Jesus Knocks Over Tables

Doug Giles' latest column brings up some points I've often made with Christians and secularists alike who think people of faith should just sit in the pew with their hands folded and not aggressively confront error.

(Incidentally, this approach is the cowards approach; it isn't a Christ-like approach).

From Giles' column:

When Jesus Christ got injected into the human mix two thousand plus years ago, from the cradle to the cross, He was a lightning rod of controversy. His incarnation heated up the culture war more than O’Reilly could ever dream of doing.

And how about this:

The initial message the Wonderful Counselor preached, according to Dr. Luke’s take, ticked off the crowd He was addressing so thoroughly that they attempted to throw Him off a cliff. He nailed that haughty mob for the crud they were practicing—and He did so publicly. In public. Ouch. Snap! That’s not very “Christian” of Christ.

Seems Jesus wasn't too worried about being "civil," was he?

More truth about Christ:

Today in our radically wussified, politically correct state of bland, we won’t embrace this Christ because He’d so get under our skin.

How would many of today's Christians like the Jesus who walked the Earth 2,000 years ago?

It’s funny that a bunch of churchgoers who worship Jesus probably wouldn’t hire Him to be their pastor today because He was too much of a hellrazer. His solid/ acidic, anti-bovine scatology posture towards politicians, priests, pet sins, oppressors and others who were playing games with God and man equates a resume that most pastoral search committees wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pew.

So what kind of god do many of today's cowardly Christians (and fun-loving secularists) want?

Y’know, most of us forget the above when we see sweet baby Jesus lying in a manger. Because of our rank illiteracy regarding the scripture, our prejudiced and politically correct approach to the Bible that’s custom tailored a Jesus of our own imaginations, we have developed a deep distaste for anything but a bespoke and neutered little “g” god.

What do we need instead? Giles tells us exactly what we need:

My prayer for you and yours, our churches and our nation is that we flush the feckless, Lysol-disinfected, feminine hygiene Jesus we’ve created to mollycoddle our madness and go back to the rowdy Christ that would, lovingly of course, shake us into shape.

As we come to Christmas (not the Santa Claus time, but the time where we celebrate the birth of our Savior as a man), we should remember that he didn't come to Earth simply to be a baby, simply to have us adore this newborn (though we should).

Jesus came to launch an all-out assault on the Kingdom of Darkness, and he didn't worry about "civility" or "moderation" or such pablum. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which tells me His Church wasn't passive--it was intended to take the fight to the enemy!

In fact, I do recall this Savior saying in the book of Revelation that he would rather people be either hot or cold, and this mealy-mouthed "moderation" he would spew out of his mouth.

So for the next couple of days, worship Christ the newborn king. We should. The incarnation of our God is a miracle and a wonder worthy of such admiration.

But when the wrapping paper is put away, put on the armor of God, Christian, and start fighting the spiritual warfare you were called to.

Anything less is dereliction of duty.

Merry Christmas!

Faith Creates a Better Life--And Better Society

Rebecca Hagelin has a powerful new column at WorldNetDaily that both religious and secular folks should check out. It's entitled, "Shocker! Faithful really do sin less." That is indeed not a shocker for religious people, but actually may come as a shocker to secularists who think they can find some meaningful morality outside of religion.

The core of her piece is a new paper from Pat Fagen at the Heritage Foundation that goes into great detail on the impact of faith on social stability.

A few of the findings Hagelin cites:

When mothers and their children share the same level of religious practice, they experience better relationships with one another.

mothers who became more religious throughout the first 18 years of their child's life reported a better relationship with that child, regardless of the level of their religious practice before the child was born.

Compared with fathers who had no religious affiliation, those who attended religious services frequently were more likely to monitor their children, praise and hug their children, and spend time with their children. In fact, fathers' frequency of religious attendance was a stronger predictor of paternal involvement in one-on-one activities with children than were employment and income – the factors most frequently cited in the academic literature on fatherhood.

She also says of the findings

Couples are far more likely to stay together if they're religiously active

Religiously active couples also report greater happiness and satisfaction with their marriages. The incidence of domestic violence drops, too. Men who attended religious services at least weekly were more than 50 percent less likely to commit an act of violence against their partners than were peers who attended only once a year or less

Fagan notes that traditional values and religious beliefs were among the most common factors teens cite to explain why they are abstaining from sex. And religion affects out-of-wedlock childbearing: Compared with those who consider themselves "very religious," those who were "not at all religious" are two to three times more likely to have a child outside of marriage.

the use of cigarettes and the abuse of alcohol and drugs drops significantly among those who are religiously active

people who are religiously active are at a much lower risk of depression and suicide. They also tend to live longer.

Of course fringe dwellers such as the Coat Hangers at Dawn crowd will undoubtedly find some excuse to explain away a reality which inconveniences them. After all, they find sexual responsibility something to be mocked rather than sought after.

Hagelin sums it up, putting these findings into a societal context. You see, religious virtue should be pursued not only for the good of the eternal soul, and not only for the well-being of the individual, but also for the safety and stability of our civilization:

None of this would surprise our Founding Fathers, who knew that no people could be self-governing without religion. In his Farewell Address, George Washington referred to religion and morality as the "great pillars of human happiness" and noted: "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Ted Kennedy Buries Head in Sand

How do liberals deal with facts that demonstrate liberalism is a dead-end street paved with broken promises? Just deny them and hope they'll go away.

As illustrated on Fox News Sunday today:

WALLACE: You said that welfare reform was a legislative child abuse. "Let them eat cake." But now, Senator, 10 years later, the employment rate among unmarried women — the employment rate — has soared, and the child poverty rate has dropped.

Hasn't welfare reform worked?

KENNEDY: No, no. Your figures are wrong in terms of child poverty. Your figures are absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Well, we got them from the liberal Brookings Institute, sir.

KENNEDY: You're wrong. We've had an increase in the last five years of the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of America. It's increased by 1,700,000.

Where is the reference for Kennedy's "facts?" His head. That's it.

Liberals are the ultimate blasphemers. They think that, like God, they can create an idea in their head and make it reality. Wrong answer! Only one person in the universe can do that (and it isn't Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy).

Ted Kennedy Buries Head in Sand

How do liberals deal with facts that demonstrate liberalism is a dead-end street paved with broken promises? Just deny them and hope they'll go away.

As illustrated on Fox News Sunday today:

WALLACE: You said that welfare reform was a legislative child abuse. "Let
them eat cake." But now, Senator, 10 years later, the employment rate among
unmarried women — the employment rate — has soared, and the child poverty rate
has dropped.

Hasn't welfare reform worked?

KENNEDY: No, no. Your figures are wrong in terms of child poverty. Your
figures are absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Well, we got them from the liberal Brookings Institute,
sir.

KENNEDY: You're wrong. We've had an increase in the last five years of
the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of
America. It's increased by 1,700,000.

Where is the reference for Kennedy's "facts?" His head. That's it.

Liberals are the ultimate blasphemers. They think that, like God, they can create an idea in their head and make it reality. Wrong answer! Only one person in the universe can do that (and it isn't Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy).