Feed on

It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent Christians can so miss understanding Biblical prophecy; they have either missed it, they don’t care, or they are afraid. While Biblical end-times prophecy is unfolding like yesterday’s newspaper and foretells the very thing they are producing, they practice their religious hobbycraft in a cloud of delusion. It all seems so Stupefied and hopelessly inebriated when examined against the backdrop of what the Scriptures have to say to the contrary; and onward they stumble.


From Lighthouse Trails June 14, 2016 E-Newsletter

DRESS REHEARSAL FOR A FALSE REVIVAL? – Evangelical, Charismatic, Emerging Leaders, & Pope Francis Unite for “Together 2016” in Washington, DC

photo: from a still shot from video on Reset 2016 site; used in accordance with the US Fair Use Act

photo: from a still shot from video on Reset 2016 site; used in accordance with the US Fair Use Act

According to a news release from PRWire titled “Pope Francis To Address Americans At National Mall Event ’Together 2016’ With Special Video Message,” Pope Francis will be joining (via video) evangelical leaders such as Ravi Zacharias, Luis Palau, Michael W. Smith, and Josh McDowell, emerging-church leaders such as Francis Chan, Ann Voskamp, Jennie Allen (IF), and Mark Batterson (Circle Maker) and charismatic leaders such as Sammy Rodriguez and Hillsong for an event motivated by a goal to bring unity to all those who “love Jesus.” The event is called “Together 2016,” subtitled Fill the Mall.

Nick Hall, the organizer of the event who hopes to draw one million people to the National Mall onJuly 16th, stated: “Together 2016 is about laying aside what divides us to lift up Jesus who unites us.”1 Hall told one news source, “We are coming together in historic unity to pray for a reset for our nation.”2

It’s been over fifteen years since contemplative pioneer Richard Foster shared his vision of Catholics and evangelicals coming together3 and over two decades since Chuck Colson helped author a document titled “Evangelicals/Catholics Together.”4 It’s been over a decade since Rick Warren announced his hopes to bring about a second reformation that would include people of different religions.5 In more recent days, evangelical leaders such as Beth Moore,6 Franklin Graham,7 and Kenneth Copeland8 have played their parts in helping to remove the barriers between the evangelical/Protestant church and the Roman Catholic Church (something the Catholic Church calls the New Evangelization program9).

According to the Bible, we know a time is coming when a global one-world religion will serve alongside a global one-world government, both of which will reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Lord. Whether they realize it or not, the leaders and musicians participating in Together 2016 are helping to make that global religion a reality as they participate in this ongoing relay race of breaking down the walls that divide different faiths in the name of unity at all costs.

Right now, in America, evangelical and charismatic leaders are calling for a nation-wide revival. But will their revival be a revival from God; or will it be a false revival? And is Together 2016 nothing more than a dress rehearsal for this false revival?

dont vote

For me, leaving the political arena, many years ago, was a hard won battle. I just felt sure that I needed to cast my vote to hold back the veil of darkness and to be a legitimate Christian, along with persuading many others to vote my way.

What I discovered was that the veil of darkness was over my own eyes and that it was God Himself who makes even our enemies to live at peace with us when our ways please Him, and not my vote, or marches on Washington, or letters to my congressman.

What I also discovered was that my pleading and prayers only witnessed the continual worsening of the already serious illness of unrepentant sin that our Nation has fallen into.

My vote equaled the abandoning to men and politics what God said only He would do. Will my vote, or the vote of many people change what God has determined for this country? If I don’t vote have I hindered God from exercising His will?

Isa 2:5-9 “O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord. Surely [Lord] You have rejected and forsaken your people, the house of Jacob, because they are filled [with customs] from the east and with soothsayers [who foretell] like the Philistines; also they strike hands and make pledges and agreements with the children of aliens. [Deut 18:9-12.] Their land also is full of silver and gold; neither is there any end to their treasures. Their land is also full of horses; neither is there any end to their chariots. [Deut 17:14-17.] Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, what their own fingers have made. And the common man is bowed down [before idols], also the great man is brought low and humbles himself — therefore forgive them not [O Lord].” AMP

Do you think getting the right man in office is the cure for our nation? I don’t think you do. Our efforts have been futile in the past and they are futile now.

I would not break fellowship with someone desiring to vote, but I do think they are wrong.

As much as I would like to see the Lord’s Church repent and have their eyes opened I can’t see it happening on a large scale. Our Lord’s command to “come out from among them” includes even their involvement in the political process, even voting, and I am learning daily that it goes much further than I have even imagined.

There are many passages of Scripture that declare God’s anger with how the world governs. Ezekiel’s example, says plainly:

Ezek 22:23-29 “Again the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, say to the land, ‘You are a land that has had no rain or showers in the day of wrath.’ There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows within her. Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says’-when the LORD has not spoken. The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice.” NIV

When are our eyes to see and our ears to hear? Ezekiel’s following words pronounce the judgment.

Ezek 22:30-31 “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

His words in the next passage, I believe, not only identify Samaria and Jerusalem but can identify twin religious daughters of a prostitute: the Catholic and Protestant churches.

Ezek 23:1-4 “The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.” NIV

Ezekiel’s following words are almost pornographic in there description of these two daughters (I will not quote them here), but they aptly envision the church of these modern times. These two daughter were clearly out to change the world by the power of their perverted religion, and cast their vote along what they thought was best for them, but only resulted in bringing judgment on themselves and their followers.

When Christians demand a king to rule over them God will oblige them, then they must eat the fruit of their decision.

Steve Blackwell

puritans in the new world

The Prototype of the Pilgrims/Puritans

Jesus never addressed the idea of the colonization of other nations in any of His teachings. What Jesus spoke a lot about was how Christians were to treat and interact with other people. One of the simplest and most poignant of His commands is the “Golden Rule”, “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you” Matt. 7:12. This is the formula for all men everywhere. How was this command obeyed by the early English settlers? If you had a farm and some transients decide to set-up housekeeping on a part of your unoccupied land, how would you feel, and what would you do? Keep that in mind as you read.

