The Pretense of the Two Party System

In the following video David Icke does a good job of explaining the reason that the political system seems never to change course. The explanation is essentially complete within the first 5 minutes, so you may want to stop at that point when it turns into a music video. I don’t endorse David Icke, but he does make valid points that are worth hearing.



I’ve made some clips from a segment of this video where the “president” declares who is signing the executive orders.



Who is signing? Whose executive order is this? Who has actually planned and worked this?



This is not limited to the political arena. It is also displayed in the direction observed in the various church bodies. Lay people cry out wondering why they cannot reverse the wayward trends in their church bodies. The same sort of false dichotomy is active in church body politics. The leaders pretend to have opposing agendas, usually a liberal and a conservative agenda juxtaposed to one another. But in reality both sides enact that same things when they are “in power.”

The people cling to their church body because they are afraid to cut the apron strings from Momma, even though Momma has prostituted herself to the point of degrading beyond any recognizable likeness to her former self. And so they are edged little by little to the precipice.

+ + +

Change?

As I remember things, McDonald's had an advertisement in the past where they emphasized that they would give us change. Give them a dollar and they would give us change.

It occurred to me this evening, that this is what Obama really meant in his campaign mantra. He (and the FED and Congress) would take our dollars and give us mere change. At least McDonald's gave us greasy food and sugar with our change.

Of course, Obama and Company have given us other change, too. We now have sky-rocketing prices on almost everything, beginning with the price of fuel, extending to every other form of necessary goods and services. With this the national debt has grown to incalculable figures. McDonald's gave us change and fat bodies. The governmental leaders and bankers have given us fat government and banking institutions.

Then, also, where we once had at least the illusion of privacy, now the government and the bankers and the corporations know more about us than we do. While that may not be a change, the fact that we now are aware that they know more about us than we do is a change.

While I thought of this as a humorous thought to share when I first pondered it, having written it, I'm not laughing. I'm not even amused.

I guess I had better pull out the catechism and the hymnal and hear something to lift my spirit again.

+ + +

What Would You Change?

My brother, who has endured some terrible hardships in his life, who is aware of many of the hardships that I have faced in my life, who is aware of many of the persecutions from within the church bodies to which we belonged, asked me recently whether I would change anything if I had my life to live over.

I began with a sin that had a big impact upon my life.

He wondered whether I would choose to use more honey and less vinegar in dealing with people. He expressed that he thought that this was perhaps something that he would choose.

I said that I would not.

I expressed that especially in the pastoral ministry I had learned that it is wrong to try to sweeten the truth beyond the sweetness of what the truth proclaims in the Gospel. I shared that I learned that no matter how a pastor tries to sweeten the truth, especially regarding the preaching of the Law of God, that it ends up having the same effect. If the truth is preached, even with sugar coating, if it really is preached, it will be rejected by those who do not want to hear it. The sugar coating makes no difference.

My response was that I would use less honey and let the Word be heard without any compromise. In my earlier years as a pastor I did make what I considered to be some very minor compromises to try to make the truth more palatable. I tried to soften the impact that it would have. I learned very quickly that people see through the coating and realize that what is being preached is going to change everything.

Such is the power of the Word. Even when a pastor chooses the way of hypocrisy, even when a pastor chooses to elevate himself above the Word so as to try to do the Holy Spirit’s work, if the Word is actually preached, if the doctrine is actually held forward, the response will be exactly the same with or without the sugar coating. Those who have ears to hear will rejoice to hear it and will be drawn to the Word. Those who do not have ears to hear will recoil and rebel.

I could have saved myself and the first congregation that I served some time if I had been less patronizing. The spilt that occurred may actually have been smaller if I had acted more like a bull in a china shop. But only God really knows.

It is interesting to ponder the first sermon that was preached after the ascension of the Lord Jesus to heaven. On Pentecost St. Peter certainly did not sugar coat the preaching that he proclaimed. The result was amazing. Those who were unwilling to hear mocked the Gospel openly and went their way. Those who heard the Gospel with glad hearts were baptized and carried the Gospel to many parts of the world.

The preaching of the apostles left no possibility for divisions in the Church. Individual opinion, that is, Heresy, was crushed by forthright preaching of the Truth. Those who insisted on pressing their own opinions, that is, heresies, were counted as unbelievers. The apostles did not allow any talk of percentages of unity. They preached that there is one body and that people were either incorporated fully into this body by the work of the Holy Spirit, or they were not of the body.

And God multiplied their numbers mightily.







- - - - -

G141

αιʽρετικός

aihretikos

Thayer Definition:
1) fitted or able to take or choose a thing
2) schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine
3) heretic
Part of Speech: adjective

From:
G140

αιʽρετ́ιζω

aihretizo

Thayer Definition:

1) to choose
2) to belong to a sect

Part of Speech: verb

The Final Week

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams


One more week to throw a stone or an angry word at the candidate who is worse than your own! Time is running out!

What a different way from what led to the founding of this nation! What a different way from what led to the very careful and arduous writing of our Declaration of Independence and the follow-up document known as our Constitution!

Yet it seems that the general populace was not that much different than today's populace. Otherwise, why would John Quincy Adams have written what is quoted above?

Apparently, the notion that a vote for a principle that is deemed by many as unobtainable and beyond hope for winning the day is a wasted vote may not be a new notion at all. Apparently those who fought for liberty and justice for all faced the same pessimism in their day as we face today. Apparently what they accomplished was accomplished through faith in what was declared to be impossible and hopeless. Apparently their ideals were counted by many as too high to be realistic and their candidates were counted as too far on the fringe to be electable.

So how on earth did they accomplish these things and win the day?

Apparently it was not by being compromising in their actions! Apparently it was not by settling for the lesser of two evils! Apparently they were unwilling to vote for a candidate on the basis of the rationale: "At least he's not the other guy!" or "He's for hope and change!"

It seems that those who accomplished the great things of the past had rock solid principles that they were willing to fight for, even beyond sacrificing their own lives, but also their fortunes and families.

But these heroes did not choose these principles for themselves. They had a basis for these principles. They declared this basis in their Declaration of Independence and debated from this basis in the Constitutional Convention.

Could that be what is missing today? Could it be that the willingness to tolerate compromise, even the eagerness to embrace compromise, found in the churches in our age, could be the cause of the willingness to settle for so little in the sphere of politics?

But then, the way of compromise is easier. Right? Who wants to stand alone with nothing but one's principles as his footing?

There are still a few. Yes, we do still exist.

Are you one those few, too?