1783- THE BISHOP

Kinda wanted to cover some contemporary issues going on in the ‘church world’ being we just spent a few weeks in the ancient history stuff.

But it might take too long- some current debates in Evangelical circles concern a recent round table discussion with T.D. Jakes- a man I like- but he got in some hot water, again- because of his background as a Pentecostal Oneness minister.

This group has disagreed with historic Christianity on the Trinity- and over the years some of the Reformed brothers [Protestants] have hit him hard on the issue.

So in the recent discussion it happened again- basically Jakes says he holds to the Trinitarian view today [One God- 3 Persons] though his background stated it by saying ‘One God- 3 manifestations’.

You say ‘gee John- doesn’t sound like something to kill each other over’- well- we do- trust me- we do.

I have known and been friends with Pentecostal Oneness brothers before- and I personally accept them as Christians.

No- I don’t use the words they use when defining the Trinity- but I don’t completely out and out reject them a total heretics.

I used to listen to Jakes- and for the most part I felt comfortable with him- the main reason I do not tune in to these guys anymore is the whole persona thing- ministries- ‘churches’ huge organizations- who for the most part are clearing houses for the well intended Pastors- but the entire image of the ministry becomes the persona of a man.

This type of atmosphere actually violates the principles we find in the bible- that the churches in the bible did not have the image/gifts of a person- no matter how good that person is- as the central organizing principle of the group.

Basically- in the bible- the churches were truly centered around the person of Christ.

And in many contemporary situations- well- everything [especially the ‘tithes’] usually goes to the promoting of the image of a person [TV- teaching materials- etc.].

And very often millions are spent promoting a person- which is a violation of the principles of leadership we find in the New Testament.

So anyway- I said that to simply say I always liked Jakes- and yes- as somewhat of a history buff- sure- I know the difficulty with his past connections [the actual term for the ‘heresy’ is called Modalism- which describes the belief that God is one who manifests in 3- they don’t say ‘3 persons’].

So I know the scoop- but the reason I don t watch/hear these men anymore is because I just get turned off by the whole ‘dial 1-800- Bishop’ type thing- I mean I like reading/studying from ‘real’ Bishops.

Men like N.T. Wright- former Bishop in the Church of England- or Bishop Sheen- a popular Catholic Bishop who you can catch on the tube every so often- yes- ‘real’ bishops in the sense that they are well versed in a wide field of learning- Philosophy- scholarship- church history- yeah- I like hearing Bishops.

But in today’s world- you have Bishops ‘ordaining’ Bishops by the boat loads- and when the way you contact them is thru a 1-800 number- well then I think we have a problem.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1782- PROTESTANT REFORMATION CONCLUSION

Today let’s finish up the study on the Protestant Reformation. We left off on Luther disputing with the church over the doctrine of how a person becomes just in the sight of God- is it by works or faith?

Now- to the surprise of many Protestants [and Catholics!] both sides agreed that a person cannot be justified by works.

Yes- the Catholic Church rejected what was known as Pelagianism. In the early centuries of the church there was a Catholic priest- named Pelagius- who taught that people had the ability within themselves to obey Gods law and become saved that way.

He rejected the doctrine of original sin and another famous bishop- Saint Augustine- would refute Pelagius and teach salvation comes by the Grace of God. The official Catholic position was to reject Pelagius and accept Augustine.

Okay- then where’s the difference?

The church council that spells it out is the Council of Trent [named after the Italian city where the council took place in the 1500’s- Trento].

This council is often referred to as the Counter Reformation. The church rejected the Protestant line- but also acknowledged the need for reform and made some changes.

This is the council where the church rejects Pelagianism- and also says the position of Luther [Justification by Faith ALONE] was flawed.

The church appealed to the New Testament letter of Saint James- where James uses an example from the life of Abraham [found in Genesis 22] where Abraham obeys God and is willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar.

Of course this never happens- God was simply testing Abraham- but James says this act of obedience justified him in Gods sight.

James says ‘see how a man is justified by works- and not by faith ALONE’.