In the founding of America there is no question that religion played a big part. We can debate whether or not the country was founded on Christian principles, and I would join in that debate, but there is no doubt that religious men and ideas were at the core of settling this country and forming the Constitution on which it is governed. With this article we will take a look at whether or not the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth were conscientious followers of Christ, and what other influences prompted their resolves.

For many hundreds of years, since the Reformation, men have debated the roles of faith and works in the areas of salvation and everyday decision making. Does faith translate into Godly action and good works, or does faith stand by itself as a psychological justification for our exploits? We will not debate the question here but we will see the results of two schools of thought played out in the lives of the Pilgrim Fathers and the later Quakers and Anabaptist; the end result being that real faith leads people to obey God’s word and not to mental gymnastics.

It is necessary that we get a picture of the religious landscape that was forming the sentiments of the new settlers coming to America. As I stated in the last article the Protestant Reformation was just beginning to come to a boil. It had been a mere twenty-five years since Columbus, a staunch Catholic, set out to “discover” the new world when Martin Luther, who is widely acknowledged to have started the Reformation, nailed his The Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Saxony in 1517. But, before Luther, as you will recall, the crusade against the Radical Reforming Waldensian people had already taken place. The Albigenses and Waldenses, for several centuries before the Reformation, and the Mennonites in the days of Luther and Calvin, professed a non-resistant doctrine, declared persecution to be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Gospel, and insisted on an entire separation of Church and State. The windows of the Age of Biblical Ignorance were opened, the Dark Ages was approaching its end with the word of Truth now being printed in the vernacular, and the Pope was being challenged on his dogmatic intolerance, sacramental magic, flim-flam dictatorial doctrine, and holy hustles.

The Protestant Reformation was underway, but not everyone was protesting to the same degree or reforming in the same way. If by Protestantism one means moral and religious self-sufficiency (being observed in the Renaissance-man) then the Anabaptist differed from the Pilgrim/Puritans in that they considered themselves totally in-sufficient and depended on the only-sufficiency of trust in the words of Jesus. If to take the New Testament literally is Protestantism, then as opposed to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, the Anabaptists were the real Protestants. The “Protestant Reformation” of Calvin and Luther was more a question of power, order, and submission to the new heirs of Catholic imperialism and not a question of ‘evangelical purity’ or ‘correctness’ that separated the reformers from their persecuted and despised brethren, the Anabaptist. It is true that the orthodox reformers also professed to take the letter of the Scriptures as their guide and also claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But they neither let it guide them straight nor took it as seriously as the Anabaptists; they did not allow themselves to be led by Scripture too far away from the interpretations and ideals of the ruling Protestant princes of Germany, or the military bourgeois in Switzerland; nor did they sever the mystical link of Catholicism completely. They were in fact, all unconsciously no doubt, yet completely and always, the expression of the sober-minded, reasonable, well-balanced national, rising middle-class religionist and Renaissance-man of the sixteenth century.

When we think of the religious liberty enjoyed by Americans today, be informed that it came not from the intolerant Puritan followers of Luther and Calvin, but from the Anabaptists, who procured full religious liberty and church-state separation. Our Pilgrim Fathers, being of the Reformed Puritan mindset, whipped and burned Quakers at the stake, cheated Indians, stole from their houses, amassed weapons, and built forts, not as an act of “faith and trust” in an unseen God, but as a good and reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. Our Anabaptist forefathers played a very important role in America’s democracy with religious liberty for all, but receive none of the credit.

We as a People do not need a Myth to prop us up as a Nation, what we need is the truth. If we can get past all the fabrications: national, scholastic, and religious, we can truly be a Free People who can learn to trust in a real living God who has promised His blessings to the obedient. The Pilgrim Fathers did have many good traits and strengths, that I doubt few would have today in a similar situation. Their faith, although misplaced, was not imaginary; their religious belief undergirded all that they did, but history books have not truthfully recorded what really occurred.

As Americans we like to believe that it is “In God We Trust” and that that attitude started with the Pilgrim Fathers. After Columbus’ debacle of doing everything all-wrong and that the Reformation having now set thing all-right we now have a Nation exemplifying the righteousness of our Godly Founders. The question now has to be asked, to what degree did the Pilgrim Fathers trust God? What does our true history really reveal when compared to the words of Jesus?

What was the General Policy of the English Toward the Indians?

The influence of “Calvinism” during this period of time along with the enrichment of England by the colonization of the New World justified all the rationale concerning the stealing of the land from the Indians in the minds of the Pilgrim Fathers. Native America was never so fortunate in its despicable state of savagery than on the day Sir George Peckham, an English merchant venturer, took it upon himself to explain to all of England how colonization of the Americas would benefit both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously. Peckham promoted his view in his The Adventures of Colonization.”[i] Peckham creates a picture, for those who would venture to the New World, of savages and cannibals. “The Cannibals, being a cruel kind of people whose food is man’s flesh, and have teeth like dogs, and do pursue them with ravenous minds to eat their flesh, and devour them.”

With this conviction he makes a proclamation that would justify the colonizers taking the land and establishing colonies in a land already inhabited by the Indians. “But if after these good and fair means used, the Savages nevertheless will not be herewithall satisfied, but barbarously will go about to practise violence either in repelling the Christians from their Ports and safelandings, or in withstanding them afterwards to enjoy the rights for which both painfully and lawfully they have adventured themselves thither: Then in such a case I hold it no breach of equitie for the Christians to defend themselves, to pursue revenge with force, and to do whatsoever is necessary for the attaining of their safety: For it is allowable by all Laws in such distresses, to resist violence with violence: And for their more security to increase their strength by building of Forts for avoiding the extremity of injurious dealing.”

