PROPAGANDA AND ORLANDO

Propaganda is the antithesis of balanced reporting. It only allows its “masses” to see a very limited perspective. A proven propagandist had therefore written:

·       The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf)

Our present-day progressive media and government greedily embrace this “wisdom”:

·       The lengths to which the Obama Administration is willing to go to extricate Omar Mateen’s killing spree from the motives he proclaimed to the police during 911 calls and to the world on social media are staggering. Today, for example, the Department of Justice announced that it is “scrubbing references of radical Islamic beliefs from the transcript calls Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen made to police during his massacre.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who responded to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino by promising to prosecute “anti-Muslim speech,” informed NBC that, “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda. We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].” https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/christians-and-the-orlando-blood-libel

The Obama administration has devoted itself to propaganda, molding public opinion in accordance with its own agenda, emphasizing the human rights of the Muslim at the expense of the rights of the innocent who should be protected against the Muslim.

·       The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly. (MK)

In accordance with this “wisdom,” the Obama administration has gone beyond simply a biased presentation of the facts. They are now rewriting the script. According to the new redacted script, which removed any references to Islam, Mateen proclaimed:

·       Praise be to God [not “Allah”], and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of…..

However, Mateen did not say “God” but “Allah.” Therefore, God is the problem and not Islamic Koranic-based faith. This is like going to a doctor who will only tell you that you have a virus and not Ebola. Had he stated “Ebola,” you could have been treated accordingly and probably successfully. However, if it is just labelled a “virus,” then treatment can take many different and inappropriate forms.

The Obama administration practice is clearly in harmony with Hitler:

·       The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out. (MK)

Likewise, the Obama team will only tell us about the innocent Muslims, who should not be victimized because of the many brutal Muslim attacks. However, they fail to tell us anything about Islam – their intention to impose sharia law and a worldwide Caliphate, even using the tactics of Boko Haram and ISIS, if necessary. They also fail to tip us off about Islamic history and its teachings, for example:

IMMIGRATION JIHAD: He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah [Jihad], will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. (Koran 4:100-101) 

WORLDWIDE CALIPHATE:

• “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme.” (Koran 8:37)

• “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

• “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60).

If this is what their faith is about - and history confirms it - then we should expect to see many more San Bernardino’s, 9/11s, and Orlandos “until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.”

However, the Obama administration has even gone beyond the recommendations of Mein Kampf to actually change the transcript to change the ideas of the “great masses” whose “receptivity…is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.” They are banking on the fact that what had apparently been Islamic violence committed in honor of Allah will soon be forgotten and that anyone who does a search regarding Islamic terror will only see references to “insanity,” “homophobia,” and “workplace violence.”

Evidently, this administration believes that our minds belong to them to be molded into compliant puppets to carry out a discredited and destructive progressive vision of a new world. And our power-elites – the media and universities – will not hold them accountable, since they too are progressives. We should call this oppressive concentration of power “tyranny” and not “democracy.”

Standing against the Pro-Gay Agenda and its Taunts

Recently, a pro-gay [PG] “evangelical” took issue with my stance that homosexual behavior is a sin. I challenged him to provide just one verse justifying homosexuality. Of course, he couldn’t. Instead, he argued that Christians are hypocrites for judging homosexuality because we don’t judge other sins that the Bible also deems as sinful:

• I'm demonstrating a parallel between homosexuality and women uncovering their heads while praying or prophesying. Both these behaviors are seemingly condemned by scripture. What I can't understand is why you pick and choose only those verses from scripture that address one of these issues while you let people do whatever the heck they want on the other one. You are inconsistent. You select only those scriptures that support your pre-existing prejudice [homophobia]. Why don't you write blog posts telling slaves to obey their masters? That is also clearly advocated in scripture, after all. I don't see why you get to demand that I cite just one verse on your pet issue of homosexuality when you can't cite one verse allowing women to uncover their heads while praying or prophesying… Admittedly there are gray areas in scriptures, but you haven't provided one reason to prove that women uncovering their heads covered while praying or prophesying is a gray area.

First of all, it should be clear that Christians do/should not judge people with SSA (same-sex attraction). We all have sinful impulses! Instead, we must judge behaviors and words as the Bible judges and as Jesus has judged.

Secondly, the issue of women covering their heads is a difficult one. For one thing, it is only found in one set of verses. For another, it’s hard to know what Paul meant by a woman covering her “head” (1 Cor. 11:2- ). Is it with a veil or her own hair? Then Paul further stirs the kettle. First, he claims that the wife is under her husband as Christ is under the Father and the husband is under Christ, but then he adds another element. Although the woman was created for the man, now, the man comes forth from the woman. Frankly, I am perplexed.

Meanwhile, there is no ambiguity regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. It is never given a green-light! Although the PG is correct that we mustn’t discriminate according to our own preferences regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, his charge that the church is guilty of exercising a “pre-existing prejudice” is unsustainable.

However, even if we are using Scripture in a prejudicial/homophobic way, this might discredit us, but it doesn’t discredit Scripture, which is clear regarding its condemnation of homosexuality!

If we are picking-and-choosing among the teachings of Scripture, we have to correct ourselves. We have to also speak against adultery, pornography, prostitution, and even trial marriages.

The PG indicts me for focusing on my “pet issue of homosexuality.” Admittedly, I do speak more against homosexuality than against trial marriages, but there are reasons for this:

1. This is an area where churches are compromising.
2. This issue is incessantly being pushed by the courts, university, and media. Response is therefore imperative!
3. It is a deadly sin. According to the stats, homosexual men’s lifespans are on the average of 20 years less.
4. Christian youth are not receiving necessary teaching to combat the many voices that are claiming that the church is homophobic.
5. The PG agenda has been threatening our freedoms of speech and religion.
6. As a result, many have lost their jobs and businesses for expressing themselves in favor of traditional marriage. Others have experienced vandalism and threats. These need advocates!

Even in this discussion, an “evangelical” PG has used personal attacks to shame and silence. In defense, we must recall that we are required to be a light to the world.

Will the Real Homophobe Please Stand Up

Those of us who oppose Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) are routinely demeaned as “homophobes” – those who hate gays. And if you are a hater, then you shouldn’t have a voice. Therefore, any who disagree with SSM shouldn’t have a voice.

But do we really hate gays? One way to decide this question is to determine who actually causes harm to gays? Is it those who oppose SSM or those who promote it?

• According to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control that analyzed data from 2011, approximately 62 percent of gay men who know they have HIV/AIDS do not use condoms when engaging in sexual relations. (LifeSiteNews)

If anyone hates gays, it is these 62%. However, it is not just these, but it’s also those who encourage homosexuality, claiming that the many costs that gays incur are just the result of social intolerance. Certainly, it is not intolerance that causes gays to lie about their health status. Nor is it intolerance that has caused the STD epidemic and attenuated lifespans among gays. Intolerance cannot explain the plethora of problems plaguing the gay lifestyle – mental health, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence issues.

We can also ask, “Who is it who really cares about gays – those who indulge them or those who warn them?” Of course, we Christians are accused of condemning gays to hell and of  treating them with contempt.

Against these charges, I try to explain that, however haltingly we might walk in the love that we profess, it is our duty to love the gays as Christ has loved us. Since we have learned that we are nothing without our Savior, we are in no position to look down on anyone else. (Although my assertion has never been met with applause, I want to set the record straight anyway.)

What then is love? Love is a commitment to the ultimate welfare of others. It speaks truth. Sometimes, it warns. However, it should never acquiesce to the establishment of an institution – SSM – that will further normalize a behavior that has already been so self-destructive.

Christians have no Right to Speak

My Response to a Respondent Critical of the Christian Message Regarding Homosexuality:

I am glad that we can agree that it is wrong to prevent others from seeking help for their unwanted behaviors or desires. However, I think that you have characterized Christians in a needlessly negative and pejorative way. Personally, I can’t blame you. Western secularism surrounds us with the message that Christians are “bigoted,” “homophobic” and just generally intolerant. (Perhaps instead, it is the prevailing secular culture which is intolerant of Christians!) It’s hard to escape these characterizations. Even many of those raised in the church are now turning away or at least attempting to radically change the church into a form that might be more acceptable to society.

I also feel that pressure. However, as a Christian, my first calling is faithfulness to God and His revelation, even if it means loosing friends and social approval. Primarily, this means that I feel the responsibility to make a defense for the now widely despised faith, and to challenge those ideas that are now competing for the hearts and minds of our youth.

Although you probably genuinely believe what you’ve written, please understand that I have to challenge your characterizations:

• “Yet the fact remains that Christians (or a certain species of Christian) seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others and often spread slander and malice – in addition to a good deal of self-righteousness – condemning homosexual people.”

I don’t know of any true Christians “condemning homosexual people.” We are all sinners whose only hope is in the mercy of God. Consequently, we realize that we are in no position to look down on others. Therefore, our mandate to love includes all people, despite their sexual orientation or behavior.

In fact, the Christian faith does more to dignify the marginalized than does any other religion, even secularism. We acknowledge that the gay person is beloved of God and created in His image. In our view, he is, before all else, a precious human being and not someone to be defined by his sexual behavior or SSA.

In contrast to the image that materialistic secular humanism has carefully promoted for itself, it lacks any basis for valuing others beyond the material. The material world has no other basis for evaluation but the superficial and material – a person’s physical appearance, productivity, viability, and contributions to society.

Also, in the physical world, there is only inequality. There are the stronger and the weaker, the smarter and the duller, the educated and the uneducated, the upstanding and the criminal. Consequently, the secular plea for equality and human rights is both insupportable and hypocritical. While they base their claims on human rights, they really have no basis to believe in them. In the secular world, everything is alienable and changeable – merely a matter of molecules-in-motion.

You claim that “Christians seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others.” This is a charge commonly made against Christians. Instead, of dealing with the issues – and these never seem to find their way into the secular media – secularists find it more convenient, however illegitimately, to attack the person rather than the ideas. (I think that this is a poignant reflection of where secular morality is taking us.)

On another level, shouldn’t we defend ourselves against such charges? When we are called “hate-mongers” and the Bible is called “hate-speech,” shouldn’t we reply? And if we fail to do so, wouldn’t this silence be interpreted as agreement? Wouldn’t our youth then conclude that we have no answers?

When we see Christians loosing their jobs and being expelled from universities because of their beliefs, shouldn’t we speak up on their behalf and also about the truths that govern our lives? However, when we try to do this, we are accused with being “preoccupied with sex!”

You claim that Christians have failed to speak out against the corporate thieves. I think that you are greatly mistaken about this. However, if these thieves or adulterers began to demand an “Adulterer Pride Month,” and required the schools to carry texts and teachings on the “Virtues of Adultery,” I think that Christian protest would be more apparent.

You conclude with these words:

• “I think it is time for Christians to leave the subject of homosexuality for the time being and put their own house in order, before thinking they have either the right or ability to direct the morality of others.”

I hope you are saying the same thing to the media, to the universities, the public schools and, of course, to our government officials – all of whom are speaking forcefully in favor of homosexuality. I would imagine you have no problem with their talking on this subject. Why then the disparity? Why can’t we also talk on this subject?

I think that this reflects the growing intolerance of society. Only certain people – those who agree with me – are allowed to voice their opinions.

The White House, its Pride and Prejudice

The White House has just released the Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012

In regards to LGBTs, it proudly proclaims that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.”

This proclamation is based upon the belief that LGBTs have the right to receive legal recognition and support in marriage. However, if the White House is really serious about its claim that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love,” it must also strike down laws against adultery, open marriages, polygamy and pedophilia. Hasn’t the law also relegated these people to a “second-class” status? And so, isn’t it hypocritical for the administration to complain about LGBTs as “second-class citizen[s],” while turning its back on the rest? This is reminiscent of our Declaration’s proclamation that “all, are created equal,” while the African American remained in chains.

The administration justifies its stance by appealing to the Golden Rule: “treat others the way we want to be treated.” While this is a sound principle, it has its limitations, especially when it comes to law. I don’t think that human rights should by extended to pedophiles to seduce minors – even when the minor is amenable - nor to the billionaire who wants to marry 100 young girls. There are certain behaviors and lifestyles that government should not promote. In fact, every law that we have on the books is a statement about certain behaviors that government will not tolerate, and many for good reason. (Perhaps NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s assault against soft drinks is a notable exception.)

Sadly, those who stand in the way of this modernistic, permissive understanding of “human rights” are equated with bigots:

• I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people

The White House would not have been so dismissive, intolerant, and polarizing if it had instead written that it desired its own philosophy to prevail for such-and-such reasons. However, it has divisively taken the stance that the opposing opinions represent “prejudice.”

This language is inflammatory. It signals that those who hold such opinions are prejudiced and should be silenced. Thus the call to “eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists!”

All of this is done in the name of “human rights.” However, this administration fails to acknowledge that our human rights find their origin in our Creator, as specified in the Declaration of Independence:

• All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

If government has the authority to grant such rights, it also has the authority to repeal them. This of course would mean that our rights aren’t “unalienable,” but conditioned upon the whim of those in power. Subsequently, whatever government deems as right, is right, if there is no higher Authority – the absolute Law-Giver. And according to no traditional religion has He established the right of SSM.

However, this administration is making its “human rights” appeal to the nations of the world based upon principles that necessarily transcend those nations and their traditions and legal codes they want to change. Therefore, this administration is speaking for God without any proof that it has the authority or authorization to do so.

And it is not just those who are in opposition who are being tarred with the label of “prejudice.” This policy also represents a charge against the Book that supports this “prejudice.” Indeed, the Apostle Paul had warned:

• Therefore God gave them [those who rejected Him] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. (Romans 1:24-29

Such writing and thinking is now labeled “prejudice,” even though every major traditional religion would agree with Paul’s stance. It also reflects the modernistic chauvinism that “What we believe represents progress over former ideas.”

If the Bible’s teaching in favor of traditional marriage exclusively is bigoted, then there needs to be some open and public discussion on the subject. However, our permissive society is increasingly intolerant of such discussion. Even worse, we are now equated with “Nazis,” who must be silenced.

Oddly, the release concludes by invoking “our Lord”:

• I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord…

One can only wonder, “Which Lord is ‘our Lord?’”

Same-Sex Marriage and our Administration

According to CNSNews.com:

• President Barack Obama told donors in New York Monday that same-sex marriage “strengthens families.”

• Obama, who announced last week that he had evolved to the point of supporting homosexual marriage, told contributors at a fundraising event that he believes in fairness and equality.

• “The announcement I made last week about my views on marriage equality -- same principle,” he told the audience. “The basic idea -- I want everybody treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody. That doesn’t weaken families; that strengthens families. It’s the right thing to do.”

If the President is making his case based on “fairness and equality,” well, why not fairness for the pedophile, the polygamist, or the incestor? Why just for the homosexual couple? Why should they be treated with equality, while two non-homosexual men or women, living together on a long-term basis, do not receive the same favored status?

How can this be fairness? I guess the only way to bring about fairness is to remove all discrimination, and this means to remove all laws, since every law discriminates.

I guess it just sounds good to claim “fairness and equality” for one’s cause, whether such a claim is fair or not. If it works, that settles it! And for many, it seems to work just peachy. It makes them the “good guys” and the rest become the “evil hypocritical bad guys.”

Is it “the right thing to do,” as the President claims? If it is, then he must explain why it is right to grant such rights to homosexuals but not to the polygamists and the pedophiles. However, these questions are left out of the discussion. In fact, there is no discussion. There are just one-sided claims of “fairness,” while they demonize and degrade the opposition as “unfair” and even “bigoted.”

What would be fair? To have open discussions without bullying the opposition into silence with charges of “hate speech” and “homophobia!” That would be fair!

I think that the administration, the schools and the media have a lot of answering to do. They have been legitimizing, promoting, and popularizing a lifestyle which is inherently self-destructive, according to all the statistics. The homosexual lifestyle is strongly associated with suicide, substance abuse, depression, a shortened life span, a variety of diseases and mental illness, and yet the elites have been encouraging youth to self-identify as “homosexual,” even when it is common knowledge that sexual identity can be very fluid at those tender years.

The President claims that this institution “strengthens families.” This is precisely the question we must ask. However, the prospects for an affirmative answer are dim. We have no historical precedent of this lifestyle beneficially flourishing for any great length of time. Although tried many times, it never seems to benefit their societies.

John J. Davis (Evangelical Ethics) writes of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:

• After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind “does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.” Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (p. 116)

I guess Unwin must have been an unjust, unfair, hate-mongering homophobe!

What it’s like to be a Counter-Cultural Christian

I asked the friendly woman next to me what she liked about this Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). She forthrightly explained that this church was more friendly and inviting than her prior church. It felt more like family. Indeed, the first two precepts of “Mission Statement” affirmed the very thing that she was experiencing:

• Acting as a beacon of love and hope to others;

• Providing spiritual and emotional nurture in an environment of acceptance for all people.

Essentially, this was their “statement of faith” – nothing about the essence of God, sin, humankind, or salvation, just love, compassion and justice.

Claire (not her real name) had been going to a Bible-centered church, but she found it to big, impersonal, and unresponsive to her as a person:

“I wanted to volunteer for one of their ministries, but there were so many obstacles. I had to take a lengthy training course and…”

I grieved within, knowing that her experience was reflective of many Bible (God)-centered churches. They generally do not have the flexibility to be fully people-centered. Their “statements of faith” contain many Biblical specifications regarding what people must believe, in order to serve. Essentially, they have to reflect the doctrine of their church, and understandably so.

Many of us are so deeply pierced by this national tragedy - We have lost all of our older colleges to secularism – all of the Ivy League schools. Many, which remain, are deeply compromised. We have seen our mainline churches depart as quickly as the freshness of springtime, taking with them all of the stately properties, engineered by the Biblical faith. This ubiquitous usurpation has left many churches scrambling to rent storefronts or space at the public schools, from which they are now also being ejected.

Perhaps our concern to preserve Biblical orthodoxy leaves us less wiggle-room to be responsive to people’s feelings than Claire’s church, which was clearly reveling in inclusive hugs. They even seemed confident that they were embracing the light. In fact, almost the entire surrounding culture reassured them that they were walking in the light. Indeed, people-centered churches are able to go-with-the-flow of feelings, proclivities, and the prevailing culture. They are free to tap into the popular sentiments of the age.

Claire confided, “It just feels right being here. Inclusiveness seems to be the answer.” She seemed to be such a warm, caring and sincere person. It therefore hurt me to question her sense of “rightness.”

“Sometimes what feels right to us may just be the effect of our cultural conditioning. After all, in many cultures, even the mention of homosexuality conjures up negative feelings.” I tried to say this as sensitively as I could, but I knew that I was fighting against a cultural tsunami, and I wouldn’t score any points, at least, not enough.

“I think that people can be too judgmental,” she gently responded. I assured her that this was true, but that this church was also judgmental. Before the sermon, a woman announced the meeting of a group devoted to combating “homophobia.”

“This church would judge me as ‘homophobic’ and shun me. Everyone judges; everyone draws a line somewhere! No group can be inclusive of every lifestyle. In regards to the gay lifestyle, there are great, statistically-established costs involved. I therefore think that love would require us to warn and not indulge.” Perhaps I should have just called homosexuality “sin,” but I was afraid that such a judgment would readily put me out-of-step with cultural norms, and allow others to prematurely dismiss me.

I was fighting a loosing battle. I cast my prayer-bottle upon the waters, but the tsunami drove it back in my face. I recalled the lament of the Prophet Jeremiah:

• Concerning the [false] prophets: My heart is broken within me; all my bones tremble… The land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land lies parched and the pastures in the desert are withered. The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly. (Jeremiah 23:9-10)

This is followed by the Lord’s own lament:

• This is what the Lord Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They keep saying to those who despise me, 'The Lord says: You will have peace.' And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, 'No harm will come to you.'” (Jeremiah 23:16-17)

The false prophet could always out-compete the genuine prophet. He was free from theological constraint to market his message solely according to the appetites of his consumers. They wanted to be assured that they would continue to enjoy peace and prosperity despite their lifestyles, and this was the very assurances that the false prophet would serve them. However, he had left the Lord out of his equation:

• But which of them has stood in the council of the Lord to see or to hear his word?      Who has listened and heard his word? See, the storm of the Lord will burst out in wrath…I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds. (Jer. 23:18-22

The false message is temporarily comforting, but it fails to bring the necessary healing. It doesn’t turn people from their evil. In contrast, love is far-sighted. It looks beyond the immediate comforts and desires to the coming tragedy and warns.

The true prophet almost always presented an uncomfortable message – one that wouldn’t feel right. The prophet would put his finger on sin - something which had to be confessed. It was confession and repentance that would bring about their reconciliation with the Source of Life.

Claire conceded that this probably wasn’t the church for me. “You have to find the church that feels right for you.” She said this in such a concerned way, that I didn’t want to dispute her assessment, but I knew that I had to.

“Claire, it’s not so much a matter of what feels right for me, but what is right before our God.” I felt her pain and cringed inside at my own words. I knew how she would receive these words – that I didn’t think that she was primarily concerned about God and truth. I had probably alienated her and failed at being people-centered, that is, Claire-centered. Perhaps, I was beginning to understand the lot of the Hebrew Prophets.