The argument from Rome was Faith played THE major role in justification- but was not sufficient by itself- there had to be righteous works eventually associated with it in order for God to say ‘you are just’ [saved].

Luther disagreed and said God justified Abraham before he had good works- we find this in Genesis 15. God says to Abraham ‘look- count all the stars- so shall your offspring be’ and Walla- the bible also says Abraham was justified in God's eyes the moment he believed the promise.

Who’s right?

Actually they both are.

I have taught this a few times over the years- and it would take too much time to re-do right now.

But I believe James and Paul [the 2 who debate this in the bible] are simply looking at different aspects of salvation/justification.

Paul emphasized faith- and James showed us how true faith always has works with it.

When you read the statements that came out from the council of Trent- some of them do seem to indicate that both sides might have been talking past each other at some points.

In the heat of the day they were too quick to condemn the other side- without really trying hard to achieve unity [like politics!].

The 6^th session of Trent was the one where the church dealt with justification [how we become saved in Gods sight].

Rome made a distinction between mortal and Venial sin in the council- the church said that Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of justification. Yet faith is the Root- Foundation and Initial act that justifies.

Rome also taught that Mortal sin kills the grace in the soul that brings justification- and when a person commits a mortal sin- they need the ‘2^nd plank of justification’ in order to be brought back into a state of Grace.

This 2^nd Plank is the Sacrament of Penance [confession]. Catholic Moral Theologians use an example to show the difference between Mortal and Venial sin.

Drinking- if you take a drink [alcohol] not a sin. If you get tipsy- Venial- and if you get flat drunk- mortal.

This is a true teaching by the way- not making this up.

Catholic scholars are not in total agreement on all the Mortal/Venial sins.

Some teach that missing Mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin.

I just threw this in to show you the debates that take place.

The teachings from Trent are referred to as Tridentine.

The Protestants [early on] rejected the belief that a person can lose Gods grace once he has it- later on the Protestants would divide- severely- over this teaching- Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints.

But early on all the major Reformers did indeed teach this.

Luther believed in the doctrine of Predestination just as much- if not more- than John Calvin.

But sometimes in these history shows they get this wrong and say Luther and Calvin disagreed on it- that’s a common mistake that you hear every so often.

Luther actually wrote a book dedicated to the subject [The Bondage of the Will] Calvin never wrote a book solely on the subject.

Okay- as we end this brief study of the Protestant Reformation- you could also call it a primer on Catholic doctrine [short one].

Why is it important that we study this?

In John chapter 17 Jesus said that he desired unity for all of Gods people- and many of these divisions- which date back 500 years- are commonly misunderstood on both sides.

It is common in our day to run across an ex Catholic who might say ‘you know- I left the church because I don’t believe I need to confess to a priest’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches you are saved by works’.

The original Reformers did not have a problem with confession- the Lutherans carried the practice over into their communion.

And like I just showed you- the Catholic church rejected the doctrine of being saved ‘by works’ [Pelagianism] and simply emphasized the teaching found in the bible- the book of James- and focused more on James than Paul [who the protestants focus on].

So yes- there are still differences- but if we are not informed- then it makes it harder to strive for unity- and at the end of the day God does desire unity for all his people.

The other day I quoted the great Civil rights leader- MLK. In one of his famous speeches that’s played when we celebrate his life- you hear Martin say that not only was he seeking unity among the races- but also in the church.

He said he wanted to see Catholics and Protestants- as well as Blacks and Whites- sit down together- he referred to us all as Gods kids.

I think we should strive to achieve the desire of Martin- and Jesus.

Amen.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1781- MAJORITY RULE?

I was going to finish the last post on the Protestant Reformation study we started last month- but we do have a few news items that I think we should cover.

First- for those of you who haven’t read my posts for a while- you need to know that I critique both Repubs and Dems- sometimes severely.

For instance I was [am] a very ‘anti war’ person. I felt the Iraq war- and the long land occupation in Afghanistan were bad mistakes.