In this statement, of course, Peckham establishes the idea that the English have a legal right “For it is allowable by all Laws” to travel without restriction to America and to defend themselves by resisting “violence with violence” in any case where the natives engage in attempts to repel the European invasion of their homeland. Pursuing “revenge with force,” then, against any effort the natives take to defend themselves from the invasion, becomes the accepted standard of behavior for Europeans, a standard that was always perceived as perfectly legal and lawful from the invader’s point-of-view, where the natives themselves seemed to have had a different perception of the matter. One wonders, of course, precisely when and how the “good and fair means” of Christians with the natives turned so quickly and absolutely into a need to build “Forts for avoiding the extremity of injurious dealing,” how and why it got to that point in fact before any significant number of Englishmen even left Europe for the New World. Clearly, the idea that the “force of Arms” Peckham advocates for the purpose of defending defenseless natives from their cannibalistic neighbors, who in fact never existed except in the imaginations of the colonizers, was really meant as a necessary means of protecting the invaders from the violent rejection Peckham expected the natives to bring against his recruits for colonization.

John Cotton, the famous Puritan minister, weighs in with a similar argument that Christians have the right to settle in lands belonging to “savages” in his “The Divine Right to Occupy the Land.” “When He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .”[ii]

As a side note, this scenario is still being played out today. On Wednesday morning (January 6, 2016), Paiute tribal chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique stood before scores of people – including many of the 420-member tribe – at a press conference, saying that the Bundys and their gang were encroaching on land considered sacred to the Paiute people. “This land belonged to the Paiute people as wintering grounds long before the first settlers, ranchers and trappers ever arrived here,” Rodrique said, “We haven’t given up our rights to the land. We have protected sites there. We still use the land.” A long time before this incident occurred Teddy Roosevelt displays no lack of contempt for the Native Indian’s rights in his 1896, four volume book, “The Winning of the West.” He admits it was US policy to kill or conquer the Indians and take their land by any means available.

Sitting Bull

The War Inevitable.[iii]

In truth the war was unavoidable. The claims and desires of the two parties were irreconcilable. Treaties and truces were palliatives which did not touch the real underlying trouble. The white settlers were unflinchingly bent on seizing the land over which the Indians roamed but which they did not in any true sense own or occupy. In return the Indians were determined at all costs and hazards to keep the men of chain and compass, and of axe and rifle, and the forest-felling settlers who followed them, out of their vast and lonely hunting-grounds. Nothing but the actual shock of battle could decide the quarrel. The display of overmastering, overwhelming force might have cowed the Indians; but it was not possible for the United States, or for any European power, ever to exert or display such force far beyond the limits of the settled country. In consequence the warlike tribes were not then, and never have been since, quelled save by actual hard fighting, until they were overawed by the settlement of all the neighboring lands.

Nor was there any alternative to these Indian wars. It is idle folly to speak of them as being the fault of the United States Government; and it is even more idle to say that they could have been averted by treaty. Here and there, under exceptional circumstances or when a given tribe was feeble and unwarlike, the whites might gain the ground by a treaty entered into of their own free will by the Indians, without the least duress; but this was not possible with warlike and powerful tribes when once they realized that they were threatened with serious encroachment on their hunting-grounds. . . .No treaty could be satisfactory to the whites, no treaty served the needs of humanity and civilization, unless it gave the land to the Americans as unreservedly as any successful war.

Our Dealings with the Indians.

As a matter of fact, the lands we have won from the Indians have been won as much by treaty as by war; but it was almost always war, or else the menace and possibility of war, that secured the treaty.

“Might Makes Right” is a saying that is not only descriptive but prescriptive. Whether it is the might of physique, wealth, intelligence, national strength, conscious or unconscious matters not at all. For the English, pursuing land in the New World, it was nothing else than the prescription of a proud people to lay hold of something they felt they needed and deserved, but belonged to someone else. Stealing from their neighbor across the road was wrong, but stealing from an indigenous people in another world didn’t carry the same force of meaning or consequences. Although “Manifest Destiny” was not a term in use at the time of the Pilgrims, the idea was alive and well and provided all the authority of Heaven to proceed with a clean conscience. English Christians felt that they had the right to come to America and settle on any land that appeared to be vacant. If the Indians objected, which they would of course, then they were justified in annihilating them. This is what the English Christians were saying in more pleasant words, and later, brazenly by Teddy Roosevelt, and today, matter-of-factly by the U.S. Government and the Oregon militia squatting on Paiute Indian land. This attitude is as old as sin itself, and as old as the justification of that same sin, and Christians are not exempt. Sir George Peckham, John Cotton, the Jamestown settlers, the Pilgrims, and the Puritans all implemented the policies described by Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies guaranteed that the settlers and the Indians would not be able to co-exist in peace. Because of this policy one side or the other had to give in, and “Might” made the difference. The end result of this policy was no different than the results of the “Crusades,” genocide.

At the beginning of this article I said we would compare two schools of thought played out in the lives of the Pilgrim Fathers and the later Quakers and Anabaptist, but due to length I am going to cover the thought process of the Quakers and Anabaptist in the next article.

[i] George Peckham, The Advantage of Colonization, 1592, http://reocities.com/athens/delphi/9976/02peckham.html

[ii] http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/faculty/pcatapano/IMM/IMMdocs/cotton_lectures.html

[iii] Teddy Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, vol. II 1889-1896


Discovering Columbus


In Ted Morgan’s book, Wilderness At Dawn, The Settling of the North American Continent, he places this picture from the Elizabeth Waldo-Dentzel Collection, by Joshua Shaw called, The Coming of the White Man.

“A ship appears on the horizon line, with the sun rising behind it, while in the foreground four Indians on a bluff are seen in various attitudes of terror. One is sitting bent over with his arms over his head, one is shielding his face with his arm, and one is carrying a hatchet as if already knowing he is going to have to defend himself against an invader. Below, on the shore, an Indian skiff has landed and one of the Indians is already out of it, running like hell. They know that nothing good is going to come of this.”

One hundred and fifty years before the settling of Jamestown Columbus sets out on his first voyage. There are another 169 years between Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence, and 239 years from the Declaration of Independence to the present. There is 523 years that separates us from the adventures of Columbus. Has anything changed? No, not really.

