to disobedience to Him leading to the wrath of God which is death (John 3:36). John the Baptist was clear about his reason for being; "love and concern" seem to be missing from the Biblical record. Not even Paul recognized John's "love and concern" for others, but plainly says that "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus" (Acts 19:4). Even your reference, Acts 18:24-26, is devoid of any mention of John's "love and concern." In fact, John was pretty critical of those who came to be baptized. Recall: "He [John the Baptist] therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, 'You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance [...] the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Luke 3:7,8,9). Brood of vipers? Thrown into the fire? How judgmental of John; what a meanie. Continuing, the same multitudes then asked John, "Then what shall we do?" Was John's answer "Love"? No. In Luke 3:10-14, John was poignant with his answers, and so precise are the answers that any reference to "love and concern" escaped John the Baptist as well as our God-breathed Scripture. This is no mistake for God makes no mistakes. "In your passage of Matthew, John was merely revealing the law as it was given instead of criticizing from a judgmental heart. This perception coincides with the rest of scripture which tells us not to criticize our governing leaders." John was merely revealing the law? Merely revealing murder as a violation of the law doesn't put a murderer to death, nor does merely revealing adultery a crime put the adulterer to death. Actually, John was doing more than just "revealing the law." John was rebuking Herod, which is different. Revealing the law is passive, along the same lines of signing online petitions: both require little effort and almost no risk to one's self. And both confront no one directly with the hope that the wicked come to some understanding of their wickedness indirectly without rebuke which is next to impossible and certainly is not biblical. Rebuke, however, is different from mere revelation. Rebuke, according to www.dictionary.com (as well as Merriam Webster, any edition), is a reproof, or rather a criticism. Webster says that to rebuke is "to criticize sharply." So, despite the word "criticize" not being in the Bible even once, the words rebuke, reprove and their derivations show up over and again. And how do I know for sure John the Baptist was not merely revealing the law and instead was rebuking Herod about adultery and illicit marriage to Herodias? Simple. Luke told me: "But when Herod the tetrarch was reproved by him [John the Baptist] on account of Herodias, his brother's wife, and on account of all the wicked things which Herod had done, he added this also to them all, that he locked John up in prison" (Luke 3:19,20). Does John's "criticizing" coincide with the rest of scripture which "tells us not to criticize our governing leaders"? And to answer your question, "Did John instigate this situation by continually criticizing Herod?": Yes. At least according to Luke for "all the wicked things which Herod had done," although I would say John was rebuking, not instigating. And there were lots of "things" Herod did for John to rebuke, and one supposes Herod did them more than once, perhaps continuously - like adultery. Do you really believe John was tossed in jail because he wasn't continually critical of Herod? Where, by the way, does scripture tell us not to rebuke or reprove our government or its leaders? So, theology based upon John the Baptist? Yes, but only because his theology was based upon scripture. "Can you find how many times Christ criticized the Roman government during his teaching? Or did he simply say "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." I can find at least one instance Christ was critical of a Roman leader, and no doubt the same one as John, go figure. (Makes you wonder to whom also Christ was critical.) Read Luke 13:32. Here, Christ publicly defies Herod's threat of death, and even calls Herod a "fox," implying Herod a crafty worker of evil - not a very nice guy for sure. Of course, a great deal of Christ's "rebukes," even to Peter - "Get behind Me, Satan" (Mark 8:33) - dealt with demonic forces. Accordingly, Paul explains the nature of Christ's (and Christianity's) battles: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). Christ demonstrated battles in the spiritual realm Paul speaks of, the realm which transcends the temporal but thoroughly encompasses and powers it as well. It's funny how our culture and Church severely diminish the importance of the spiritual while Christ emphasized it. Most can't call evil for evil anymore here on earth. And if they can't recognize ostensible evil here on earth - like dishonoring one's husband - then how can they recognize spiritual evil? They can't. Can you? I tell you, rebuking someone for their evil is not evil - it's righteous. Don't become excited about "our struggle is not against flesh and blood," as though struggles should not take place in the physical. Paul is explaining that all struggles from the personal to the global have spiritual causes. Rest assured, the spiritual manifests itself in the temporal - a war so to speak being played out in the cosmos - and so the players, too, are also at war. Act accordingly. Another thing, this "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" seems to be a staple of your theological diet, and you depend upon it for more spiritual nourishment than what it actually can provide. In its context, however, Christ's words were in reference to paying taxes. To devise a theological system where Caesar's interests take precedence over God's based upon only a piece of Christ's words is wrong. Here's the text in its ENTIRETY: "'Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?' But He [Christ] detected their trickery and said to them, 'Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?' And they said, 'Caesar's.' And He said unto them, 'Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's'" (Luke 20:22-25). To answer your question, "Did he simply say 'give to Caesar's what is Caesar's?'" No. He said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Now, what you should do is figure out what belongs to God, and in whom your loyalties abide and act upon them, appropriately. A good starting point would be to read the dialogue between Christ and Pilate: "Pilate therefore said to Him [Christ], 'You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no authority over me, unless it had bee given you from above'" (John 19:10,11a). "Judgmental hearts tend to fall victim to using anything in accordance with their will to justify their judgment instead of the humble heart Christ taught which sees himself lower than others and merely wishing to reveal the Fathers law and will." James, where are you getting this from, this thing about "judgmental hearts"? Here's what I suggest - a word search on "judge," "judged," etcetera, for just a broad understanding of what God really says about judging. And don't forget about the Book of Judges. Let me know what you find. For now, I'll show you the fallacy of your statement, and how it flirts with hypocrisy. First, your whole statement is a judgment, is it not? In your whole process of demonstrating your theory about "judgmental hearts," did you not notice how judgmental it was? Second, in describing the "judgmental heart," how do you know you haven't fallen "victim" to using that which justifies your judgment? Should no one judge? Is that it? Of course, the argument used to justify "Not judging" employs judging. The cliché "Do not judge" is a judgment in and of itself, and the biblical basis its protagonists use for justification is inconsistent. Really, no matter how hard one tries otherwise, one cannot help but to judge everything around him, from the toothpaste he buys to the actions of the President's wife. The quintessential difference, then, between my judging and, say, Hillary Clinton's judging is the standards by which we judge. I have no fear of saying I have a judging spirit. I gather, however, you do have that fear. But judging is godly, Christ-like, necessary and inescapable. Your word-search-study should reveal this. And let's discuss it more in subsequent emails. "An interesting concept to ponder is that it's not our leaderships fault that our countries moral values are falling, but the people of a democratic nation which have allowed such a thing to happen (and continue). It isn't simply one questionable choice on election day but rather years of falling away from God's moral absolute." Now I can agree with most of this statement. This country is sinking fast because it has lost its reverence for God to include an understanding of Truth. Most of the church - the majority - falls into this category of grossly misunderstanding God and His Word, and the church's culpability in this moral decline dwarfs that of any other group, organization, ethnic tribe, etc. After years and years of the same soft conferences and lectures, the same feel-good Sunday and Wednesday messages, the same bible studies and youth-camps flooded with warm and cuddly spiritual "goo," the church has become emasculated, an effeminate illusion of what it used to be. And during those same years, our nation has gone beyond spiritual desolation to hating God and Christ. There's a definite correlation between the church and its nation. It's hard to argue otherwise. One can't say the church has grown so much spiritually while the nation swims in lust and moral deceit. This is not what the Bible says would happen to a nation if the people are holy. I know you like C.S. Lewis; so do I. In his book The Screwtape Letters, Lewis plainly depicts what has happened to our church through the eyes of Uncle Screwtape himself in letter XVI: "The two churches nearest to him [the Christian], I have looked up in the office [...] the first of these the vicar is a man who has been so long engaged in watering down the faith to make it easier for a supposedly incredulous and hardheaded congregation that it is now he who shocks his parishioners with his unbelief, not vice versa. He has undermined many a soul's Christianity. His conduct of the services is also admirable. In order to spare the laity all 'difficulties' he has deserted both the lectionary and the appointed psalms and now, without noticing it, revolves endlessly round the little treadmill of his fifteen favourite psalms and twenty favourite lessons. We are thus safe from the danger that any truth not already familiar to him and to his flock should ever reach them through Scripture. But perhaps your patient is not quite silly enough for this church - or not yet?" I would add in there something about false teaching. Something's wrong - something needs to change. Something isn't working right. Some things the church has been doing are either inutile or destructive to the cause of Christ, or both. Maybe we can agree on AT LEAST that? Consider this: Has consistently voting Republican helped to curb our nation's moral decline? Have continued excuses for the Republican leadership helped either? The evidence declares "No." You're right, James - voting wrong on election day doesn't account for years of falling away from God. Falling away from God, however, does account for consistently voting wrong on a year's worth of election days. It's time to stop this. Our leaders must be held accountable, but we should first admit our mistakes (become accountable), repent and then change our leaders. This is the system God gave us to work in; this is why I sent the email to a dozen or so pro-Bush people. Their minds need to change and repent. This is not a message emanating from the church at large; such a message would be too "difficult" so to speak. (*Note: We don't live in a democratic society; rather, we live in a Constitutional Republic. A democracy needs only a 51% majority in order to kill Christians (Remember the lions?). A Republic, however, protects the rights of all individuals whether or not 51% or 99% want to kill the other 49% or 1%, respectively. Democracy, then, is not good. It is mob-rule. And although a Republic is not a perfect form of government [The only perfect government is a theocracy led by Christ.], it certainly is better than a democracy. But if this word "democracy" keeps getting tossed around like it's real, then our country will eventually become one, and then we're really screwed. By the way, the indoctrination camps called "government schools" teach the lie that we're a democracy. Surprise!) Well, I don't think I've overkilled anything, although I think one could make a pretty good case for it. I hope you deeply consider what I've written to you. I eagerly await your reply; I enjoy our "back and forth." If you have any questions, please fire them my way. And please know that I've written to you as a brother in Christ. Take care and say "hi" to your wife for me. -Curtis |