I do feel we were indeed justified to ‘hit back’ after 9-11- but the massive ground wars- and all the various reasons given- well I just felt the strategy was flawed.

I also have sided with Progressives on immigration- I take a very non conservative- pro liberal view on immigration- almost to the degree of being a ‘Sanctuary City’ supporter- yeah- that bad.

So I say that to say this- when I critique the President- trust me- I have done it with both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday I read a scathing column by Maureen Dowd [NY Times] and she described the President as someone who was aloof- isolated and has surrounded himself with Chicago insider friends- who all tell him that the American people are not worthy of him.

Now- for whatever reason- just about all the articles Dowd has done this past year have been strongly criticizing Obama.

Dowd- as well as the whole N.Y. Times crew- are pretty liberal in their politics.

Then why do this?

Another NY Times reporter just put out a book on Obama- she said basically the same thing- and she covered the internal conflicts in the White House- things between Michele Obama and the staff [former chief of staff Rahm Immanuel].

The book [The Obama’s] was basically a tell all. She talked about some heated arguments that the staff had over Michele.

When Michele Obama was asked about the portrayal- she said that she’s tired of other people [White people] calling her an angry Black woman.

I heard Jodie say she did not understand why she said this- because in the book she does not bring up color- simply reported the facts.

The progressive media [liberal view] love to use the race card against those on the right [I am not on the right!] but if you dare use it against them- they become incensed [Geraldine Ferraro- Bill- Hillary Clinton- etc.]

So for various reasons- the more liberal media have decided to not back Obama the way they did at the start.

Now- the point here is not simply political gossip- but the reality of how much we see/read in the news is truly honest- and how much is spin that prevents the true story from coming out.

These past few weeks we have had some disturbing news about the so called Arab Spring countries.

Egypt held their first parliamentary elections and voted in a majority of Islamists. Now- many have said that sure- the Muslim Brotherhood has made great gains- but that’s ‘the will of the people’.

I heard former pres Jimmy Carter say this.

His team went over to monitor the elections [he has a group that does this] and they said ‘yes- the Muslims took over- but we must all respect the voice of the people- if that’s what the majority wants- then that’s a great thing’.

What’s wrong with this? The fact is the Muslim Brotherhood do want to institute Shariah law in the land.

Now- many have chosen to work with this group [Obama has] and the simple reality is they are a force and we will have to deal with them some day.

So fine- I understand.

But how many of us would be singing the praises of a right wing Christian group- who wanted to institute law based on the 10 commandments- and wherever this law is already enacted they execute gays- subjugate women- and even kill the women who commit ‘adultery’ [which in some cases means you were raped].

Now- that’s Shariah law. Would Carter be saying ‘well- if that’s what the Americans want- to vote in a bunch of right wing Christians who will do this- then we must respect that this is the voice of the people’.

What voice?

Where are the voices defending those who are being oppressed and killed under these regimes.

Our ‘dear friends’ in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain- they are all guilty of these human rights abuses- yet we are silent.

It so sad that Carter- and those in the media who I have heard praising the fact that this is ‘the voice of the people’.

It makes no difference if the majority wanted it- if what they want is still oppressive- then we should not be so quick to praise it.

I read 2 stories this week about Libya- the headlines were ‘Gadhaffi’s forces take back city’.

What?

I thought the guy was dead.

Well yes- he is. But his side have regrouped and did take back a key city in the West- Banni Walid.

Now- for them to have done this is big news- but you wouldn’t know that by the coverage- because the media are not truly covering it [the articles I read were small and hidden in the back pages].

The other Libyan article was even more surprising- protestors rose up in the Eastern city of Ben Ghazi- a city that has been under Rebel Influence for many years- this is the eastern City that sparked the original protests.

People rose up and stormed the official government headquarters and ransacked the place.

The new leader of the country was hiding in the back.

Iraq- since we pulled out a few weeks ago- that country is rapidly descending into a Civil War and it looks like they will split up between the Kurds- the Sunni’s and the Shiites.

Hate to admit this- but Biden was right.

So- after this bad track record- all the places where we have backed the Arab Spring- they are worse off now than before- that’s a fact.

They are more unstable- the Christian population is in much more danger- and none of them have been able to elect and institute a better regime than the one they kicked out.

So what are we doing about that?

Nothing- instead we are continuing with our call for ‘you bad leaders need to step down’ [Syria].

Many people in Syria do not want Assad to go- many of the Christians in the country fear that if he topples- they will face the same persecution that their brothers are facing in Egypt.

When the Islamist parties take over- that’s terrible for the Christian minorities in these countries.

So why no big media coverage of the failures over these things?

It just would not look good for Obama in an election year.

But like I said at the top- some are growing tired of what they see as an aloof president [the liberal press said this- not the right] and as they grow tired they begin reporting the stuff- both the good and the bad.

I have no appetite for how many arguments Michele Obama had with Rahm Emmanuel- or how ‘depressed’ Obama is [the Times almost ran a story on this- they decided not to run it].

But I am concerned that we report the truth about the Arab Spring- that if the toppling of these leaders has lead to great instability- and the death of many Christians- then we should not be saying ‘well- this is the will of the people’.

Whether or not the majority agree to oppress the minority- it’s still wrong- and it’s a shame that the Western media won’t report it.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1780- KENYAN MUSLIM- OPEN MARRIAGE- AND SAUL ALYNSKI

Last night we had another Repub debate. As the week wore on we were also treated to all the various views that divide the right from the left in our country.

Some elderly woman referred to Obama as a Kenyan Muslim during a Santorum rally.

John King ‘infamously’ began a debate by asking Newt whether or not his ex was telling the truth when she says he wanted an open marriage.

And Newt mentioned that Obama is a radical after his mentor Saul Alynski.

To those ‘in the know’ well- we have heard this name before- as a news consumer who comments on all things political- well I’ll admit I listen to all sides.

One of the biggest ‘sides’ to hear is Rush. He is the most influential radio host in the right wing world.

I also listen to the voices on the left- I watch Al Jazeera news [not left per se- but they air on Link TV- a progressive media station] as well as Gores Current TV network.

So over the last few years Alynski has come up a lot.

He is basically this guy who gave Rules- procedures to implement change on a big scale.

Many on the left used his book to try and change stuff- and Obama has been influenced by his writings before.

So when you drop the name- you’re basically playing into the narrative that Obama is a left wing radical.

Of course the left goes ballistic when ever some old white lady thinks Obama is Muslim ‘how dare anyone ever even think this!’

Why do some people [not me] think this?

This last year I have watched some on the left try to depict our President as a young Black kid who was brought up by a single mom- played basketball and hung out with his friends at the corner inner city park- and when this narrative is given- it’s contrasted with the rights ‘picture’ of Obama as a different type of person.

The left defends Obama against the rights false view of him.

Now- as someone who does not hate the Pres- and also has taken the Pres at his word on both the Muslim thing and the Birth Certificate thing- I must admit that some on the right have some ‘evidence’ to go by when they perceive Obama as a different type of person.

Now- when I say ‘different’ I mean the upbringing of Obama was not the classic ‘grew up in the inner city’ type upbringing. Now- I don’t use the ‘inner city’ story/view when I speak about our Pres- because not only is that an incorrect view- but those on the left that use it [MSNBC- Matthews] do not realize that their very use of the narrative is in itself racist.

For anyone- on the left r right- to try and defend a Black man by saying ‘look- he’s just like any other Black kid USA- hung out in the ghetto with his buddies’ geez- you call that a defense of the Black Man?

But the actual story of Obama is different- and there are certain aspects of it that do play into the Kenyan/Muslim theme.

First- the president was raised most of his life in Hawaii [not Chicago] and as a young kid he did live in Indonesia for a few years- Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world.

He did indeed go to school with Muslim boys- and spent a few years in this type of environment.

Second- Obama said on national TV ‘My Muslim Faith’.

3^rd- Hillary Clinton released a picture of Obama during the campaign that showed Obama in full Muslim garb.

