Will You Keep Supporting a Maniac Right to the Brink?

Read article here.

This guy is capable of anything.  Anything!  There are no boundaries he will not cross.  There are no self-imposed limitations he will stick to.  There are no standards of behavior he feels bound by.  There is no limit to the number and class of people he will use, misuse and abuse to get what he wants.

If he has been accused (by Democrats or Congress or others) of something he did not actually do, it is only because he never thought of doing it, or did not find a way to make it work to his ends.

A man that has the full weight and power of the United States at his disposal, and is willing to misuse it simply to try to save face or recover from embarrassment is a man that is capable of any crime.

That's not even the worst part.  That's not even the saddest part.  That's not even the heartbreaking part.

The worst part is that the vast majority of people who should be speaking up the loudest against this are going to continue to keep silent, or even support it.  They are going to rationalize for "the greater good" or some such.  But the real reason they are going to continue to support Trump's deeds and even vote for him again is this:  They want to save face and avoid embarrassment as much as he does.  They made their decision and they won't admit they were wrong.  Just like him!

Too many voters bought non-refundable tickets on the Trump train well before they ever considered the long-term effects of taking such a ride.  So now they are going to stay on the train regardless of whether they like the scenery out the window right now.  Is there a bridge out up ahead?  Is a fiery crash in the works?  Do the train tracks even lead where you were promised to end up?

Check the map here.  We're not headed where you thought.  And the continuing silence or even tacit approval of Trump supporters only makes him more bold; only makes him more committed to the direction he's headed.

The train is picking up even more speed.  How far are you willing to ride it?

VM

What Is a Church Ministry For?

While reflecting upon numerous personal conversations, church meetings, men's meetings, ministry meetings, pastors' meetings and the like, I believe I am finally able to put into words something which has been in my heart for years about the nature and purpose of church ministries.  This concept of ministry philosophy was instilled in me by my former pastor, whom God used very greatly to shape my understanding of the function of the church.  It was reiterated to my heart through the experience of my own pastoral ministry.  And it has been nurtured and sustained by the large ministry-heart of my current pastor.  I am talking about the fundamental function, or reason for existence of any ministry the church engages in for its members: ultimately, to "bear one another's burdens" (Galatians 6:2).

I think we can all see, in a general sense, that ministries provided for church members are burden-bearing by their nature.  But what I've been reflecting on is the practical side of it, not just the general sense of it.  Specifically, I've been wrestling with how to answer various objections, such as "Why have this ministry or that ministry?"  A church having a Christian day school comes to mind as a perfect example, but we could name any number of example ministries.  I need to pick an example that we can put into practicalities, so I will use that one.

Here is a question: "Why might a church that endorses home-schooling as the ideal have a Christian day school for families who don't home-school?"  It is an excellent question, with a lot of thought behind it.  And it seems like a paradox or enigma.  We could extend the same question to any number of other ministries: "Why might a church that recommends families being together in church services as the ideal offer children's ministries?"  We could ask a lot of questions about a lot of ministries along these same lines.  "If this is the ideal, why do we do that?"  But the answer would be the same.

Here is why: Because we don't minister in the "ideal" situation.  In fact, if we were in the ideal situation, there would be NO NEED for any ministry!

We do not structure church ministries around where Christians ought to be!  Get that!  It is vitally important!  If you want to understand anything about church ministries, read that sentence three times again, out loud if necessary.  If Christians were where they ought to be spiritually, there would be no need for any ministry!  There would be no need for preaching, teaching, exhorting or anything else a church does!

Rather, we structure church ministries around where Christians ARE.  It is ministry where the rubber meets the road.  We certainly want to help them move along closer to where they ought to be (and ourselves as well).  But we cannot hold up the spiritual ideal, in any area, and say, "If you're not here, we won't minister to you in that area!"  That is not burden-bearing, it is refusing the burden.

Now let me try to put it in a practical, concrete-example sense.  I have been a committed home-schooling father for two decades.  I believe every Christian parent, at least in America (and probably most elsewhere), should home-school in this day and age.  I believe every parent is capable of making it work if they will commit, do the hard work, make the sacrifices, seek help when needed (Hello, grandparents!  Hello church family!), and stick to it.  I believe every problem or objection encountered by home-schooling parents can be worked around, whether logistical, financial, or otherwise.  It can be done!

But I also have to be practical, in the real world, not the world of ideals.  Whether or not every parent should, or can home-school is not the question.  Whether or not they even share my opinion, conviction or preference about it is not the question.  The fact of the matter is, not every parent will, not every parent is willing, and not every parent is convinced like I am.  And yet they don't want their children in public school.  And neither does the church.  Providing a Christian day school is a part of bearing their burdens.  And we are commanded to bear their burdens too, by the way, not just the burdens of those who hold to our preferences.

No, it is not ideal.  But it is also not unbiblical.  You can say home-schooling is the ideal (and I believe it is), but you can't point to the Bible and say home-schooling is the only way.  If you say that, you are convicting most Christians for hundreds of years, up until home-schooling became vogue rather recently.  You are claiming to live by new revelation that our forefathers lacked.  Christians who have chosen to home-school have not done so on biblical grounds, but on practical grounds - largely out of preference over the godless public schools in America today.  A church-run school solves the exact same problem, without violating any scriptural principles (regardless of whether it violates anybody's preferences, or ideas of ideal).

I use this example because it is possibly the easiest to put in concrete terms, but any church ministry can be evaluated in the same terms.  It is designed to bear one another's burdens.  It is designed to "support the weak" (Acts 20:35; I Thessalonians 5:14).  It may even be designed to "comfort the feebleminded" (I Thessalonians 5:14 again).  It is not designed for the person who already has it all together in that area of their life.  Where would be the opportunity to minister there?

The types of questions or objections, raised above, to certain ministries are not such a paradox or enigma after you think rightly about ministry as a burden-bearing, weak-supporting endeavor.  Yes, a church that preaches abstinence from alcohol can still minister to drunkards!  Yes, a church that stands against divorce and remarriage can still help a remarried couple have a great marriage!  Yes, a church that opposes sin can still help sinners!  That thought should be kind of a "Duh!" moment.  It's not an oxymoron, it's reality.  When every church member reaches the spiritual ideal that the church targets, it's time to close the church!

We do not minister in the ideal, because the ideal requires no ministry.  Unfortunately, some Christians seem like they only want the church to minister to those who really would need no ministry!  That is the real paradox or enigma.

That oxymoron is worse than the old financial dilemma: "You can only be approved for a bank loan if you can show you have enough money to not need the loan."  Well, I don't want a church that's ran like a bank!  I don't want to be involved in ministries approved with a loan-officer's checklist, "Prove that you're worthy of our help."  Rather, I want to sweat, give, labor and spend myself (II Corinthians 12:15) in real ministry, to real people in the real world who really need it.  Like somebody did for me!

VM

06-15-2019

Johnny Cash Family Fumes At "Outrageous" Trump Claims

WASHINGTON (04/04/2019) - The family of late music entertainer and eminent climate scientist Johnny Cash went to Twitter this week to express dismay with recent claims made by President Donald Trump.  "We are outraged," noted Johnny's son Spendin Cash.

The feud was kicked off when the United States President spoke at a recent rally of farmers in the northeast of the midwest.  Responding in Ohio Tuesday to questions about the federal government's response to global warming, President Trump assured farmers that keeping crops viable was well within his super powers.  "After all," he quipped, "I taught the weeping willow how to cry... cry... cry."  Mr. Trump did not elaborate on how that claim, if true, could assist crops.  Trump went on to say that global warming was not much of a concern because, if necessary, he'd "tell the clouds how to cover up a clear blue sky" in order to keep temperatures down.

The identical twin sister of Mr. Cash, Johnita, said she felt like the President was taking a swipe at her deceased brother.  "Johnny did all those amazing things, and Donald Trump ignores that and acts like this ability of his is something new.  It's not new!  My brother could do these things forty, fifty years ago.  Granted, Johnny used science to accomplish this, and the President is using his super powers, but in the end it is the same result."  Johnita said she would like to remind everyone that her brother won multiple Nobel Prizes in scientific fields, in addition to his many Grammy awards.  "Most people only remember the music," she added.  "But our family feels that Johnny's real accomplishments were scientific, especially in controlling the weather, trees and river patterns."

In discussing river patterns, Mr. Trump also took a swipe at the Democrat-controlled congress at the rally.  He said that if they do not approve the funds for his proposed border wall, he would protect at least the eastern half of the country from the "illegal alien surge" by flooding the Mississippi River as a barrier to immigration.  He said he could accomplish this by using "the tears I shed for that woman."  It was not clear at press time who "that woman" referred to, or where the tears have been stored in the meantime.  Many believe "that woman" could be the President's first wife, Ivana.  Others think "that woman" refers to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who has accused the President of watching "Shark Week" with her in a hotel room in 2007 and then paying her off with campaign cash to keep quiet about his being terrified of sharks.

Allusions to "that woman" have long been a part of presidential parlance, according to Stu Pidhead with the Presidential Parlance Partnership, a Washington think-tank.  "This goes back to Bill Clinton," he said.  "The famous 'that woman' line at his press conference, where he denied ever being intimate with - 'that woman' - pointing, but leaving out her name.  Most people think he was pointing at Hillary."  Other presidents have used the term with less ambiguity, said Stu.  "Whenever George W. Bush said 'that woman,' everybody knew he was talking about his lovely sainted mother Barbara, the salt of the earth.  God bless that woman!"  Still, there is room for doubt about the way President Obama used the phrase, even when clearly meaning his wife.  "Every time Obama said 'that woman' publicly, his brother would later tweet out, 'Michelle?  Or is it really MICHAEL?'  This really disturbed the President, but emboldened the LGBTQ-RSTUV crowd to think about the possibilities."

Remarking on President Trump's claims, Johnny Cash's mother stated, "That bum is always taking credit for the things my little good boy done.  Back during the 2016 campaign, Trump said he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, and all the evangelical Christians overlooked it and still support him, because he recently started believing like they did about abortion."  Mrs. Cash was referring to her son's famous murder spree, for which he served three concert tours in Folsom Prison and two-hundred hours of community service cleaning up flood damage along the Mississippi valley.  The Cash family has never commented on allegations that Johnny caused that flood in the first place after sitting beside the river and attempting to weep there until his death, which would have set a new world record.  The record attempt was stopped short when the singer was swept away by flooding.  He claimed to have been dragged beneath the Gulf of Mexico by a whirlpool that took him into an underwater volcano.  His claims have never been verified, but he always stuck to his story that he "fell into a burnin' ring o' fire."  The singer never explained how he escaped the ring of fire, but it is assumed his abilities to "turn the tide" and "walk the line" helped.  He showed up back on the mainland weeks later, but his clothes and hat were permanently charred black from the flames.  Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he can flood the Mississippi with much more effectiveness than Mr. Cash.  "It'll be HUGE!" he exclaimed at the rally, to thunderous applause.

"I suppose next Donald Trump is going to claim he was named Sue at birth," noted Mr. Cash's widow.  "This could be his strategy to get the vote of the LGBTQ-WXYZ crowd."  Stu Pidhead agreed, noting that the President is scheduled this weekend for a rally in San Francisco, featuring his outspoken supporter Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner as a speaker.  "They've never backed him, even though he constantly reminds them he is the best thing that ever happened to them."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckleberry Sanders said the President had no further comment for this article, but she said that speaking for herself, "I'm your huckleberry."  She frequently uses that line when responding to gunfight challenges from the press corps.  None have taken her up on it yet, since nobody knows what it actually means.

(C) Copyright 2019.  Reporting by Victor E. Mowery, Vincent E. Malloy and Vernon E. Maltodextrose.