Preamble To The Uprising

September 27, 2016 — 4 Comments

My new tune.

Preamble to the Uprising: “…every eye shall see.” – John, Revelation 1:7

“We shall all be beggars together if we shut ourselves up like hermits, and cry “every man for himself.”
– (Charles Spurgeon, 1882, Flowers From a Puritan’s Garden)

candle-simple-framed

Defending against the hits

                Who has any real-time for this?

From the aggressors who blubber about niceties,

comes spiteful splattering subtleties.

               mud thrown over the walled city of Notifications,

               to distract plausible argument with great ironic howls of  “fallacy.”

Thus ends the great claims of integrity, from those who,

at the push of a button,

              hashtag their “internet solidarity.”

Intoxicating red bubbles demand you click

               and then engage with their foul spit.

To the odorous sentiment of superiority

           there is little antidote to its insanity

Reasoned argument is no guarantee

            and qualifications have zero sway in it,

So goes the condemnation of your disagreement

Only policy sellers; club dwellers with paid membership are “free.”

    Blindfolds are complimentary.

      Comments of support a necessity.

        Popularity a commodity;

           Victims to pounce on are compulsory.

                Yet…

                 truth, although reduced in its capacity,

                 and so forced into a quiet solemnity,

                 will have its ideological chains eroded by reality.

Like the wax of a burning candle, Light will dissolve each man-made chain into obscurity.


1 Timothy 6:3-5 & 20-21

(RL2016)

Noah’s Revolution

September 22, 2016 — Leave a comment

noah-2When we get past the cartoon images and mockery, Noah, at the command of God, was essentially the Ancient Near Eastern equivalent of a naturalist. He knew how to grow food, make wine, care for animals and build.

With God at the helm, Noah, and his family, in the face of recrimination and direct opposition, faithfully nurtured a carefully coordinated exodus out of moral chaos and self-destruction.

Drawn back from the veil of its Sunday School drawings, and oversimplified Atheist polemics, Noah’s story is about surgical renewal. It is about the preservation and conservation of creation.It is the application of strong medicine with the aim of total restoration.

With God, not just at the centre, but by choosing to be by humanity’s side, Noah and his family are man and woman equally united before God, against a darkened and morally corrupt World.

At it’s core is God’s determined push back against the Abyss and its fanatical legions; who seek the slow extinction of humanity through the happy intoxication of excess, ignorance and unbelief. From which humanity is viciously guided towards the precipice of its total self-annihilation.

gresham-collegeEngland’s, Gresham College has a series of excellent lectures available for free on YouTube. Two grabbed my attention. Alister McGrath’s, ‘Darwin, Evolution and God: The Present Debates  was the first. The second was Alec Ryrie’s, ‘What Would Jesus Do? Christian Culture Wars in the Modern West.’ 

McGrath’s lecture reasserted a lot of what I’ve heard before. What I liked about this was how McGrath dealt with William Paley’s, Natural Theology and how McGrath leans authoritatively towards Thomas Aquinas and Charles Kingsley.

The lecture starts with an overview of Charles Darwin’s journey from boat to the establishment of his theory, and closes with a discussion about Darwinism and religion. I thought McGrath was a little  to generous towards Darwin when discussing Nazism and its social Darwinian ideology.

This, however, is offset by McGrath’s in-depth look at Darwin’s assertions in ”The Decent of Man”.

Key statements were: “Darwin never became an atheist. Although he wrestled with [Protestant] Christianity’s “lack” in dealing with suffering, brought on by the loss of his daughter, Darwin never used evolution as weapon against Christianity. From what we know, Darwin didn’t see a clash between evolution and creation”

After watching another lecture from Alister McGrath called, ‘Evangelicalism & Liberalism‘ from an unrelated source, Alec Ryrie’s lecture was a surprise find. Ryrie deals with a similar theme.

The great attraction of this lecture is how Ryrie presents Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s incomplete [‘half-formed’] theology on the ecclesia. More precisely his idea of ”religionless Christianity” drawn out form a list of letters in the unabridged version of ‘Letters and Papers from Prison, DBW:8.’

Ryrie covers three themes. Moral events, christian authenticity and the loss of christian identity as it is paralysed by politics and pluralism. His frame is the evangelical question ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity.

Out of these he points out that in the West, ‘World War Two was the defining moral event, of the twentieth century.’ The fight against the Axis powers in WW2 was portrayed as a Crusade against evil. Something that, post Dachau and Auschwitz proved to be true. This lead to a post-war rallying around Judeo-Christianity, the faith of Christendom, as being a bulwark against communism because it saved the West from Nazism [the new modern face and name for evil].

From here, Ryrie looks to the African-American civil rights movement. In these he sees the opportunistic birth of the left as it took over ownership of the Civil rights movement, quietly suppressing the Christian foundations of it. Attracting in particular those who took Bonhoeffer’s ”religionless Christianity” and looked to work it out as doctrine. (Something I would take to mean the hijacking of Bonhoeffer by the radical Left).

The consequence being a ‘reckless abandonment of institutions’ and tradition in the process. Adding to this the eventual gagging of the gospel and the disintegration of an openly Christian identity.

It’s here where the content of Ryrie’s lecture meets with McGrath’s look back to the legacy of Christian liberalism. From which is drawn the view that ”culture determines the agenda and therefore the church has to go wherever culture leads.”

Christian identity ended up ‘torn’ between left and right. However, by the late 1970s the religious left had became ‘invisible’. As an example, Ryrie presents the overthrow of the Student Christian Mission (SCM) by Marxists, who ‘merged a Marxist revolution with the Kingdom of God; seeing Jesus as a political radical.’ This was the ‘subsuming of Christian identity into radical politics.’ Another legacy of theological liberalism with its ”world sets the agenda laissez-faire attitude.’ (McGrath)

The lecture ends with the example of Buzz Aldrin’s decision to have communion on the moon. Ryrie highlights Aldrin’s regret, mentioned in his 2008 memoir, which stated that he wouldn’t do it if he did the moon landing all over again because they went to the moon on behalf of humanity, which includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus and heathen, not just Christians. Although the communion was done in private, Aldrin is still led to reconsider it. Ryrie points to this regret as evidence of the crisis caused by this loss of identity. The  insecurity (lament/shyness/uncertainty) about holding up, with conviction, what is an essential rite of Aldrin’s faith, makes special note of the struggle Christians have in ‘maintaining a [Christian] identity in the midst of pluralism.’

Ryrie’s lecture is full of insight. His subject is well researched and I find myself agreeing with his points. Points that back up the quip that the radical Left created the Conservative movement. The radical Left continues to be a divisive force, grasping for any cause that will reinvigorate this division to foster recruitment and feed the sense of global community only found in the Commonwealth of Christ. Setting itself up as the Kingdom of God without God in it.

Christianity indistinguishable from the world is subsequently extinguished by the world. Or perhaps more accurately, Christianity indistinguishable from the world allows itself to be extinguished (at least in public) from the world.


Sources:

[i] McGrath, A. 1993 Evangelicalism & Liberalism‘ Moore College, Australia

[ii] McGrath, A. 2016 ‘Darwin, Evolution and God: The Present Debates Gresham College – [transcript]

[iii] Ryrie, A. 2016 What Would Jesus Do? Christian Culture Wars in the Modern West Gresham College – [transcript]

silence-at-onceHere are some comments that I received in relation to  Why Social Justice Warriors Are The Brethren of Iscariot, Not Christ , posted last week. I’ve also added my responses to them.

The comments come from a few members of the 1,600 strong Karl Barth Discussion Group on Facebook.

First, I’ll state that I don’t intend to make a habit of sharing lots of dialogue like this. My goal here is to share the overall complex reaction to a relatively simple and straight forward post. It gives an a good insight into how online discussions go when you post something people that challenges the gathering storm. Secondly, I took valuable time to respond carefully to each comment and reasonable question, which makes what I had to say in response worth adding onto my original post.

The final exchange went further. The larger part of that can be located here. My interlocutor appeared to want to bog down my argument in semantics and selective argument. Feigning to want to ”understand” and ”hear me clearly”, my comments were isolated and picked apart with question, piled upon question. The general claim being that my point was not clear and that my logic (”non-argument”) was all over the place. Therefore, it left him “confused”. Once the tone of that particular conversation moved towards a cross-examination, I decided to politely disengage.

Facebook is not the greatest place to discuss theology, but we do what we can, and work with what we’ve got. I’m thankful that ‘Christ doesn’t build his church on opinions, but on revelation.’ (Bonhoeffer paraphrased, DBW 12: Sermon, 23rd July 1933).

 

Response-1

response-2

response-3

 

response-4

response-5

response-6

And finally,

question-1

 

response-to-q1


*Surnames and profile pictures have been redacted out of consideration for those who did comment.

count-of-monte-cristo-caviezel-and-harris

From, The Three Musketeers, to The Man in The Iron Mask, to The Count of Monte Cristo; in the novel department only Clive Cussler’s, Dirk Pitt fiction series comes close to how much of a fan I am of Alexander Dumas.

If there’s a movie made available about either, I’ve probably seen it, or would sign petitions for more to be made.

I would have to say that outshining all three of Dumas’ works listed is The Count of Monte Cristo. It’s my affection for this book that’s applied to the new instrumental below. The story of Edmond Dantes, betrayed by his friends in their quest for power and privilege. Imprisoned falsely and lost to the world he once knew. Stuck in the depths the Château d’If, the now, number 27, Dantes ‘ desperation drives him back towards God.

Praying for deliverance, he meets Abbé Faria (#34), a priest, who while attempting to escape digs up into Dantes’ cell. From this meeting comes the revolution of Dantes.

“[For] Dantes was a man of great simplicity of thought, and without education”.[i]

Dantes reflects on the limitations of their imprisonment and wonders how the Faria came to still be able to read, when no books are allowed, let alone light to read them by:

“I had nearly five thousand volumes in my library at Rome; but after reading them over many times, I found out that with one hundred and fifty well-chosen books a man possesses, if not a complete summary of all human knowledge, at least all that a man need really know – [recall to memory].”

From here, Dantes asks to be taught by Faria. He subsequently goes from being a naive simpleton to an intellectual giant. Dantes learnt to “see in the dark.”

In the final scene between the two, an unwell Faria farewells Dantes by giving him the treasure of Spada’s location; hidden in the rocky island of Monte Cristo:

“This treasure belongs to you, my dear friend,” replied Dantes, “and to you only. I have no right to it. I am no relation of yours.”
“You are my son, Dantes,” exclaimed the old man. “You are the child of my captivity. My profession condemns me to celibacy. God has sent you to me to console, at one and the same time, the man who could not be a father, and the prisoner who could not get free.”

Through prayer, a teachable attitude and education, Dantes started a personal revolution that would take him further than he probably should have gone.

The Count of Monte Cristo is the story of the salvation and dark revolution of a man sold by his friends into the abyss, in exchange for power, money and privilege.The path is mixed with tension. Full of ethical dilemmas which permeate action and decision, each moving through complex relationships built on a web of deceit. Something Dantes carefully unravels as he seeks justice for the wrongs done to him.

I think the instrumental captures that tension. The joy of freedom, of learning new things, of hope, of wrestling with wrongs done to us, and awakening to the knowledge that we all have to be responsible with that freedom.

For the physical side of the creative process. After finishing, I decided to redo the lead guitar part.  The low quality of the work reminded about the importance of having a determined melody. I am doing this as much for practice as I am posterity, so if I’m not being challenged to move beyond what I’ve already created then, as can happen, the art will stagnate.

Instead of having a wandering lead solo that does nothing but show off my flawed run up and down a fret board, having a fixed lead part works to launch the fillers (& all the frills which snap to attention with it).

The hardest part was mixing the layers. There’s an improvement between my earlier recordings and the more recent ones. I’ve pushed Audacity as far as it can go. Although, it has it’s limitations,  I’ve appreciated being able to work with a program that works. The next level is Pro-tools or an equivalent. If I was going to follow that road, I’d be looking at making that kind of investment pay for itself.

 


Source:

[i] Dumas, A. The Count of Monte Cristo Acheron Press. Kindle Ed.

Music is my own.

Image is from The Count of Monte Cristo, 2002 Jay Wolpert & Kevin Reyonalds, (source.)

for-sale_rl2016A Social Justice Warrior is ‘a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views’ (Oxford Dictionaries)

The online Urban dictionary offers a more substantial explanation:

“A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.” [i]

In the case you’re doubting the credibility of Urban Dictionary, take as further evidence, defining examples highlighted by the observer.com in an article called, The Totalitarian Doctrine of Social Justice Warriors’. Such as:

“[when] your cool feminist T-shirt can becomes a racist atrocity in a mouse click. And since new “marginalised” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow.”

I’m not in full support of every claim made by the author in the article, but the majority of the content makes a dent in the “progressive” bulldozers steamrolling everything they’re told to hate, or anyone that they’ve (ironically) judged as “judgemental, phobic or a hater.”

In one swift statement, the article presents the monstrous maelstroms of confusion S.J.W’s tend to create.

Another stand out example:

14211981_10207200359993677_3581726635356224817_n

In addition, take the S.J.Ws apparent war on poverty and their counter-productive boycott of business.

Don’t get me wrong. Poverty is to be challenged and real injustices responsibly opposed, but how does boycotting businesses, just because they don’t agree with a party-line about same-sex marriage or support hashtag movements, serve the poor or help end poverty?  In some cases the targets were mum and dad, small to medium businesses, who did nothing other than support traditional marriage, as being something shared holistically between a man and a woman. The impact of which hits charitable people actively trying to pull themselves and others out of poverty.

The method of boycott, hashtag, hashtag… people lose their jobs. Company shuts down. Capitalism is blamed [24hrs passes]. “Next victim”; is  a radical cycle that only pads ego, wallet and blog stats.

What real purpose does this “outrage” serve, other than to boost approval ratings, celebrity funding drives or ignite social media with a feel-good fifteen minute hashtag keyboard riot?

It would be fair to ask whether or not their level of social media influence was the real concern, and not the marginalised, the minority or the poverty stricken.

Militant arms of all progressive ideologies are not about “…and justice-for-all.” They stand above, over and against us. They lay claims against the biblical equality of human limitations which states that: ”for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-24).

They don’t ask ‘…what can I do for my country?” (J.F.Kennedy) They demand that their country do for them what their free country empowers them to do for themselves!

The militancy hands justice over to pseudo politicians who judge from people’s courts, controlling popular opinion with image, idea, internet, and an index-finger pointed in judgement against blasphemers of idiotic statements and the ‘isms which encourage them.

This is not affirmative action. It’s the kind of action that motivated support for the Nazis and above that ‘Judas Iscariot, who went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I deliver Jesus over to you?” Who in return paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.’ (Matthew 26:14-15/ Mark 14:10-11/ Luke 22:3-6) [ii]

The same ‘Judas who, seeing Mary take a pound  of expensive ointment made from pure nard, anoint the feet of Jesus and wipe his feet with her hair, protested, saying:“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the money-bag he used to help himself to what was put into it.’ (John 3:6)

The same Judas who, as Karl Barth wrote:

‘Perverted his office [of Apostle] into the exact opposite; placing Jesus under humanity, instead of humanity under Jesus – to deliver Jesus to sinners, not sinners to Jesus…Judas prepared for Jesus the fate of John the Baptist.’ [iii]

Because Iscariot thought that:

“Jesus was for sale.
He reserved to himself the right to decide for himself, in the face of Jesus, what the way of apostolic discipleship really involves.
It is an indication that his nature and function are those of the apostle who ultimately regrets his own devotion and the devotion of others to Jesus, who would prefer ultimately to use the power of this devotion for something which his own judgement considers to be better; for whom Jesus is finally less important and indispensable than this better thing.” [iv]

These statements form Barth’s critique of the elected who, in their rejection of Christ, reject themselves; suffering a similar fate of self-destruction that consumed Judas:

‘The one who kills Jesus also kills themselves, even though he [or she] may not technically be a suicide.’ [v]

This handing over of Jesus is occurring today. Jesus is being surrendered to an ideology as a slave, not as He exists – King of Kings and LORD of Lords, the one who is and was, and is to come!

The Social Justice Warrior is in many ways the militant arm of the progressive ‘liberalist religion’ (Eric Voeglin) [vi]. One example epitomises this: the Boycott and Divestments movement against Israel, and the inferences which proclaim that anyone who doesn’t align with the Leftist religion is not a disciple of Christ.

The will-to-dominate is, today, masked by the veneer of social justice. What it shows is that pride serves no one, least of all mercy, justice and love.

As Paul wrote to the young Timothy:

‘If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth…O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.’
(1 Tm.6:3-5 & 20-21)

Any Christian who hands Jesus over to this corrupt, enslaving ideology; or who chooses to measure Christian discipleship by allegiance to such, are the brethren of Iscariot, not Christ.


Sources:

[i] Social Justice Warrior, sourced 29th August 2016 from urbandictionary.com

[ii] English Standard Bible, Crossway Publishers

[iii] Barth, K. 1942 The Doctrine of God: The Determination of the Rejected, Church Dogmatics, Hendrickson Publishers  (p.481)

[iv] ibid, 1942 (pp.462 & 463)

[v] ibid, 192 (p.471)

[vi] Voegelin, E. 1968 Science, Politics & Religion Regnery Publishing, Inc.

#loveislove?

September 1, 2016 — Leave a comment

Questions RL2016Love is defined by God.Love cannot define love, it comes from who God is.

Love comes from the One who exists outside humanity; outside time and space. It comes from the One who seeks a response. The One who presents knowledge about Himself through covenant and in Jesus Christ. Eternity entering time to graciously seek out relationship with humanity.

‘…but the sovereignty which was to be confirmed and glorified was the sovereignty of His love, which did not will to exercise mechanical force, to move the immobile from without, to rule over puppets or slaves, but willed rather to triumph in faithful servants and friends, not in their overthrow, but in their obedience, in their own free decision for Him.’ (Barth p.178) [i]

The statement that God is love means that love is not god. It’s a distinction that liberates love from the human claim to be able to define love. This frees humanity from the burden of the oppressor who through the control of a ‘false consciousness’ (Karl Marx) makes love whatever he or she decides it should be.

The individual that has jettisoned God from love inevitably asserts a definition of love made in their own image.

Nothing and no one is allowed to challenge this. Any reasoned disagreement is considered to be outside this love. Measured against this new definition of love and found wanting, all opposition is sentenced to be an act of hatred, betrayal and treachery – anti-love.

To say that God is love is to revolt against this. Love is defined by what God does and what God does comes from who God is. It means to acknowledge that humanity is freed by God to stand in unison with others in an act of communal exorcism against the oppressor. In both its actuality and potentiality, to say that God is love is to break the chains of all ideologies that have become, or seek to become masters of humanity.

Love that defines itself, negates itself. Love cannot define itself any more than the slave or abused child can define freedom, when they have been taught to believe the abuse he or she might have received at the hands of an oppressor is normal.

That God is love and as such, lovingly acts in both His “yes” and “no”, raises humanity up to challenge the claims of the oppressor. For example: God’s command limits the freedom of oppressor. Such a limitation of freedom also frees the oppressed. God’s tough-love, His “no” to the oppressor tells the oppressed that the violence and abuse of the oppressed is wrong.

That God is love means love cannot be love without God at its center.  Likewise, human freedom grounded in love cannot be true freedom without grateful obedience to the Holy God who loves in freedom. It cannot be freedom without the ‘God who frees man and woman to be free for Him and free for each other.’ (Karl Barth) [ii]

Without God, love and even freedom become a cheap commodity, whose meaning is traded and swapped for that which sells best. Reduced to emotion, sex, money and the placating of an individual’s happiness.

If ”love is love” is to be taken to its logical end, aren’t the obscenely wealthy, or the national socialist justified in their love for money, nation or race, and to hell with the consequences?
If ”love is love” justifies lifestyle choices, such as its promotion as a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage. Then doesn’t ”love is love” justify servitude to a Führer and his/her ism, and the reign of terror that often follows?
In light of this, aren’t “love is love” advocates, especially those who protest Capitalism, in the end just hypocrites selling something no one should ever want to buy?

The “love is love” argument is therefore only a tool of the oppressor used to uphold human claims to ownership of what love is. Love is then determined to be anything the oppressor wants it to be. Which, as history tells us, is usually expressed by the whip, underpay, discrimination, special treatment, racism, greed, abuse and persecution of whatever the oppressed disagree with.

Though relationship exists because God wills and desires to be with us, the distinction remains clear: God is God and we are not.God frees love from fickle and insecure human authority. An ideology cannot be love anymore than it can usurp the God who loves.  It’s this way because we don’t own God any more than we can own love or know what love is outside of the God who loves us.

‘Be not wise in your own eyes, fear [trust] the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh, and refreshment to your bones’ – (Proverbs, 3:7-8)

Sources:

[i] Barth, K.1942 CD II/II: The Election of Jesus Christ  Hendrickson Publishers p.178

[ii] Barth, K. 1951 CD III.IV The doctrine of creation Hendrickson Publishers pp.170-180

amphitheatre-1004396__180Some academic internet interlocutors recently tried to stick some historical parallels on Donald Trump and American Evangelicals. They were attempting to link the precedent set by the German Christian movement and its support for Hitler, to that of American Christians and their support for Trump.

While I don’t disagree that there are slight similarities within the rhetoric, their conclusions were too easily settled upon.

Hitler was a seducer with a total grasp on the passions and faith of a people. Trump on other hand appears incoherent and at other times inconsistent in his message. To put it simply, he’s proven more to be kryptonite than an advocate for any “Aryan super-race filled with the Übermensch – superman”. As most people would agree, Trump repels rather than attracts.

I wont go into more precise differences because I believe that anyone with a basic education in social etiquette, even before its takeover by the parochialism of the excessively politically correct, knows the truth in the axiom, that “you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.”

Hitler put this into practice and seduced a nation. Eventually bending that nation towards his, and his political movement’s libido dominande (will-to-dominate). The German Christian Movement utilised similar tactics in gaining support for the NSDAP, which was in turn used against the remnants of the German Evangelical Church, the Pastors Emergency League and their justly rebellious descendant, the Confessing Church.

There are a spate of more relevant current events to choose from. The loudest of which concerns Islamism and the growing militancy of Leftist ideology.

Both of which do violence to classical liberal rights, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and, in the case of the Left, families and thousands of unborn children every day. It’s concerning that academics are falling over themselves to denounce Trump. Yet fail to acknowledge the more pertinent historical parallels, which share a closer affiliation with a Nazified Germany and the compromised Church of the 1930s and early ’40s.