4^th- Obama wrote a book- Dreams of my Father- in which he explained his journey as a kid who grew up without his dad in the home- and how he later came to learn his father’s struggle- a different one than the Black Civil rights struggle in our country- but yet a struggle for the Black man to be free from Colonial rule.

Kenya- as many other African countries- was ruled by European powers for many years.

These Black families were actually raised with another man’s culture as theirs- that’s why in the war in Libya- you had Gadhaffi using mercenaries that came from the Sub Saharan part of the continent- and these Black fighters spoke French!

So Obama explained- not in a bad way- that he came to grips with his father’s struggle- called anti colonialism- and how he also came to respect his culture as he grew up.

Now- his dad of course is Muslim- he named Obama with an openly Muslim type name- and Obama has made statements that he is Muslim.

One more thing- before Obama started running for pres- he told an ambassador from another country [Egypt?] that his faith too was Muslim.

This political figure has stayed by this story till this day.

Okay- after reading all this- the question might be ‘how can anybody think he is not Muslim!’

Like I said- I give the pres the benefit of the doubt- but it would not be a stretch for some elderly White woman to think this- and when the media act like ‘where in the world would anybody ever get an idea like this- or how could anyone ever think that Obama might be ‘anti- colonial’.

Well you can see where these ideas come from- and they are not as far out there as some would make you think.

Okay- these things- and the medias unwillingness to truly vet Obama during his run for pres- I mean Obama said in one of his books that he did ‘a little blow’ in college [Cocaine].

There was never one question on ‘where did you get the blow from’ or ‘how long did you use’ or ‘how much is a little’.

I mean it is illegal to do- and if you open up a pres debate by asking ‘your ex wife says’ well than you might want to ask- just once- how did you obtain the blow.

But the media steered clear of anything that might be deemed racially tinged- and they gave Obama a pass.

So that’s why the Gingrich line works so well- his attack against the medias love affair with the pres- most discerning news watchers see this.

But wait- if you only watch MSNBC- you would think that Obama grew up in the inner city- shooting hoops with his buddies at the corner park- yeah- if you watch MSNBC that’s what you might think- and you wouldn’t even know that a thought like that is racist.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1779- KEN ANDERSON [district judge- Williamson county- TX] TEXAS SIZED INJUSTICE

Yesterday I read another Texas ‘Justice’ [injustice] story and thought it was time to do another post on this problem.

The case was about a disabled deaf man- who only spoke thru sign language [can’t really defend yourself that way in court].

He was accused of molesting a child and sent to prison for many years. Eventually another person who had committed multiple child molestation crimes was found to be guilty instead.

It took many years for the real evidence to come out- and they finally freed the innocent man.

The statement from the prosecutor who wrongly convicted him said ‘that’s what we do in Texas- we free the innocent and put the guilty in prison’. Huh?

And just how did the innocent get put in prison? You framed the guy- that’s how.

Another famous case is the case of Michael Morton. I have read abut 3-4 articles on this case this past year.

Morton was a young man married to his high school sweetheart. He had a young son and one night he went to work and when he got home the next day he found his wife- dead in their home.

He called the cops and also reported that her purse was stolen.

The investigators also found a bloody bandana in a field behind the home and the 3.5 year old son told the police that another man killed his mom- not his dad.

Despite all of this- prosecutor KEN ANDERSON- got a conviction on the guy and sent him away.

They said he killed his wife because she refused to have sex with him [how in the heck did they come up with that?]

He always maintained his innocence and after many years of fighting to get the bandana tested for DNA- KEN ANDERSON fought to keep it from being tested- they found the DNA of another man- who had already committed similar crimes- on the bandana.

The lawyers for Morton also found out that the prosecutor withheld the fact that the son told the investigators that another person killed his mom.

Even the mother of the victim said she thought her son and law was innocent.

Morton was recently released- he is now 57- he was a young man when he went to prison.

His son- and his family all went on with their lives without him- thinking he was the killer of the mom.

It was also revealed that the cops knew that the wife’s credit card- the card the husband said was stolen- was indeed used a few days after the murder.

The prosecutor- now a district judge- obviously engaged in deception in this case.

Yet he sits on the bench today- still acting in his capacity as a judge.

These past few years as I have read lots of the cases of innocent people being framed by Texas courts- I have come to see that in many of these cases- when the prosecutors take a stance in court and say ‘this man killed his wife’ or ‘this man molested this child’ when they do this- and it’s an innocent man they are accusing- the bible does indeed call this a serious sin.

It is baring false witness- under oath.

Now- many Christians- even those in these positions- do not realize the seriousness of this offense.

This act of taking the position of the accuser is not a biblical principle of justice found in scripture.

The biblical system of law and courts found in the bible- the one instituted by God- does speak about having 2 or more witnesses in a case- and of course we have a judge who decides- but there is no accuser- who actually makes a false charge against an innocent man- yet this act happens a lot in our current system.

I believe cases like Morton’s should carry criminal penalties against the accuser/prosecutor- especially if it is found out later that he engaged in unlawful activity to obtain the conviction- and then did all in his power to suppress the evidence from coming out.

Anderson fought for 7 years to prevent the bandana from being tested.

It is inconceivable for Anderson to have been aware of the use of the dead woman’s card- and the fact that other witnesses said there was a strange man roaming the area that night- and then to have the bloody bandana found in the field.

For all of this evidence to have been known by him- and to still go after the husband- it is truly criminal in my view.

As Christians- yes we believe in justice and law- but to convict a disabled deaf man- because he can’t really defend himself- or to send an innocent man away for all those years- for others to have raised his son- this is not just- this is unjust.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1778- TO DIG [PIPE] OR NOT- THAT IS THE QUESTION

Okay- hate to carry over the last post- but I figured we gave Schettino a day to gather his thoughts- maybe realize the error of his way and man up.

So as I watched the news coverage- the Japanese animated videos that depict the Captain in a life boat- yelling back to the ship ‘stay on board’ and then the animation of him walking the plank- I realized things are not playing well for my Italian friend.

Then the last straw- word came out that Schettino told the authorities that he was not abandoning ship- but as the boat rocked he slipped and fell into the lifeboat.

Oh my poor Schettino- please stop- for the love of our homeland- please!

Okay I saw the ‘big’ news of the day- Obama decided not to go ahead with the Canadian oil sands pipeline.

This pipeline was a deal that was in the works for a few years. Canada has lots of this type of oil and they wanted to pipe it down to the gulf states [I think here in Tx.?] so we could refine the stuff.

This last year it became a hot button issue for both Repubs and the Pres.

The Repubs said it would be a jobs maker- and also help with our oil supply.

Some Dems [environmentalists] said it would be a bad thing. Though you did have some union guys who wanted it.

As a news watcher/reader- what most of the insiders thought was that the deal was going to pass- and the Obama administration did ‘signal’ to Canada that the deal would be on- just wait a little while [politics].

Of course if you have a major deal like this- the company does need to know ahead of time so they can make the preparations and all.

So when Obama said no yesterday- it was a surprise. Canada put out a statement and said they would re submit the application- and they ‘expected’ that it would be approved quickly.

They sounded mad- like they did indeed get the assurance that it would go thru- and then it didn’t.

Why did the Pres say no?

Well he says the 2 months ‘limit’ on his decision [imposed by congress] was not enough time to study whether or not it was an environmentally safe deal.

It should be noted that the EPA- who this last year has been known to make ‘over’ protective decisions- did approve this plan.

The Presidents job council recently recommended that it should pass.

And some pro Obama supporters did want it.

Then why?

The Pres. has made the decision [this has been reported] to go hard this campaign year against congress- kind of stir up his base and show himself as someone not to be pushed around- so it is possible that’s what he did here.

Real big deal? Not really- but political.

While this deal wasn’t as great as those on the right made it sound- it also wasn’t a bad thing.

Right now we are very close to a shooting war with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. Why?

1-5^th of the world’s oil is shipped thru this waterway [from the Persian Gulf].

So the U.S. has a Naval port off Bahrain- and we have treated this waterway as a national defense issue- that if Iran [or any other nation] ever threatened to close the waterway- that we would go to war if necessary to defend it.

Okay- just as a policy- say if I told you that there was gas for your car down the street- that the field down your block had a lot of gas- but we need to dig it up and it might be a mess- maybe it might pollute the air down the block- but that’s the cost for the stuff.

Then you say ‘wait- what about that field across the lake- if we dig there it won’t look as bad as the field down the block’.

Okay- but the owner of that field actually hates you- they will use some of the money you will pay to promote terrorists who will someday kill your kids- Oh- and the lake is filled with dangerous stuff- so we will also have to patrol the lake for ever- just to make sure no one stops the oil ships crossing back over.

So as an overall policy- we have chosen to limit the environmental danger- and the price way pay for this is very high.

So we as a nation have to decide what’s more vital- the lives of our kids on these ships- or the risk of a possible oil spill from a pipe.

These issues usually get lost on the right or the left- but if the country can’t have a serious discussion- then in the end we all will lose.

We will be just like Schettino- looking for that life boat.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

1777- SHIP WRECK

By now I’m sure you have all heard the audio conversation between the captain of the Italian cruise ship and the Coast guard.

As a news watcher- when I first heard the tragic story- I thought ‘geez- let me give the Italian brother a break’ you know- as an Italian myself- yeah- I want to root as much as possible for the home land.

I’m still mad that I don’t have a Churchill or FDR figure in my past history.

Sure- I’ve read the history- and for a short time as a kid I tried to convince myself that El Duce had some honorable qualities- but heck- who was I kidding.

So as the story broke- I heard Captain Schettino’s side of it. He insisted he acted heroically- that he was the last man off the ship and he struck something in the water that no one knew was there [Italian Loch Ness?]

But the audio recording told the whole thing. Yes- I sat in anticipation- hoping for the best- maybe hearing the Captain saying ‘I refuse to abandon ship- for the love of homeland and country’ heck- you never know.

But as I heard the Coast guard telling the captain ‘get back on the ship- what are you doing’.

Schettino said it was dark and they had no lights.

The guard says ‘you have people stuck on the ship- some are dying’.

Captain ‘how many are on the ship’?

Guard ‘I don’t know Schettino- you are supposed to be telling me’!

Damn it Schettino- damn it.

Okay- don’t want to make fun- yes- it’s tragic- and people have died. But obviously we need to have some better policing of these cruise ship guys- it seems as if they have gone off course before- doing a favor for a fellow crew member- and these guys messed up big time.

Are there any famous ship wreck stories in the bible? Sure- Acts chapter 27.

The apostle Paul is on his way to Rome- he is a prisoner at the time.

The ship they are on gets caught up in a storm- things look bad.

Paul prays and tells his shipmates ‘don’t worry- an angel appeared to me and assured me that we will all survive’.

They try to last the storm out by staying afloat from shore- then after a few days they try to make it for land- to beach the ship.

But some of the crew try a daring stunt- they pretend they are going to lower some anchors but instead they are lowering their little get away lifeboats [yes- they were pulling a Schettino!]

And Paul tells the Roman soldier ‘look- the angel said we will all make it- but the deal will only work if everyone stays on the ship’.

They cut the ropes to the lifeboat and head for shore.

On the way they hit a reef and the ship gets stuck and starts to break up.

They abandon ship- and swim to shore.

Okay- good story.

By the way- this chapter gives lots of historical events and places.

A few years ago an archeologist read this story form the bible and traced down the exact spot where the wreck might be- 2 thousand years later.

He found the actual anchors to the boat.

So this week hasn’t been the best for the reputation of my homeland- I mean the S and P just can’t wait to downgrade the debt- and then we have to hear old brother Schettino being rebuked by the Coast Guard ‘Schettino- okay- get on our boat- but your gonna be in big trouble’.

Yes Schettino- you sure are.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John