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jer. 17:9. It is truth that sets us free. Columbus had a wicked heart, and so does the writers of history books. It was a lie that initiated the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and it is the lie that binds our hearts captive today; yet truth is the key that unlocks the door of the cell that holds us tight. All of our forefathers were men whose hearts were malignant and corrupt who we want to believe were honest and upright; and publishers feed this desire, because it is profitable. Wicked men, writing about evil men, for immoral purposes; this is the true history of the world and America. In hind-sight we now see that that little cloud on the horizon is a terrible storm, and it is headed our direction.

“Forewarned is forearmed.”

Looking from atop the twenty-first century we can see that there has been “nothing good” that has come from the lies generated by history book authors; they were all self-serving. Today after 523 years many people are becoming aware of the disgrace affected by Columbus and are demanding the removal of Columbus and his “Day” as a recognized memorial to this man and his “true” deeds. But who was Christopher Columbus and what were his deeds?

Columbus is given credit for the discovery of America, but is that true?

Although he won the support for his adventure from the Spanish King and Queen he was not Spanish, he was Italian from the city of Genova, and was rejected by Italy, Portugal, and England. The general story line is that Columbus was out to prove that the world was round and to find an alternate trade route to the West Indies, but inadvertently landed in America. This is not completely true because first of all it was practical knowledge at that time that the world was round: it looked round, it cast a round circle onto the moon, and ships gradually disappeared over the horizon; Columbus had no uncertainties on this subject. Secondly, as far as going to West Indies, that is speculation; there is no absolute certainty where he wanted to go. Some evidence indicates that he did want to find “new” lands to the west, because “India was known for its great wealth,” Las Casa points out, it was in Columbus’ interest, “to induce the monarchs, always doubtful about his enterprise, to believe him when he said he was setting out in search of a western route to India.”[i] Thirdly, after two months Columbus landed on a small island in the Bahamas that he named San Salvador. It is a known fact that Columbus was an excellent navigator and that he had purposely held back information concerning the length of the voyage and certain other navigational particulars that others later questioned.

It is a foregone conclusion that Columbus did not discover a new world but rather an old world that had already flowered and was in decline. Even the word “discovery” is incorrect in the sense that what he did was not a discovery but more like an incursion or annexation. Wherever Columbus landed the first thing he did was to declare the land a possession of the King and Queen, and the greatest pleasure he received was not a sense of new discovery but the, “gold they (the inhabitants) wear hanging from their noses.” Columbus would later write a letter to Lord Raphael Sanchez, treasurer of Aragon and one of his supporters, dated March 14, 1493, stating his initial impression of the people;

“As soon … as they see that they are safe and have laid aside all fear, they are very simple and honest and exceedingly liberal with all they have; none of them refusing anything he may possess when he is asked for it, but, on the contrary, inviting us to ask them. They exhibit great love toward all others in preference to themselves. They also give objects of great value for trifles, and content themselves with very little or nothing in return … I did not find, as some of us had expected, any cannibals among them, but, on the contrary, men of great deference and kindness….”

But, on a menacing note, Columbus writes in his log, “Should your Majesties command it, all the inhabitants could be taken away to Castile [Spain], or made slaves on the island. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

From there he sailed southwest to Cuba and eventually arrived at the eastern shores of South America, but Columbus did not discover North America nor did he ever set foot on it. What he found was a bunch of Caribbean islands and bits of shoreline in South America. It is obvious that the story has been dramatized for the sake of interest and salability, and anything disgusting removed or minimized.


Death as a Mindset

Now we move on to the attitude toward death, which plays an important part of the history of Columbus, but diminished or neglected by most school texts. The way the inhabitants were treated is the most appalling aspect of the whole discovery story, and again played down for the sake of our hero.

The reader must keep in mind at this point the mentality of the people during this time in history, they were accustomed to disease and death and the ever present struggle to survive. They were at the tail end of the “Dark Ages” (300 – 1500), a thousand years of ignorance instituted by the Catholic Church who acted as their feudal lord and ruler. The crusades, initiated by the “Church” to stop the advance of the marauding Muslims, which endured for over 4oo years beginning in 1054, reinforced the association between Catholicism, feudalism, and militarism, which ideas are directly counter to true Christian notions of peace, mercy, freedom, and forgiveness, instituted by Jesus Christ. In April 1487, Pope Innocent VIII called for a crusade even against the non-resistant and harmless Christian Waldensian People of Italy, the precursors of the looming Reformation, who were mercilessly slaughtered for reading the Bible and obeying it, which so irritated the pope.

Death and war were not as sanitary as they are today where large numbers of people are killed without ever seeing their faces. Death was up close and personal then, and the unrelenting carnage of hunting down and killing infidels and heretics of the “Church,” hardened the consciences of adventurous soldiers of fortune who understood nothing of mercy, love, and forgiveness, even though they were called “Christian.”

During this time men had a warped sense of destiny instilled by the Church. Their destiny was tied up with the fear of judgment, and that judgment rested with the pope and his executioners, and not God. Salvation came as a matter of degrees to be earned and those degrees were in direct proportion to obedience to the Vicar (in the place of) of Christ. So, in essence the crusader whose duty it was to destroy infidels and heretics could do no better than to destroy many infidels and heretics. It was a twisted mindset of the cosmic struggle between good and evil, and everything outside the Catholic Church was evil. Of course these all professed to love the ones they killed, in accordance with the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas, otherwise they too would be judged. “Death, so omnipresent in the past that it was familiar, would be effaced, would disappear. It would become shameful and forbidden,”[ii] in our own day. What we are witnessing today, with the senseless murders of innocent people by terrorist, is no different than what Catholics were doing then, only in the name of a different god. It wasn’t enough to simply kill a person, suffering was equally important, because they needed to be converted to the “Church” and suffering would elicit the necessary response; it was Christian terrorism, instilling a “fear” which Christ had come to remove.