The most significant parallel’s being Islamism’s closeness to the doctrine of “blut und boden – blood and soil” and Leftism’s selective outrage. Outrage that is often positioned between one selective set of protests and another. The targeted call to inclusion, for instance, shows up as a front for the more sinister goal of picking and choosing those who will have to be excluded; which is potentially those who disagree. It’s not far to jump from this to the assumption that such selectivity could result in the doctrine of “Lebensunwertes Leben – life unworthy of life.” (or in a more milder dosage, people unworthy of an opinion)

The secular and sometimes Christian left, for example, are  quick to write-off and then propagandise any dissent against its position. Anyone who does is automatically treated with the suspicion, or worse, the accusation, that their questioning is rooted in a “phobia” of some kind. As is well established, the pattern of behaviour is to denounce any disagreement and then shame anyone who raises honest questions about serious social, theological or political issues, that the Left would claim to be the only answer to.

The pattern is consistent. Shame into silence anything that challenges Leftism. Intimidate and then threaten all who speak out against its narratives. Such as, the use of a politics of diversion and evasion, when it comes to the dangers of Islamism and their bizarre placating of those who’s own self-interests lie in controlling the debate over gay marriage; and in controlling those who oppose the Leftist construct of “gender fluidity.”

The pattern is clear. The Leftist will allow all criticism and violence against those things Leftism hates, but will remain complacent in the face of more urgent historical parallels that demand fair attention.

I get the criticisms of Trump, but as far as historical parallels go, only the short-sighted, given the contexts, would be ignoring the relevance of those historical events to the intolerance of Leftism, ISIS, Islamism and the connection of the latter to these more recent developments:

1. Turkey seizes ALL Christian churches in city and declares them ‘state property (Express.uk)

2. Attacks on Christians in Egypt raise alarms (USA Today)

‘Democracy and Martyrs’ Rally’ on Sunday in Istanbul, marks the climax of three weeks of nightly demonstrations by Erdogan’s supporters.
Banners read ‘You are a gift from God, Erdogan’ or ‘Order us to die and we will do it’ […] [i]

If by mentioning the past we seek to passionately avoid its mistakes, we must answer the storms of today, by also passionately mentioning the mistakes that enabled them happen.

As Churchill, C.S Lewis, and George Orwell pointed out in regards to pacifism and appeasement; and for Dwight Eisenhower, complacency:

“The handicaps were many. The greatest obstacle was psychological— complacency still persisted! Even the fall of France in May 1940 failed to awaken us— and by “us” I mean many professional soldiers as well as others— to a full realization of danger.
The commanding general of one United States division, an officer of long service and high standing, offered to bet, on the day of the French armistice, that England would not last six weeks longer— and he proposed the wager much as he would have bet on rain or shine for the morrow. It did not occur to him to think of Britain as the sole remaining belligerent standing between us and starkest danger. His attitude was typical of the great proportion of soldiers and civilians alike.
Happily there were numerous exceptions whose devoted efforts accomplished more than seemed possible.
Despite the deepening of congressional concern, the nation was so unprepared to accept the seriousness of the world outlook that training could not be conducted in realistic imitation of the battlefield.
We had to carry it on in soothing-syrup style calculated to rouse the least resentment from the soldiers themselves and from their families at home. Many senior officers stood in such fear of a blast in the headlines against exposing men to inclement weather or to the fatigue of extended maneuvers that they did not prescribe the only type of training that would pay dividends once the bullets began to fly.
Urgent directives from above and protest from the occasional “alarmist” could not eliminate an apathy that had its roots in comfort, blindness, and wishful thinking.” [ii]

It must be said, then, that the path to the resurgence of fascism doesn’t begin with Trump, or the rhetoric of Trump’s campaign. Nor does it rest in the endorsement of American Evangelicals.

Granted there are small similarities between Nazism and the German Christian movement, Trump and American Evangelicals. That link, however, if it can even be called that, is weak. No more so then when it is compared to the greater examples that appear on the horizon as this century’s very own gathering storm.


Sources:

[i] Erogden Stages Mass Rally In Turkey sourced August 8th 2016 from Skynews.com

[ii] Eisenhower, D.D. 1948 Crusade in Europe: A Personal Account of World War Two Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Ed. (Loc. 251-256;260-262 ).