spiphywarfare

Month: December 2020

  • Who’s Going to Build This Temple Anyway

    Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

    1 Corinthians 3:16 & 17

    It is a good reminder of the seriousness of caring for the Bride of Christ; as well as where our true identity lies. I love verse 16. So much so, that it is the only verse on a wall in my house. I have other ones hanging in frames, but this verse in on the wall itself. As such, it isn’t surprising that it came to mind when I was reading this today.

    Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord, the God of Israel, they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers’ houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.” But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.” Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

    Ezra 4:1-6

    Because it has been on my mind so much lately (I think), the whole Critical Race Theory (CRT) debate came to mind on this. It has been particularly alarming to me as a long-time member of a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) affiliated church. As I’ve read more and more on the topic, it seems the pattern for the SBC has been, “We don’t know what CRT is” → “We don’t have any CRT in the SBC or it’s seminaries” → “Well, it can be a useful analytical tool” → “CRT is incompatible with the Baptist Faith and Message” → “Fine, we’re leaving the SBC if they don’t support CRT.” Obviously that’s over simplified, but once Resolution 9 was adopted, CRT and it’s impact on the church moved front and center.

    SBC leadership has been twisting and turning, avoiding, dodging, and trying to have the church and culture too. Now, feet are being held to the fire, and folks are being made to admit that CRT is opposed to Scripture. Certain elements in the SBC now are leaving since the SBC seminaries refused to accept an opposing worldview.

    One pastor says “We out” regarding the SBC after the “final straw” which was:

    On Dec. 1, all six of the SBC seminary presidents — without one Black president or counter opinion among them — told the world that a high view of Scripture necessarily required a corresponding and total rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality.

    Religion News

    Another says:

    “I can’t sit by and continue to support or even loosely affiliate with an entity that is pitching its tent with white supremacy,”

    Washington Post

    Imagine that. These two, and others, are not leaving because of the SBC rejecting scripture, but because the SBC seminaries are rejecting a racist ideology born of a godless, truth-rejecting worldview. Marxism.

    When I read Ezra this morning, I couldn’t help but think that it provided an example of enemies of God’s people who easily lied and claimed they wanted to help build the temple. This, at a time when Israel was struggling to maintain their unique identity as God’s people.

    Today the church struggle to maintain an identity separate from the world. It’s high time we tell the divisive, lying, saboteurs that they have nothing to do with building God’s temple today. Kick them out and drive them away. Do so knowing full well they will work to discourage, frustrate, and make fearful, those who are carrying out God’s Will in building the true church.

  • Difficult Teaching from Luke 14:26

    If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

  • Campfires, Christians, and Coca-Cola?

    I have never done a reaction video but the Just Thinking Podcast, Episode 106 made me think it was time to do one. But, I don’t have time to learn new Adobe After Effects Explosion FX. Why would I need to? Myself exploding at the knowledge being dropped in this Biblical Exposition of Unity would be the only appropriate video!

    This video is 2.5 hours long. There’s a reason for that. My mind was blown by this deep-dive into what Biblical Unity really is. Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker bring it and this was eye opening.

    Yes, the title of this blog is relevant to the podcast and YES! You will not regret taking the time to listen to this. I’m on my second listen right now.

  • December 2020 Wellness Box

    Always Love Getting our Wellness Boxes!

  • Christian Nationalism: Next Talking Point for BigEva?

    What is Christian Nationalism? Good question. One that needs answering as it looks to become the next talking point to used to try to shut down people who want to speak honestly about God, His Word, and His Church. Like Critical Race Theory (CRT), the term has been around for a while. This person, who I do not know, starts out as if they’re going to give it a sound, clarifying definition and then goes on for thirteen tweets to say, “All that to say, the threat of Christian nationalism to the Church & to the gospel is deep.” So the intention was never to define the term, only to use it as a term to vaguely cast aspersions on folks who won’t toe the line and label it, whatever it is, as a threat.

    It appears that Christian Nationalism will be the next catch-phrase used to demean, dismiss, and slander Christians. I don’t know if it is because “racist” and “white supremacist” are getting worn out and need replacing, or if it will become just another politicoreligious word in the arsenal used to shoot accusatory, fiery darts against the saints.

    Beth Moore used it to define a threat to the Gospel (if one accepts she actually knows what the Gospel is). She says “Trumpism,” whatever that is, is the most dangerous and seductive thing she’s ever seen the saints of God face. She then says, “This Christian Nationalism is not of God.” I guess he must not have given her a special word about it.

    Jon Harris is on it, and so is AD Robles (both links go to YouTube videos). These two guys each use their own tactics when dealing with issues and I appreciate them both. If you have the time, watch both of these linked videos discussing this issue.

    I’ll be trying to follow-up on this post with information that defines this but, sadly, I don’t hold my breath for clarity. Why? I asked for a definition of someone else online who wondered about Christian leaders pushing back against Christian Nationalism. I was given this article. It’s an article of over 3,000 words that, in the end, does not give a true definition. That’s one of the tactics I’ve noticed is so often used by unbelievers infiltrating the church. Obfuscate, muddy the water, and never define what the term used to slander believers means. I guess it makes their job easier.

  • Crazy Legislation/Legislators

    I guess this isn’t too far outside my stated reason for having this site. To encourage spiritual and physical health in others. I can see how both of these issues can impact your physical well-being. One other note, I know the image is not flattering, it may even be harsh, but given that Miriam-Webster defines dunce as someone who is slow at learning, I stand by it.

    So when I first heard about Representative Thresa Meza‘s HB 196 regarding changes to defenses against the use of deadly force, I was miffed. Please! Do not let this happen to my beloved Texas. The bill isn’t as bad as I’ve seen it presented but it needs to be opposed nonetheless. While it doesn’t impose a strict duty to retreat on you in your home, it changes it to require it to be your own habitation. Current law would allow an adult child visiting their parents home to defend that home with the same protections under the law. This bill would remove that. I suppose you would lose the protection for defending your small business location as well. Interestingly, it also amends the crimes this applies to when it says a person is justified in using deadly force against another…

    to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,or aggravated sexual assault [,robbery,or aggravated robbery].

    Just to be clear, it appears that you would not be justified in using deadly force, even in your own habitation, to protect yourself from robbery, or aggravated robbery. In case you wonder what aggravated robbery is, and therefore what this bill would remove your protections from defending yourself against; here’s the definition of Aggravated Robbery from the Texas Penal Code:

    (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
       (1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
       (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
       (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
          (A) 65 years of age or older; or
          (B) a disabled person.
    (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
    (c) In this section, “disabled person” means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

    I do not think this bill will see the light of day. I do think an even more nonsensical piece of municipal legislation, thankfully out of Seattle, may have a chance of becoming law. If I was a Seattle resident, I would sell everything and take my family elsewhere before the end of the year. This is asking for trouble and given the way it is being handled behind closed doors and outside of the normal process, I figure the City Council there knows it.

    Basically, addiction, mental health issues, and poverty would be a defense to prosecution for virtually every misdemeanor you can commit is your intent was to meet and immediate and basic need. According to this MSN.com story, “For example, if a defendant argued they stole merchandise to sell for cash in order to purchase food, clothes or was trying to scrape together enough money for rent. The accused could not be convicted.”

    God, please help this country.