Human Relations

War has consequences, not least of which is debt and loss of manpower. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, having married, joined their military forces to ward off the incursions of the Mohammedans. To restock their coffers after driving out the Moslems, the bold proposal of Columbus sounded better than the same offer would have sounded just a few years before; now resources were needed and the answer appeared to lay in the Eastern nations written about by Marco Polo. The slave trade was an up and coming enterprise also, which could not be overlooked as a side benefit of a Columbus venture.

Christopher Columbus familiarized the modern world with two events: the plundering of land, wealth, and labor from the indigenous peoples, which led to their extermination, and the growing slave trade which reinforced a division of race in European minds of the White Man, as different from the rest of humanity.

At San Salvador, Columbus’ first “discovery,” he took up to twenty-five of the indigenous people prisoner and held them in cages to be taken back to Spain, of which only seven survived. Columbus called these people Los Indios and labeled them uncivilized and deficient. Therefore, in his mind it was alright to exploit them, imprison them, and take them back to Spain as slaves. The abortion industry has done the same thing in the minds of people today with the misrepresentation of the human fetus as something “sub-human.”

Continuing southwest the flagship Santa Maria run aground on Hispaniola (modern day Haiti and Dominican Republic) presenting a problem, but also finding what he was looking for, gold. With the loss of the main ship only the two smaller boats were able to make the return trip to Spain, so thirty men volunteered to remain behind. Columbus had made no secret of his desire for gold, and the volunteers may have concluded that to remain would allow them to build their own fortunes in advance of the others. The initial friendly reception of the Indians had changed by the time Columbus returned and he found that all thirty men were dead. They had been overcome by the larger number of Indians who had grown unreceptive to the men’s lust, greed, and forceful tactics, so they killed them. An engraving by Theodorus de Bry (1528 – 27 March 1598) depicts the Islanders pouring gold into the mouths of the men who remained behind. It also shows the cannibalism that Columbus states that he never witnessed. So, both the pouring of gold and the cannibalism are conjecture, but it is known for sure that the men were gone when he returned.


Columbus’ next visit lasted two and one half years. Sailing on north, seventy-five miles past San Salvador, he founded the town of La Isabela; here Columbus switched roles from successful navigator to dictatorial island governor. Bringing the Indians into slavery he began demanding a steady tribute of gold and instituted a system of forced labor to grow crops and to mine more gold. To instill fear and nonviolent behavior from his subjects he took five hundred natives prisoner, sending them to Spain to be sold as slaves. Indians who began to commit faults were made examples to the others by cutting off their ears and noses then sent back to their villages. During this period the population dwindled and other islands were raided and slaves brought back to make up the shortage of manpower. After a while the villagers began to fight back, but to no avail. Abandoning their homes they fled to the mountains to escape. With this rebellion Columbus had an excuse for open war. On March 24, 1495 Columbus set out to conquer the Arawak people of the island. Bartolome de Las Casa described the force Columbus assembled to put down the rebellion. “Since the Admiral perceived that daily the people of the land were taking up arms, ridiculous weapons in reality . . . he hastened to proceed to the country and dispose and subdue, by force of arms, the people of the entire island . . . For this he chose 200 foot soldiers and 20 cavalry, with many crossbows and small canon, lances, and swords, and a still more terrible weapon against the Indians, in addition to the horses: this was 20 hunting dogs, who were turned loose and immediately tore the Indians apart.”[iii] “The soldiers mowed down dozens with point-blank volleys, loosed the dogs to rip open limbs and bellies, chased fleeing Indians into the bush to skewer them on sword and pike, and ‘with God’s aid soon gained a complete victory, killing many Indians and capturing others who were also killed.’”[iv]

The killing never let up, now all remaining were rounded-up and sent to Spain as slaves, many dying en-route or killed for sport and used as dog food. Columbus viewed the death rate optimistically: “Although they die now, they will not always die. The Negros and Canary Islanders died at first.”[v] Within fifty years Hispaniola of Columbus’ first voyage, the once friendly and generous people had been totally exterminated.

Some will reject the word “slavery” used above because it was not used at the time, but rather a system called “encomienda.” In the encomienda, the Spanish crown granted a person a specified number of natives of a specific community, with the indigenous leaders in charge of mobilizing the assessed tribute and labor. In turn, encomenderos were to take responsibility for instruction in the Christian faith, protection from warring tribes and pirates, instruction in the Spanish language and development and maintenance of infrastructure. Encomienda sounds so humane, but was just another word for slavery. “As a result of the sufferings and hard labor they endured (under encomienda), the Indians choose and have chosen suicide. The women, exhausted by labor, have shunned conception and childbirth . . . Many, when pregnant, have taken something to abort and have aborted. Others after delivery have killed their children with their own hands, so as not to leave them in such oppressive slavery.”[vi]

All of these gruesome facts, and more, are available in primary source material – letter by Columbus and by other members of his expeditions – and in the work of Las Casas, the first historian of the Americas.


Christopher Columbus was no hero, yet the public schools, and homeschool associations propagate his myth. There can be no reason outside the idea that someone feels it is improper or counter-productive for American children to know the truth about their history. These people who think this, are the enemy of truth, and may feel as Columbus felt toward the “Savages,” that they simply are not worthy of anything else; that people need only know what the elite, powerful, or intellectuals consider worthy.

The Discovery of Columbus has been fascinating for me; I hope it is for you also. These studies are not meant to be detailed and all inclusive, but only to highlight some areas which are presently missing in education; and, hopefully to encourage investigation and some oversight of what is being passed off as the truth of American history.

Next we will go to the Pilgrims and the Puritans;  stay tuned.

[i] Las Casa, History of the Indies, 21.

[ii] Philippe-Aries, Western Attitudes Toward Death, 85.

[iii] Quoted in Michael Paiewonsky, The Conquest of Eden, 1493-1515.

[iv] Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise, 153-54.

[v] 1496 letter, quoted in Eric Williams, Documents of West Indian History (Port of Spain, Trinidad: PNM, 1963), 1:57.

[vi] De Cordoba letter in Williams, Documents of West Indian History, 1:94.

Are people who talk and write about history necessarily history scholars? No! Just because a person is new to the investigation of American history doesn’t mean that they cannot share what they have discovered. What they don’t know about American history does not negate or discredit what they do know. If I discover a buried treasure of valuable coins, the coins would not be less valuable because I am not a professional treasure hunter. Most people are reluctant to share valuable information because they feel they will be discredited due to their lack of vast subject knowledge. Most likely they are wrong, if what they have discovered has credit in its own right and is truly valuable.

I do not hesitate to share what I have discovered although I am a “learner” and not a teacher. My Christian education has helped a lot in this respect. At first, many years ago now, I was always surprised to find that many false accounts existed in every part of life: Bible commentaries, newspaper articles, the six-o’clock news with Brian Williams, the lives of famous and respected religious leaders: Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swagger, Yogi Amrit Desai, a.k.a. Gurudev, and a long list of Catholic Priest. There is no area that is untouched by deception, delusion, and outright fraud. What I learned, and learned well, is that everything must be questioned. Many times what is not being said is more important than what is said. The reader of history books and the listeners of sermons should always ask questions, “Why are these ideas being mentioned?” or “What other information is relevant about this person, event, or subject?” or “Why is this important?” We should not be surprised that so much is omitted from history books. What should surprise us is that so few people question the books, or even care. As a Christian I learned that it is a fact that evil persist in this world, and that there is a presence in every individual that has an affinity for evil. This evil is generally expressed as lies and embellishments, because this Evil has a name and he is the Father of all lies, Satan, The Great Deceiver. So, when I find these lies in Public School history books, I am not surprised, it is expected, even in their counterpart, Christian homeschool history books.

American history is one of those things where there is a multitude of buried treasure which has been covered over by the misinformation and outright lies of textbook publishers and their authors. For example, one hunter of buried historical treasure revealed this little gem about Helen Keller. Nearly everyone knows the story of her early life and circumstance. She is taught as an ideal, and not as real person, but as an inspiration to the young, to overcome every obstacle; and that is true, she did overcome great odds, but there is more to her story, or as Paul Harvey used to say, “Now for the rest of the story.” In the second volume of her 1929 autobiography, Midstream, at an age approaching fifty she stressed that she did not want to be frozen in childhood. She said that the meaning of her life lay in what she did after she had overcome her difficulties. In that book she stressed her social philosophy, which she wanted everyone to know about. While she was a very hard working individual herself, she rejected the hard labor of the union mill towns, mining towns, and packing towns she visited. In her own words:

“I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate – that we could mould our lives into any form we pleased. . . . I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into life’s struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly to the advantages of my birth and environment. . . . Now, however, I learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.[i]

These are terrible and honest words that the textbooks leave out (at least the ones I own). The idea of equal opportunity does not show up in these words of Helen Keller although they inform us as to who this person was and what shaped her social outlook. The idea that there may be no “power to rise in the world,” is forbidden text and territory in the Land of Promise where weakness is forbidden. But, there is more, Helen Keller was controversial in another way. She was a – Socialist – at the same time that she was one of the most renowned women on the planet, and Socialism was dishonorable and shameful, especially so during the Woodrow Wilson era (there’s another subject for questioning). Enthroned as the queen of overcoming all obstacles, enshrined for all the little children to see, and then, she is forgotten, disappearing from the stage, Why? She had no doubt fallen prey to her handlers and her limitations had skewed her senses, were the reasons given for her fall from grace; but Helen, in her bold manner, accused her accusers of being socially blind and deaf, “defending an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much physical blindness and deafness” that she was trying to prevent.[ii]

Men, like nature, generally take the path of least resistance, so when conflicts arise we look for the easy path, and Helen Keller as a card carrying Socialist does not go down well with those who are accustomed to a bland Nationalistic diet. But, this is what Helen Keller wanted to be remembered for. I am not saying I agree with her, I am only saying it is the truth, and that it is hidden from our children by those who want to program our national conscience. History is contingent on what went before us and our children should know those contingencies. The Disneyland approach to American history should be left in fantasyland and not in the schoolhouse. What will hurt us more, the truth or the lie?

Helen Keller has given us a great gift, even if she was a Socialist, which should constantly remind us of the wonder of the world around us and how much we owe to those who have taught us what it means, but she was a Socialist, who sang the praises of the new communist nation that sprang up after the Russian Revolution:

“In the East a new star is risen! With pain and anguish the old order has given birth to the new, and behold in the East a man-child is born! Onward, comrades, all together! Onward to the campfires of Russia! Onward to the coming dawn!”[iii]

Is this the Helen Keller we learned about in grade school? No! She has been sanitized for the young and the simple; she has been cleansed of all negativity against the positive message of perseverance against all odds. You don’t have to agree with Helen Keller, but you do have to know the truth.

The story of Helen Keller is just one example of the details that we have missed in our American education system. Is it important? Only if truth is important. Is it harmful? It’s red pill versus blue pill for those who have seen The Matrix. Difficult reality or a beautiful fiction: Which do you choose to live in? Most people shudder at the idea of living a lie, even if it is a pleasant one. Yes, the truth may sometimes hurt or confuse, but rarely do we learn something that we eventually wish we could unlearn. It is really those who control the matrix, the social scientist, who want us to remain in the dark. I don’t want to promote conspiracy theories, but there does appear to be good reason to believe that social propaganda is not something that is just being used to twist the minds of our enemies. Any good social engineer or marketing guru knows about Hegelian Dialectics to manage and motivate people to achieve certain goals, and history is only one part of that formula.

I said that we would start with the founders, I was mistaken. We will investigate the founders on our next installment.

[i] Helen Keller, Midstream: My later Life (New York: Greenwood, 1968 [1929]), 156.

[ii] Forner, ed., Hellen Keller: Her Socialist Years, 26.

[iii] Hellen Keller, “Onward, Comrades,” address at the Rand School of Social Science New Year’s Eve Celebration, New York, December 31, 1920.


American history books are full of facts that should both thrill and sadden the hearts of anyone who hungers for truth. Unfortunately the history books used by the public school system and also the majority of homeschool associations do not include facts based on truth. Most of these books paint simplistic pictures of brave heroic figures that provide feel-good history that are not truthful, and honestly, quite boring.

When it comes to Christian homeschooling truth should be paramount in the selection of what our children are learning, but it isn’t. What our children learn about their nation and its founding is only the regurgitated myths passed down over many years to propagate an embellished and overstated storyline. All the stories we read in the textbooks are anticipated; every difficulty has already been resolved or is about to be resolved. They avoid controversy and conflicts of interest which real history is full of. They leave out anything that might reflect poorly on national conscience and character. Any drama that is added ends in exaggeration, because we know that everything always turns out for the good of America. Despite setbacks the United States is depicted as overcoming all challenges; this is the American mindset fostered and fed by what is falsely called American history. If the words of Jesus have any bearing on American history, regarding knowing the truth, then we are doomed to be prisoners: John 8:31-33

“So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free ‘?”

James Baldwin (August 2, 1924 – December 1, 1987) was an African American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic who made a very informed statement concerning American history.

“American history is longer, larger, more various, more beautiful, and more terrible than anything anyone has ever said about it.”

What James meant, is the reason for this article. The present, not being a source of information for the writers of history books, is the consequence of having to repeat the past. You see, we don’t learn from history because we are never taught true history. Blacks and Indians don’t like American history because they know it is a lie to prop-up an idol, to which every American child is force to bow. World history is primarily a history of shame that every culture goes to great lengths to re-tell, and America is no different. Christian American history books repeat the same myths and instill the same false patriotic blend of hero-worship and national pride as do all the others, only they prefix theirs as the truth, by emphasizing a providential source and outcome. Until Christians are enabled to demand truth they will not understand what James meant or how to live really free lives. Likewise, Christians don’t understand why Indians scorn the celebration of Columbus, when they have been spoon fed the myths of his great [sic] adventures. The perceived need to promote Nationalism is one of the main reasons our children do not get taught true history. The desire to encourage honest inquiry is downplayed by the “duty” to indoctrinate patriotism. Consequently most of what needs to be known about American history is tossed out by the teachers and the text books, and the old saying lives on: “Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”

There have been valiant attempts at correcting the problem by outsiders criticizing high school history books, like Frances FitzGerald’s America Revised: History School-Books in the Twentieth Century, A book about the way the American History non-college textbooks have changed since the late 1800s. In 1979, when her book was a best seller, she made the prediction that, “Text publishers may now be on the verge of rewriting history.” Her prediction did not materialize, even amongst Christians, who should have welcomed it. She recognized the problem and attempted to address it without putting on the required blinders to truth, or allegiances to banners, as do the popular publishers, so the darkness prevails.

The major problem with text book producers is that they are largely clones of former works. Anyone who would query the primary sources – deeds, diaries, directories, speeches, songs, photographs, articles, letters – of which there is a mountain of material, would conclude, as I do, that a great fraud has been forced upon our youth, and their teachers have become complicit, albeit through ignorance.

A secondary problem is “tradition.” Tradition has not only become a problem with our Christian heritage e.g. the Catholic Church’s placement of their tradition above the Word of God, but also with our National heritage; research and truth become subordinate factors to the cherished American myth. Recent research and exposes, by those who choose to color outside the lines of the status-quo, are mostly dismissed as too radical or heretical.

For the Christian teacher or parent – truth – should be the driving force, because it is truth that “sets us free.” Complacency is the enemy of truth, whether it is in our study of Scripture and its history, or in our study of the history of the world and the nation of our pilgrimage. Homeschool teachers believe that simply because they are in a “Christian” environment that this somehow inoculates their students to the world, when in actuality the world has crept into their homes and associations like yeast infiltrating and corrupting dough. Christianity and American history have both suffered along the same lines of complacency, and the consequences are the same: ignorance and stupidity, and neither are acceptable qualities.

The myth is so engrained that to teach the truth will no doubt place the teacher at odds with the majority of Americans who not only love their National lies but will die to preserve them. This is scary indeed considering the Apostle Paul’s message to Timothy that those who live righteously, justly, and truthfully, will suffer persecution. Consequently, the price for truth may be too high for most to pay, so the myth is elevated to the position of truth, and none object.

The first Christians were defenders of the truth, not myth and fantasy. They spoke and wrote on the basis of solid evidence. Peter wrote:

“We didn’t follow any clever myths when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and His coming. No. With our own eyes we saw His majesty. God the Father gave Him honor and glory when from His wonderful glory He said to Him: “This is My son whom I love and with whom I am delighted.” We heard that voice speak to Him from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.”

“And we have a more sure word of prophecy. Please look to it as a light shining in a gloomy place till the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Understand this first, that no one can explain any written Word of God as he likes, because it never was the will of a human being that brought us God’s Word, but the Holy Spirit moved holy men to say what God told them.”

Is it only concerning the Bible that Christians are supposed to demand truthfulness, or is it in every aspect of life? I believe that Christians feel some vested interest in propping-up the National myths. Even though the New Testament declares that Believers are strangers in this world with their citizenship in another country, they feel an attachment to their world and nation and an allegiance that is not Biblical. Many of them know what the Bible says in this respect and they are quite sure that it doesn’t mean that they can’t participate in this world as if it was their home. By wearing the blinders concerning American history they have blinded themselves from Biblical truth as well.

There is a movement abreast to throw off the chains that bind people to historical falsehood, but I am sure that it will not succeed in this age of darkness, because the ruler of this world is the Father of lies and his world is the world of darkness and deception. Any attempt to bring truth and light into this world will be met with persecution; that is the law of darkness. But, nonetheless, Christians are commanded to be a light in this world and to expose lies wherever they appear, whether in the Bible or in our history; a lie is a lie and it cannot tolerate the light of truth.

In the next series of articles I am going to light-up a few myths that are national favorites of all Americans, including Christians, starting with the discovery of the Americas. I can guarantee you it will not be the boring stuff you received in American History class.

Stay tuned,

Steve Blackwell


Christ’s example to us is richly illustrated, demonstrated, and exemplified by way of His many teachings and in His genius and spirit. He could have easily commanded armies and defeated every corrupt ruler and coercive power on earth, if it pleased Him. But He did not avail himself of such power. Christ yielded Himself, as a submissive and harmless lamb. But, it may be said, and said correctly, that Christ occupied a very peculiar position; that no human being ever was, or ever could be in His position and situation. Jesus was giving Himself in exchange and as a ransom, for all mankind. But, while this is absolutely true, we are likewise told by one of His apostles that, by the very act of His suffering and sacrifice for the human race, He left us a model and example to follow and a path in which to walk. Therefore, all confusion of how we should respond is taken away by that single expression of His life.
So, where does popular “Christianity” get this idea that they can act contrary to Christ and still claim to be His followers? Where do they get all their fearless and bold machismo, from the Spirit? Let the world broadcast some drama being played out on its stage and every Christian begins to act as if they are of the world. Today every Christian is told to be ready to kill, but they will not find in the life of Christ where that approval is given. Christ the Lamb of God and His children doves; these two things are diametrically opposed to the modern sermons spewing forth from faithless pastors and their unbelieving disciples. Where are Christ’s witnesses who will stand in the gap and proclaim TRUTH in the face of violence and persecution?

Isaiah has well said,

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”


Christians wake-up! We are in the midst of the test of a lifetime and we are failing miserably.

“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”

“See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness.”

From these verses the conclusion can be drawn that there are those who believing they have light are really in deep darkness. How great is that darkness when men are self-assured, who read their Bibles then do as they please, when pastors heap praise on those who kill and their sheep follow suit, when Christ loving men stockpile the weapons of war and fear for their lives. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual. Our warfare is not of this world!
Christ is our example; follow Him, not the world.

1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.


Christians today look at the practice of Christians in times past as proof that war and vengeance is compatible with the Spirit of Christ. Even one of the immediate followers of our Savior, whose eyes had rested upon His harmless face, whose ears had received the flood of His pleasant voice, requested permission to call down fire and death to destroy his Master’s enemies. “He knew not,” said Jesus, “what spirit he was of.” The current practice of professing Christians today cannot be relied upon as a proof of what is right and honorable. By their example ignorant followers of men would pull the white robe of righteousness over all the errors, crimes, and corruptions of a now crippled Christendom. The standard of the Cross has hung heavily, blood-soaked, over pillage, plunder, and violence, in every corner of the world, making the name of Jesus a by-word and a reproach to the unbeliever and heathen. Please, my “Christian” friends do not broadcast the glory of your cruel allegiance as a defense of your passion for patriotism and war, it does not resonate with love and truth; it does not represent Christ

“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his fellowman is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us (His enemies). And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” 1 John 3:14-16

The behavior and character upon which Christ pronounced His sincere blessings, i.e. The Beatitudes, in Matthew 5, are exceedingly remarkable. They are these:

1. Poor in spirit,

2. Sorrow and mourning,

3. Humility or meekness,

4. Hungering and thirsting for righteousness,

5. Mercy,

6. Pureness of heart,

7. Peacemaking, and

8. Persecution for righteousness sake.

Now, let the Christian try whether he can suggest eight qualities that stand in a more obvious contrast with anger, war, vengeance, hate, self-protection, law enforcement, or military action than those mentioned above. It is clear that Christ was here differentiating His followers from the world.

Christ has shown the qualities and characteristics of the person who would follow Him, and He lived that life as our example. Somehow all of these eight things are in striking contrast to the Christian who demands his rights to “peace” through police, armies, guns, and self-defense, instead of trust in the Prince of Peace.

Christians have misunderstood Christ and what it means to be a follower of the meek and lowly Savior. I have yet to meet anyone who can defend a contrary position without repeatedly going back to the Old Testament. The abundance of New Testament Scriptures declaring a new and different kind of life for believers, living under a new Kingdom code of conduct are plain and simple, but also ignored in favor of the flesh. There isn’t one in a hundred Christians who will even investigate the matter; the flesh will trump the truth almost always, and not even miss a heartbeat or feel his conscience stricken.

There are so many lies floating around today, and with patriotism at a fever pitch, none will give up his supposed right to protection of life and limb; yet Jesus says follow me, and follows up these characteristics with six commands that override the Old Testament:

1. Do not be angry,

2. Do not lust in your heart,

3. Do not divorce,

4. Do not swear,

5. Do not resist an evil person, and

6. Love your enemies

Where in all of this are we given permission to provide for our own personal safety? the Christian must deny Christ to carry a weapon, to join a police force, or to be a soldier. A Christian who does these things can be said to follow Christ in word, but not in deed. No permission is given!

Christianity is represented as something that is difficult, that takes all of our effort and concentration, and that only a few will succeed amongst the many who try. The Bible says that we are to Strive to enter in,” and that “Many will seek to enter in, but will not be able.” The reason for so many failures will be to the weakness of the flesh to grasp the utter dissimilarity between the world’s ways and the ways of God’s Kingdom. Kingdom life is totally contrary to everything we have seen with our eyes, felt in our bones, reasoned with our brain, or been taught by the Church. We pray with our mouth, “On earth as it is in Heaven,” then live a life that is contrary to the words we speak and the things we say we believe. We swear oaths to kill if commanded; we sit in judgment of our brothers, and condemn, when called to jury duty; we pledge allegiance to a flag and a kingdom other than God’s kingdom, after being told that we cannot serve two kings; we enter into the politics of this world as if we were not a citizen of another country and attempt to do for that government what God alone can do. When our heart is in the world and the doings of that world, then we can surely expect to fail at following the Lord; He, Himself said it cannot be done, yet many seek to do it, but they do not strive to enter in.

And, all of this is not even to mention “shedding all the (other) weights that so easily beset us.” The Church today is rightly called a seeker Church; too bad it is not called a striving Church. The striving Church is that Church of which Christ was happy, and blessed with those wonderful words in Matthew.

In sincerest honesty, where is that Church?

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner