Why bother teaching little children? Mothers, teach God's little ones - Warhorn Media
1 Like
It is infinitely more important to yourself, your church, and your children that you read my wife’s exhortation concerning the souls of our little children, than anything anyone anywhere has to say about Charlie Kirk. Trust me: Mothers, teach God's little ones - Warhorn Media
3 Likes
On my post just below, I was trying to point out that obeying God’s Creation command to man and woman to come together in marriage, to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and then His call to Abraham to command his children to obey God, have lost the attention of young Christian mothers and fathers satiated with the socials and their neverending churning of conflict over eternally less significant things—which is to say political things, political machinations, political controversies.
How often pastors and elders have commented to me about social media influencers in their churches failing to give their best time and attention and work to God’s first commands to marry, bear children, and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Truthfully, if one were able to keep track of the amount of time and energy Christian socials denizens spend fighting against their political enemies versus loving their wife, having and providing and commanding their children to keep the way of the Lord, I’m convinced the numbers would condemn the people of God for looking exactly like the worldlings—both in their political activity and in their failure in their marriage and fatherhood.
And I speak from decades in the pastorate carefully giving myself to understanding and trying to help God’s sheep. There have always been rabid Christian voices promoting this and that and the other political group and position just as there have always been young men and fewer young women taking that wide and popular path while avoiding having “too many” children and working a job that provides for the household but is “boring” or “doesn’t reflect my deepest passion,” and being more committed to getting their children to do the same when they come of age (but not wisdom).
When those kids left their politically conservative homes where they played on travel sports teams and took music and dance lessons, obediently leaving home for uni or college, I was the man who pastored their children, and it’s from decades doing so that I work to call young men and women away from the sirens and back to marriage, love, work, and raising a godly seed.
Everyone will say things about the meaning and proper response to the assassination of our brother in Christ, Charlie Kirk, so let them. I’ve written and will be releasing a podcast on his death and its meaning. He is a Christian (not merely a political) martyr, and note he would be likely to approve of the very points I’m reiterating above which were never far from what he himself was saying and doing.
Now you follow his witness and become a real man whose first priority is marrying a woman you love, standing with her as she sacrifices her life and body to bearing the fruit of your love, then giving yourself to loving, disciplining, and teaching your children who are God’s blessings to you and your wife.
Make your life a statement of agreement with the Kirks who themselves were making a confession of faith in the God they called “Father Almighty” by marrying, bearing children, and raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
This was their first priority. Make it yours. These acts of obedience to God are eternally more important than what you do or don’t think of George Soros, blacks, whites, Jews, the crusades, or gerrymandering.
2 Likes
Thinking abt Charlie…
Most pastors don’t preach “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth” or “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” or God calls sodomy an “abomination” because people would fault him for being “political” in his preaching.
Charlie preached these things on college campuses, but Christians say, “He’s not a Christian martyr b/c he died for his political views. Not his Christian witness. His assassin murdered him b/c of his political views, not his Christian faith.”
So confessing Christ by speaking of the blessing of marriage and fruitfulness while condemning the moral filth and bloodlust of our culture is politics—not religion—in the pulpit; and politics—not religion—in the public square.
In other words, calling men to become the disciples of Jesus Christ, the Lord of all the earth, is merely political partisanship everywhere.
Checkmate.
We must never cede the definition of what is “political” to unbelievers.
3 Likes
In wake of Charlie Kirk’s sudden departure, I was listening to Woody Guthrie sing his “This Land Is Your Land.” Let’s sing it at all vigils in Charlie’s memory—remembering this land is our unborn children’s land, also.
This land is your land, and this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream Waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
And I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
All around me a voice was a-sounding
This land was made for you and me
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
Sign was painted, said, “Private Property”
But on the back side, it didn’t say nothing
This land was made for you and me
When the sun comes shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
A voice come chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land, and this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream Waters
This land was made for you and me.
2 Likes
I love the Sharon Jones version
1 Like
Let’s man up and face the truth Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University? › American Greatness
2 Likes
Up in Michigan, Sunday morning Jürgen and I worshipped at Woodland Shores Baptist Church. Pastor Jim Oakley began the service reading Psalm 37, following with an exhortation concerning our responses to the murder of Charlie Kirk. So helpful.
The sermon from Luke was on discipleship. Pastor Oakley mentioned Kierkegaard’s distinction between those who are merely admirers, worshipers, and adherents of Jesus, and those who follow Him. From his “Provocations,” here’s Kierkegaard’s full text:
It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression “follower.” He never asks for admirers, worshipers, or adherents. No, he calls disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for.
Christ understood that being a “disciple” was in innermost and deepest harmony with what he said about himself. Christ claimed to be the way and truth and the life. For this reason, he could never be satisfied with adherents who accepted his teaching – especially with those who in their lives ignored it or let things take their usual course. His whole life on Earth, from beginning to end, was destined solely to have followers and to make admirers impossible.
Christ came into the world with the purpose of saving, not instructing it. At the same time – as is implied in his saving work – he came to be the pattern, to leave footprints for the person who would join him, who would become a follower. This is why Christ was born and lived and died in lowliness. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to sneak away from the Pattern with excuse and evasion on the basis that it, after all, possessed Earthly and worldly advantages that he did not have. In that sense, to admire Christ is the false invention of a later age, aided by the presumption of “loftiness.” No, there is absolutely nothing to admire in Jesus, unless you want to admire poverty, misery, and contempt.
What then, is the difference between an admirer and a follower? A follower is or strives to be what he admires. An admirer, however, keeps himself personally detached. He fails to see that what is admired involves a claim upon him, and thus he fails to be or strive to be what he admires.
To want to admire instead of to follow Christ is not necessarily an invention by bad people. No, it is more an invention by those who spinelessly keep themselves detached, who keep themselves at a safe distance. Admirers are related to the admired only through the excitement of the imagination. To them he is like an actor on the stage except that, this being real life, the effect he produces is somewhat stronger. But for their part, admirers make the same demands that are made in the theater: to sit safe and calm. Admirers are only too willing to serve Christ as long as proper caution is exercised, lest one personally come in contact with danger. They refuse to accept that Christ’s life is a demand. In actual fact, they are offended by him. His radical, bizarre character so offends them that when they honestly see Christ for who he is, they are no longer able to experience the tranquility they so much seek after. They know full well that to associate with him too closely amounts to being up for examination. Even though he says nothing against them personally, they know that his life tacitly judges theirs.
And Christ’s life indeed makes it manifest, terrifyingly manifest, what dreadful untruth it is to admire the truth instead of following it. When there is no danger, when there is a dead calm, when everything is favorable to our Christianity, then it is all too easy to confuse an admirer with a follower. And this can happen very quietly. The admirer can be under the delusion that the position he takes is the true one, when all he is doing is playing it safe. Give heed, therefore, to the call of discipleship!
If you have any knowledge at all of human nature, who can doubt that Judas was an admirer of Christ! And we know that Christ at the beginning of his work had many admirers. Judas was precisely such an admirer and thus later became a traitor. It is not hard to imagine that those who only admire the truth will, when danger appears, become traitors. The admirer is infatuated with the false security of greatness; but if there is any inconvenience or trouble, he pulls back. Admiring the truth, instead of following it, is just as dubious a fire as the fire of erotic love, which at the turn of the hand can be changed into exactly the opposite, to hate, jealousy, and revenge.
There is a story of yet another admirer – Nicodemus. Despite the risk to his reputation, despite the effort on his part, Nicodemus was only an admirer; he never became a follower. It is as if he might have said to Christ, “If we are able to reach a compromise, you and I, then I will accept your teaching in eternity. But here in this world, no, I cannot. Could you not make an exception for me? Would it not be enough if once in a while, at great risk to myself, I come to you during the night, but during the day (yes, I confess it, I feel how humiliating this is for me and how disgraceful, indeed also how very insulting it is toward you) I say, ‘I do not know you’?” See in what a web of untruth an admirer can entangle himself?
Nicodemus, I am quite sure, was well-meaning. I’m also sure he was ready in the strongest phrases to attest that he accepted the truth of Christ’s teaching. Yet, it is not true that the more strongly someone makes assurances, while his life still remains unchanged, the more he is only making a fool of himself? If Christ had permitted a cheaper edition of follower – an admirer who swears by all that is high and holy that he is convinced – then Nicodemus might very well have been accepted. But he was not!
Now suppose that there is no longer any special danger, as it no doubt is in so many of our Christian countries, bound up with publicly confessing Christ. Suppose there is no longer need to journey in the night. The difference between following and admiring still remains. Forget about danger connected with confessing Christ and think rather of the real danger which is inescapably bound up with being a Christian. Does not the Way – Christ’s requirement to die to the world and deny self – does this not contain enough danger?
The admirer never makes any true sacrifices. He always plays it safe. Though in word he is inexhaustible about how highly he prizes Christ, he renounces nothing, will not reconstruct his life, and will not let his life express what it is he supposedly admires. Not so for the follower. No, no. The follower aspires with all his strength to be what he admires. And then, remarkably enough, even though he is living amongst a “Christian people,” he incurs the same peril as he did when it was dangerous to openly confess Christ. And because of the follower’s life, it will become evident who the admirers are, for the admirers will become agitated with him. Even these words will disturb many – but then they must likewise belong to the admirers.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I’m not a fan of the outrage machine. What I am about to say is not PASWO.
I’m not so sure that it is just a few degenerates. I don’t think it’s all democrats, but I keep seeing people casually saying essentially, “That’s what he gets.” I’m not talking about stuff being shared by the right’s outrage machine, either. Furthermore, mainstream media is now doing their best to build sympathy for the shooter.
5 Likes
It’s long past time to face our nation’s bloodlust
1 Like
What is PASWO? Google search brings up nothing.
He just made it up in that article. It means “Point At Something With Outrage.”
1 Like
Thanks pastor. I re-read and saw where I missed that.
@jtbayly, where are you coming across this stuff, at an individual level? People you know? The media, sure.
I’m seeing more of what Tibbs is talking about, and from politically conservative sources. The Federalist, for instance. And others.
Essentially that we need to go scorched earth on ‘the left’ and ‘Democrats’. That seems excessive to me. Especially since we could have produced a ‘50 of the most Satanic reactions’ from ‘conservatives’ after George Floyd was killed. Maybe not as outright malicious, but not worlds apart.
Or am I missing what you’re trying to say?
1 Like
I have seen that there is a database that has been made of liberals celebrating and it’s over 50,000 people so far.
Edit: looks like the sites that were started to aggregate these things have all been scrubbed.
I know someone who made Luigi Mangioni-sympathetic comments to me. Based on this, I haven’t chosen to discuss Kirk’s murder with anyone who I didn’t already know to be sympathetic to him.
Speaking of Mangioni, there was a crowd out in the street celebrating when a judge dropped terrorism charges against him this week. Anything comparable to that on the right? Anything at all, in any of our lifetimes?
I think this is a misread—How about we go scorched-earth on the Leftist terror-funding networks and organizing networks? The BLM and Floyd riots were extremely well-organized. Antifa in particular had tools, techniques, tactics, organization and funding. They have never been held to account for this in any way. What do you think happened to all that? Did they just fold it up? Even if they did, evidence still exists of those networks’ activities in 2020 and I’m sure people could still be held to account if anyone in authority cared to. People with names and addresses organized armed assaults on police precincts, courthouses, the White House! Talk about an insurrection!
I’ve no doubt that somebody’s retired Facebook uncle said some unpleasant things about George Floyd in the aftermath of Floyd’s death, but if anyone went and trampled or defaced any Floyd memorials in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death, I sure don’t remember it. I assume anyone who had tried that would have been torn limb from limb. I saw two cases from this last weekend of Kirk-haters trampling and defacing Kirk memorials.
Who that had an actual job would have dared to say a bad word about Floyd in May or June of 2020? Which media figures used their megaphones to point out Floyd’s many documented interactions with the justice system? How many times in 2020 was it pointed out from politicians that really both sides do terrible things sometimes and it’s important to keep this in mind—and besides all that, Floyd lived a pretty divisive life, didn’t he?
The President of the United States called 1/3 of Americans “semi-fascist” just a couple of years ago. The corrupt media and the Kamala Harris campaign repeatedly tried to link Donald Trump to Hitler and the Nazis during the last presidential campaign. Were they intending to explore the interactions between mid-century nationalist movements and MAGA? Like, compare and contrast? Hmm, interesting comparison, President Biden. I’m going to have to think over the roots of these movements. Of course not. They know that Nazis are less than human and should be treated as such—they will tell you this themselves.
Sure, “not all Democrats.” OK. Curb your dogs, then, Democrats. Lower the temperature yourselves. Maybe drop a dime on somebody who is getting a little too threatening about the other team. The GOP has been the only party in this country capable of moderating itself in my entire life. And here we are—two attempts on the President, Brian Thompson, now Charlie Kirk, just to name a few. Democrats can fix it, or Republicans can fix it, but it has to get fixed.
1 Like
So sad that not one of the 100 million babies murdered here in America this past half-century were friends with Doug and Donald and Tucker, nor were they able to leave behind pictures of themselves with their wife and two little girls.
The only ones capable of bringing up the babies as the true context for our national discussion of violence and bloodshed today are Christians. We believe and should never stop publicly confessing and warning that Scripture is true when it warns us that every last bit of blood of innocents will be brought out of the soil to testify against us, in God’s good time. Love,
2 Likes
I heard all this said and written publicly in 2020. From the mainstream, no. But still publicly, from conservatives. And I’m not arguing that’s even wrong. Still less am I drawing any sort of moral equivalence between Floyd and Kirk or those who’ve responded to their deaths.
But the public response from conservatives that questions any call to respond with moderation or lumps any introspection on our side as ‘both-sides-ism’ is concerning. As a pastor, if I saw this response from my flock, I’d be concerned.
It’s not a binary choice between ‘antifa is wicked and needs to be destroyed’ or ‘let’s keep our own propensities on mind as well’. Both can be true. We can argue Colin Hanson and David French are writing idiotic and godless things (as well as those much more extreme approaches), and we can still urge each other, ‘in your anger do not sin’. In fact, we ought to do both.
1 Like
John M,
Ditto on having IRL acquaintances make excuses for Mangione’s murder. It’s not just bots on the Internet; it’s all too real. The Mangione saga causes me to look at the Kirk shooting differently.
2 Likes