Open Your Eyes and See.
The recent surge and resurgence of the so-called “Alt-right” has brought about a bit of soul searching and apologetic posturing-especially among some of the more informed people-black and white. The less informed and especially those blacks whose brain has been thoroughly washed with the water of Willie Lynch are still acting in defense of the president’s racist posture. The whites that will are still acting like individuals with blinders on and being propelled based on their conditioning. Those whites who have been taught (were taught from an early age) the tenets of hate and fear of black people and are unconsciously ushered along in life based on their mental conditioning.
This morning I was watching a program on one of the local networks and this segment was speaking rather directly to issues of the president’s evangelical following. The first point I’ll make here has to do with the issue of what it means to be an evangelical. The “Random House Dictionary of the English Language” defines an evangelical as:
- Pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings
- Belonging to or designating to the Christian churches’ teachings and authority of the scriptures-especially the New Testament
The context also alludes to a seeking or desiring to be reconciled to God through Christ. So, in moving forward in this premise, if godliness and/or Christ be absent from the equation, those declaring to be evangelicals are merely false witnesses-evangelical in words only.
When an assembly of individuals came together out of the persuasion of the president or anyone closely associated with him, the assembly consisted of evangelicals in posture and evangelicals in name only. Out of both camps might have come individuals who desired to make the landscape better and forge a leaning in the direction of godliness as well as those who were seeking to get something out of embracing the president’s agenda. All of them could not have seen the godliness of the potential president before he became because his entire behavior pattern leading up to his election as president indicated otherwise. I can recall a Dallas, Texas minister whose messages I followed fervently and even rushed home after church on Sunday to hear them. I even purchased a series of his tapes. He was Caucasian but the race didn’t matter-men of God are men of God-not respective of race. I received the message but had no thought of the messenger being compromised. This minister (at the time) was in the development stage of building a mega, church complex. Once he got the connection to those in the circle of power he probably came to realize there were grants to be gained from having the right political connections.
In Washington, those who assist in helping get something in another locality are assisted in getting something in their own locality. In Washington, one hand washes the other. Maybe this minister had eyes on the potential of getting something coming down the pipeline to aid in the completion of his mega complex. In so doing, I guess he was willing to look the other way when it came to the posture of the president elect. That posture compromised godliness. An uncompromised follower of Christ probably would not have seen it that way. He was making a bargain with the devil and the shame and disappointment coming out of this president has swept across the landscape. Satan was once in glory but his behavior as the devil got him tossed out by God. God does not bargain with the devil-neither should Christians. Those with eyes discerning of Christ and ears discerning of the teachings of Christ would have seen and heard the president when “he first drove up”-but they didn’t. Any deeply discerning Christian (evangelical) should have been able to see through the thin veil of the president’s deceit-he was an instrument of Satan in disguise. They were duped. The only thing a Christian should do relative to the devil is pray for him and attempt to disciple him-not follow him. Why should the evangelicals and so-called evangelicals position themselves on a council with or about an ungodly agenda? Did they believe they could disciple the one putting forth the agenda? They could have prayed for him from a distance (and God could have answered from a distance), or were they in for what they thought they could get out of the association with him?
As I watched the program I witnessed the back and forth between the program commentator and the minister of one of the mega churches in Brooklyn, New York-the church was not The Brooklyn Tabernacle. It was a black minister and I gathered from his conjecture he was an evangelical who had taken a seat on the president’s council with the intention (as expressed) o f helping to push forth a positive presidential agenda. It seems that he came away from the council with grave disappointments. Not only was he a disappointed evangelical, he must have been (and he indicated such) a disappointed black evangelical when it came to the way the president put forth the agenda, the way he interpreted the debacle coming out of Charlottesville, Virginia and the president’s failure to disavow the actions and beliefs of the “Alt-right”. His failure to do this spoke to issues of a racist and bigoted posture. Racist -leaning whites have been kicking the can down the road for years. The state of race relations in America attest to that and so did Charlottesville, Virginia. The perspective that is puzzling to me is how a black minister, pastoring over a predominantly black congregation can take money from the pockets of black congregants and be one in support of a Republican President’s agenda. From what I understand about this minister is, once he (or still does) required congregants to show their W-2s substantiating their income. That act within itself is a violation because whether or not man is giving the correct one-tenth is between him and God. If this minister looked at one’s W-2 he should have been able to notice some decreases in earnings as well as some drying up of earnings-loss jobs. This president (whose council this black minister sat on) has shown no interest in advancing the economic agenda of minorities. Those appointed to cabinet and other positions of influence (for the most part) are not black. Some black people are a bit strange. Once they obtain to some status by money or influence they are quick (in their effort) to align themselves with white establishment individuals-even if the establishment individuals are racist. They “drink the cool aid”. They seem to want to shed their black identity. This black Brooklyn minister should not have gone there in the first. Republicans have never had a serious tent broad enough for blacks to fit underneath.
Ministers of Note Seem to be Puzzled.
There is a black mega church minister out of Texas who seems to have taken no position in support of the Republican President-at least it is not loudly voiced on the landscape. Any person of even basic intellect or basic life status had to know who the president was; where he came from and where he was likely to be headed. The information on him was out there for anyone to see that had an interest in just who the president was. His racist posture was called into question in rental housing matters. His background was known about how his father groomed him in real estate issues. He suggested that his son, Donald not rent to n____rs. From information on the landscape, the president’s father had some type of questionable relationship with the KKK in the 1940s-superficial or otherwise. In addition to issues of racism there were issues of morality that should have precluded true evangelicals from supporting him. Recently the son of a prominent deceased Baptist minister out of Lynchburg, Virginia indicated that he didn’t see any negative moral compromises in the president. What about the “access Hollywood” tapes. The president admitted to the incidents surrounding the tapes. Should that not speak for itself in terms of morality? Were the evangelicals on this council all blind? The Bible suggests “that they are blind that cannot see”. So the evangelicals and the so-called evangelicals didn’t believe the president’s own words? Did they believe him and thought he was a different person now, than he was ten years ago or maybe they thought he had a conversion experience and would be a morally better person going forward. There is nothing in the president’s current DNA suggesting that he has had a conversion to Christ and/or Christ’s teachings. He didn’t even know how to call the second book of Corinthians. Were the evangelicals praying for him and thought they recognized a change? Did anyone among them disciple him and could attest to him accepting Christ?
They Can’t Fool True Evangelicals.
I consider myself an evangelical in posture and deeds and must admit I didn’t recognize any positive movement the president made towards truth and righteousness. Could this mean I and people with a similar persuasion (such as I) have a poor sense of discernment, the evangelicals and so-called have a better sense? It appears that evangelicals supporting the president have been duped and they seem to feel so because they have began to walk away (in large numbers) from their prior fervent embrace of the president and his agenda. There are still some of those “dyed-in-the wool” black supporters of the president who are yet endeavoring to accept his behavior, as being honest intentions as opposed to heart ingrained. A minister heading-up Azusa Christian Church (located wherever) was on one of the networks Saturday, August 19th defending who the president is and “how he rolls”. However, it still came off halfhearted and reluctant. The black minister knew he was in a dumb posture-where he never should have gone-seeing the president’s racist sentiment exhibited on the landscape. If I were a minister and my discernment or lack thereof did not get me caught out there with a need to apologize for getting it wrong, this would speak volumes for those who lay claim to getting messages of discernment from God.
I consider myself reasonably well-educated (with more than enough years of education to survive) and in my effort to be a true evangelical, I do believe my good position on common sense is given to me by God. What happened to the discernment and common sense lacking in others? What’s with the lies of the older, established TV Evangelist who has been around too long and whose political positions seem to get in the way of his godliness? What about the son of the University founder out of Lynchburg, Virginia who seems to be acting as if the president has had a conversion experience? I have read in the Word of God that a conversion experience is supposed to make one a new creature in Christ. What can the eyes of this evangelical offspring see in the president’s posture and behavior that evangelical eyes such as mine cannot see? I’ve been in a church all of my life, I’m a bit older than this evangelical offspring and when he and others got it wrong they may have acted on their own-without the wisdom of God. When I hear demonic talk and see demonic behavior I don’t tend to confuse it with godliness. What about the minister out of Dallas, Texas who aspires to build the mega church complex who continues to embrace the ungodly posture of the president? Is he and others of like persuasion praying fervently enough for a change in the president or will they continue to scapegoat his positions until the nation falls down? Maybe they’re trying and can’t get a breakthrough because God is at work in America and none can alter his plan once it is put in motion. I have always said “If you don’t understand it and can’t explain it, it’s God at work-especially when your belief and faith is in God. The things that are going on in America today defies understanding or plausible explanation so we best step aside as God moves through.