Monday, March 3, 2014

Is the U.S. Civil War Still Relevant Today?

It has been 150 years now since the Civil War has ended.  That's a long period of time!  It is at least 7 or 8 generations ago.  So you would think that after all that time, it would be something that is no longer relevant.  You would think that people would let "by-gones be by-gones."  But even though that horrible conflict was so long ago, there are many today who are still bitter over it, as the following article reveals...

What do you think?  Is it revelant today?  And isn't it odd how often President Obama likens himself to Abraham Lincoln?  Is there a reason for this, some sort of secret agenda? 

I'll let you decide for yourself, but you should educate yourself.  One of the best sources available of the true facts of the brutal war is the following publication entitled, "The Un-Civil War."  It can be found by going to...

If you desire to buy the work, you will have to email the electronic address listed there.  It is under 10 dollars and is highly worth it.  For the times in which we live today have much in common with those exact times in which our forefathers lived.  Let us hope, yea, pray that we won't see another war in our lifetime within our borders.  For war is an awful thing!  May we rather have a revival of knowledge which will unite us around freedom and liberty, rather than imprison our minds in bondage to ignorance and a false understanding of history.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Life, Liberty, and What?

Not too many Americans today read the Declaration of Independence. Those that do, usually don't read the whole thing.  But many can recite the words: "life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS," often quoting those words over and over as a justification of certain things they do that makes them happy.  They believe they have a right to happiness and to do what ever makes them happy.  But did you know those were not the original words penned by our founding fathers?  And did you know that the term "pursuit of happiness" had a very different meaning back then from what it does today? 
When first written, it appeared as "life, liberty, and PROPERTY."  But those words were later changed.  Why was this?  The reason being that at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, "the pursuit of happiness" was a synonym for owning THINGS, specifically one's own property, whether it was land, vessels, assests, etc.  It was understood that owning property made a person happy.  And to be secure in owning one's own property was what made society moral.  People worked hard to buy what was there's, and their hard work made them happy when they were finally able to buy what they desired.  It was a MORAL ideal.   
The government was not formed to PLEASE people and cater to making them HAPPY, rather it was organized to PROTECT man's rights to own whatever he pleased, and sought to make sure that those things would not be taken away from that individual by others.  It was to protect the rights of individuals to own PROPERTY, not to overthrow the rights of others just to make them HAPPY, which is what we are seeing in America today. 
Over the years, people forgot the meaning of words.  And because of this, people's own property was eventually confiscated in America.  And it still is today in the name of "security."  It is a complete reversal of the original intention of the phrase "pursuit of happiness."
Today, the government thinks that "pursuit of happiness" means that it is their job to make sure people are happy, and they must do whatever it takes to make certain groups happy.  But this is NOT what the founding fathers wanted!
No one is guaranteed happiness.  You are either happy or you aren't.  What makes you happy?  Being able to do what you want, as long as it's not against the law, or doesn't hurt anyone else.  This is called FREEDOM or LIBERTY.  And when one is truly free, then and only then can he be happy.  So, what makes a person truly free?  The Declaration of Independence tells us the answer.  According to that document, it is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to own property, and this right is to be protected by the government.   God set this up, and the government is supposed to follow God in making sure this right to ownership is not infringed.  It is man following God to protect man's God-given right to ownership. 
However, in a Communist society, the ownership of property is forbidden, thus, no one can be free.  And as we look at "property" versus "the pursuit of happiness" we find that one breeds liberty, while the other begets oppression.
Today, the meaning of "pursuit of happiness" is construed by many to mean that whatever makes one happy is what that person should have the right to do it.  And, because of this we have many people desiring to have "special rights" to do or commit certain immoral acts, claiming it makes them happy.  
A prime example is that of gays who now desire to be married.  Why?  Because it will make them happy.  But they don't realize that this is something that God is very much against.  For gays to claim Gay Marriage as a right under the guise of "the pursuit of happiness" is very foolish, for when we read the context of the Declaration of Independence, we find the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Here, God is called the CREATOR, and the GIVER OF RIGHTS.  If this be the case, then why would anyone think that the words "pursuit of happiness" mean that it is God who allows a certain right to someone even though he writes against that very thing in his own Book, the Bible?  In the Scriptures, God says that marriage is only between a man and a woman, period. So how could anyone who is gay claim that God gave them the right to marry because it would make them happy.  What about God?  Did anyone think to ask if it would make HIM happy?
And why stop there?  If it makes gays happy to marry, then what about what makes others happy?  What if it makes a man happy to rape many women?  Shouldn't he have the right to do so?  What if it makes a man happy to molest and murder children?  Shouldn't he be allowed to do so, according to the same logic?  What about the cannibal?  Shouldn't he enjoy the taste of human flesh, especially since it makes him happy?  And what about the serial killer?  Doesn't it make him happy to mutilate and massacre his fellow man?  And shouldn't his "rights" be granted him, as he endeavors only to work towards his own personal pursuit of happiness?
I think you know the answer to these hypothetical questions.  Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean that it's right.
To claim that "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence means that all people have a right to do whatever they want as long as it makes them happy is a huge fallacy.  That is not what that document means!  Especially when what people claim makes them happy is something that is immoral and against God!
We must therefore understand the meaning of the word from a 18th Century mindset.  "The pursuit of happiness" means to do right and to prosper by so doing, and enjoying the fruit of your labours.  It is not petitioning the government to give you special rights to do something that is harmful to yourself or society!
When first penned, the words were "Life, Liberty, and Property."  But, they were changed.  Sadly, this change has led to the downfall of America.  For people mistake "happiness" with "freedom."  But what makes you happy isn't always what's best for you, nor is it always moral, and sanctioned by God.  True happiness, is doing what God wants, and enjoying the fruits of a moral society.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Remembering "Stone Wall" Jackson

Creighton Lovelace, modern Confederate Chaplin

By: Creighton Lovelace
Pastor, Danieltown Baptist Church of Forest City, NC
Chaplain, Moses Wood Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp #125 of Gaffney, SC

My SCV Camp's Confederate Memorial Day observance was held on May 11, 2013. Now, each year around this time as I head out to check on several resting places of local Carolina Confederate heroes, I cannot help but think about the death of General Stonewall Jackson, which happened on May 10, 1863.

It was this great Christian general who uttered, while on his deathbed, those immortal last words: "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees." For many Southerners, the question has been which river? As a Confederate, my heart can only tell me - the Potomac River. Capture the Yankee Capital and force an end to the War! However, as a Christian, my heart can only tell me - the "Spiritual" Jordan River. It is this river that the young brave Southern Patriot - Sam Davis (for whom our SCV Youth Camps are named) - sang about some 6 months after Stonewall's death, on the evening before his own hanging. We Christians sing the song Sam sang: "On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand, And cast a wishful eye, To Canaan’s fair and happy land, Where my possessions lie."

Again, remember, General Stonewall Jackson said in his dying breath: "Let us cross over the river..."

The Jordan River has become a symbolic understanding or a euphemism for death. One day we will die. The Scripture tells us plainly in Hebrews 9:27"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.The great General said on another occasion: "My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me.

We all have an appointment, one day, to cross the river, in light of that fact, knowing that death could come at any moment for any one of us - in our sleep, while driving, the Lord knows when - I ask you: are you ready? The General was correct when he said: "be ready."

For recall again, Stonewall said with the last breaths of air: "...rest under the shade of the trees."

In his book called: All the Last Words of Saints and Sinners, Herbert Lockyear recorded the gut-wrenching last words of a lost man named Adams: "I'm lost! Lost! Lost!  I'm Damned!  Damned!  Damned forever!"  His agony was so terrible that he tore his hair from his head as he passed into eternity." Again, in the pages of the Bible, we known there was a "certain rich man" which means he really lived and that the account is no mere tale, but real. In Luke 16:23 the Bible records that this Rich Man was in Hell and he lifted up his eyes and cried to Abraham in verse 24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." 

For 2,000 years, while men and women have walked the face of this earth, the Rich Man has been in Hell screaming for just a drop of water. In Hell, he has had No Rest. No cooling water, air, or shade. Torment for eternity. That is not the eternity God has in mind for you. He wants all people to come to Christ and to know Him as Saviour. Acts 16:31a states: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..."

Jackson has had rest these past 150 years in Heaven with his Saviour. When you cross the river, will you be able to rest? What will your last words be? I pray, dear reader, that you know Jesus as your Saviour. If you don't I would be happy to introduce you to Him. God Bless.

Friday, May 10, 2013

The word "FREE"

There is a word in the English language that once meant so much to so many.  That is the word "free."  It is the root word for "freedom," which is something all Americans longed for and believed they had after the great Revolution and under the new constitutional republic. 
When North America was first populated by Europeans in the 1600's, it was begun by people who wanted freedom.  They wanted to be free of monarchal rule and run their own lives.  Some sought religious freedom, desiring to be free from denominational dictators and religious persecution.  Thus, they took the chance of crossing the Atlantic to build a home for themselves and a Church.  They knew what true freedom was.  It was distance between themselves and those who sought to subjugate them.  It was living in a society in which evil was far away and liberty was openly preached and practiced.
Later, as time went on, more and more people came to the New World seeking freedom.  They too, wanted to be free to do their own thing, make their own way, and choose their own destiny.  America soon became the envy of the world.  Why?  Because of freedom.
But have you ever noticed that the word "free" has two different and distinct definitions?  To be free is to have liberty to do what you want, when you want, how you want, where you want.  But the word free also means to get something for nothing.  Something "free" is something given with nothing expected in return.  It's a gift!
How odd, then, that the word "free" can mean two different things.  The first is in the context of "freedom" and that is something that is not free here on earth.  To be free physically, one must fight against those who seek to enslave.  One famous person once said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  That is to remain free, one must always be looking over their shoulder and watching for those who seek to take away their freedom.  The truth is there are many out there who despise true freedom.  In fact, they are so self-righteous that they believe people are too stupid to be free.  They believe only they can help people make the right choices, acept the best decisions, and guide humanity down the right path.  But who are they?  Such people are nothing more than "Dictators" and "Tyrants" who desire to steal people's liberties.
What's strange is how they seek to do it.  They too use the word "free."  But they mean it in a different context.  For the way that tyrants and dictators have always sought to steal man's true freedom has always been through trying to give them something for "free" until the person becomes entirely dependent upon them.
In ancient Rome, Caesar gave away suits of clothing and 20 pieces of gold to those who would vote for him.  Why did he do this?  To gain power.  Who wouldn't vote for a guy who gave him this for "free?"  The only thing was it wasn't really "free."  For it took away a man's "freedom" to vote for whom he wished of a pure conscience.
Throughout history we see example after example of kings, presidents, despots, generals, etc., all taking away men's freedoms all under the guise of giving them something for "free."  During the Revolutionary War the English promised great tracts of land to loyal English subjects who fought against the Colonists.  The idea was they would trade their freedom for something free.
During the great Civil War of Northern Agression, the North claimed to want to free the Slaves, while at the same time enslaving the Southern whites to their system of government and taking away their Constitutional State's Rights, and even the individual rights of free citizens. Some got something for "free" while others lost their freedom.
Today we see the exact same pattern.  In our country we have a government that desires to take away even more of man's freedoms.  They don't desire man to live free, and make their own decisions.  rather, they are willing to give out free handouts like wellfare, free cell phones, grants, bail-outs, etc., all with the goal in mind of enslaving such people who will receive them.
The old saying is: "There is no such thing as a free lunch!"  This is so true.  What might be free for some is definitely not free for others.  Someone has to pay for that lunch!  Who pays for it?
The answer is that TAXPAYERS pay for it!  Whatever the government gives for "free" isn't really free at all.  Taxpayers have to cover the bill.  This means that someone has to work harder to pay for the money that it costs to give something to someone else.  Is the person who works harder really free, especially, when he's paying someone else's debt?  Has the person who received the free gift really free?  Or is he trading his freedom for a handout?
True freedom is to be left alone by others to do your own thing.  When someone is left alone, it falls upon them to either stand or fall.  It used to be that hard work paid off in the end, and that the more you worked, the more you earned, and the more you prospered, and the more free you truly were.  This is the old maxim.  This is how it always worked.  But in our modern world that isn't always the same.  In fact, it's almost exactly the opposite!  Today the harder you work, the more you will be sought out by others who hope to prey on you, and get something out of you.  It's easier to just walk around with your hand out and get what you can for free.  If man won't help you, the government certainly will, and you are almost guaranteed that you won't be turned down if you seek government assistance.  But the more you take, the more dependent you become, and the less free you truly are.
True freedom is Independence.  That's why America began with the Declaration of Independence.  It was to assert that they were FREE.  It was not the Declaration of Welfare.  It did not assert the right to RECEIVE SOMETHING FOR FREE.
Yet, in this crazy, mixed up world we live in, the word "free" means different things to different people.  To be free to one person means to be indepenedent, and self-reliant, able to make one's own way.  To another, it means to have your needs met without ever having to do anything at all!  It's a lifestyle.  Actually, it's two different lifestyles.  One is that of self-sufficiency, while the other is that of self-decadence.
These two ideas both love the use the word "free."  One says, "Let me be, so I can be free to prosper!"  The other says, "If it's free, it's for me!
How can they co-exist?  They answer is they cannot, at least not for ever.  Those who get things free will eventually have to pay for it, whether it be by losing their freedom, or losing the free gift itself.  You can't keep giving away free stuff without it eventually catching up to you.  Someone has to pay for the stuff, and when they find out what they are paying for, they might just stop!
So what does the word free mean to you?  Do you think of it as in the context of "freedom?"  Or do you think of it as in the context of gaining something off the back of others in taking "free" stuff?
On a side note, it is interesting that the Bible uses the term in both contexts explained above.  In Mark 7:11 (look it up, I'm not going to quote it here for you.  Get your Bible out and look it up!), we read of a person who is "profiting" off their father and mother and taking a free "gift" from them.  We read in the end of the verse that such a person thinks they shall be "free."  But this is in the context of thinking they will be free from having to pay back their gift.  But God speaks of such people in disdain. 
Yet in other passages, like Rom. 5:15-18 (look that up too!), we read of the "free gift" which only Jesus Christ offers, which is the gift of justification or salvation.   According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ DIED for our sins, IN OUR PLACE, PAYING our sin debt for us.  And to be saved, it's not by anything we can do, it's only by accepting and believing in what he did for us.  This is the only truly free gift that is worth anything.  For it is the gift of ETERNAL LIFE.  And it is only through this gift that we can find true freedom, for we read in John 8:36 that: "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, ye shall be FREE INDEED."
True freedom, therefore, is only through the Lord Jesus Christ and his free gift of eternal salvation.   Have you taken this gift?  Are you truly free?

Friday, March 1, 2013

The Spiritual War between North and South

Many a historian has written a book about the actual physical battles of the Civil War in which they have theorized the political, cultural, and ideological reasons for that dreaded conflict. But very few, if any, have ever pointed out the spiritual battle which lead to that confrontation.  But without understanding the spiritual aspect of what lead to that bloody hostility, one can never truly understand what that national political feud was all about.
The truth is the North and the South had to very different religions and two different methods of interpreting the scriptures. Even Abe Lincoln asked, "How could such a travesty ensue when both sides read the same Bible?"  (I paraphrase, so this is not a direct quote).  The answer is that they did not read it the same way.  The South took a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, while the North "spiritualized" the Bible, and believed it was metaphorical, not literal.  This eventually lead to division not only in the country, but first in the Churches within the nation itself.
The North had a majority of Churches which were either Universalist, Unitarian, or Catholic.  The Southern majority of Churches were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.
To understand the views of the Northerners vs. the Southerners, one must understand the teachings of these various sects.  For it was quite often the Ministers on both sides which preached either against or in favor of slavery, state's rights, and secession.
Preachers on either side were fervent in their preaching, and passionate about what they believed.  Even to the point of becoming rabid, indignant, and even willing to fight and die for their cause.  And both sides truly believed God was on their side. But which side was right? 
The answer is easy to find by looking at their doctrine and their fruit. Unitarians believed that Jesus was not God.  (Clearly an anti-biblical teaching).  They further believed that man was inherently good and not evil, and thus had no reason for a Saviour.  They finally taught then when a man did sin, that self-sacrifice and good works were the only way to appease the wrath of God, and secure pardon of their sins.  Catholics also taught this doctrine of "working one's way to heaven."  Finally, Universalists believed in the unifying nature of their cause, and desired others to join their ranks for the purpose of championing a cause in which people could rally together.  They believed in preaching "issues" to support, rather than preaching doctrine from the Bible.
These three main Northern religions worked together in harmony to form radical groups of anti-slavery minions who eventually called themselves "Abolitionists."  However, they not only didn't believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, they further refused to accept and follow his teachings.  They were, therefore, not truly Christians, accepting only the term Christian while denying the person who started Christianity.   
The focus, then, of these radical religionists was on building an earthly kingdom, rather than focusing on the eternal destiny of man's soul.  And because of this, many of them turned towards politics, rather than the preaching of the Gospel.  And many of them turned towards physical means to right what they viewed as a great wrong in the eyes of God--Slavery!
Yet, their methods proved they were not Christians.  One of their biggest supporters, John Brown, was a "Minister."  (I use the term lightly, as a true minister would never be a murderer as he was).  Yet he used physical force and even death to forward his kingdom, something Jesus would never condone!  The well-known saying eloquently portrays such religious zealots, when it states: "Kingdom builders are bloody killers!"
Contrast this with the Southern people and their religious and doctrinal views, many of which were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.   Although these denominations differ greatly, they all had one thing in common.  They believed all men were Sinners who were inherently evil, and they needed a Saviour to forgive them their sins, as they could not save themselves.  And although some of them had been snared into unbelief by the teachings of German Rationalism, the majority of them and their ministers believed in a literal reading and teachings of scripture.  They further believed in the deity of Jesus Christ, and viewed Northern religious instruction to the contrary as not only apostate and dangerous but outright blasphemous and satanic in origin.  Thus, they viewed the North as a great breeding ground for Satan's ever-increasing kingdom of evil, deception, mistrust, and even hatred and hostility.
Southern Ministers viewed slavery as not only acceptable, but Biblical.  And they had verses to prove it.  Some would run to Leviticus 25:44-46, which states:
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.  45  Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.  46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
But these verses spoke to Israel, and did not apply to them.  Thus, others read the words of the Apostle Paul (that do apply to CHRISTIANS in the Church age), dogmatically stressing the LITERAL application of that passage to them, their servants, and to the Northerners who had no business trying to tell them how to live their lives.  From 1 Timothy 6:1-5 we read:
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.  2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.  3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Taking this passage literally, most Southerners believed that the abolitionists were "blasphemers," and "apostates" preaching a doctrine contrary to the scriptures, and were "perverse" and "corrupt" and "evil" in their attempts at causing "strife."  Thus, to a Southerner, a war against slavery was a war against God himself and what he taught in the scriptures.
Although God didn't institute slavery, it cannot be denied that he did allow it and wrote verses in the Bible of how Christian masters should treat their slaves.  (Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 4:1 are other examples of Biblical passages addressed to slaves and their masters).
Northerners, therefore, turned their attention from the scriptures towards tales of "mistreatment" by Slave owners against their slaves and tried to demonize Southerners, claiming they were all evil men who beat and whipped their slaves and raped their women servants on a regular basis.  But as Christian gentlemen the majority of Southerners never practiced such horrible atrocities.  Many even went to Church with their slaves and treated them with honor and respect.  And even though some atrocities did happen by bad Slave owners (who most of the time weren't even Christians themselves), they were very few and far between.  And they were often dealt with by the law and/or Christian Ministers who preached against such conduct. 
Yet the North succeeded in their propaganda and demonization of the South, and books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" fueled the fires of outrage in the North. 
Satan loved the division he had spawned with the liberal mindset in the North and their hatred toward Southern Bible-believing and Bible-practicing Christians.  And he continued to preach hate toward the Southern people, stereotyping them, and lumping them all into the same basket as inhumane mongrels who abused their fellow human beings.
Because of such constant belittlement and disdain from the North toward the South, many Southerners sought succession, yearning to be free from those who lived only to deride, slander, and attack their character, beliefs, and culture.  But the North would not let up.  Believing they were righteous and the South was evil, Northern politicians began to justify their hatred and disdain against the South.  This eventually lead to their unanimous belief that God himself had called them to punish the South for what they viewed as wrong doing.  And far before an army was called physically for that intended purpose, the Northern Politicians sought to debilitate the South economically.  For this end they instituted the Morrill Tariff, which was nothing more than a TAX upon the South of up to 47% of their revenue. 
Outraged, by such an action, Southerners despised the Yankees in the North even more, and rightfully so, for not even a generation before, they had fought a War for Independence over that very same issue.  That is what gave birth to the United States.  It was all because of a nationwide contempt towards "Taxation without Representation." 
Eventually, the South seceded from the Union, and it was mostly because Abraham Lincoln said if elected his priority in office would be to COLLECT the Morrill Tariff from the South.  And that's exactly what he tried to do when he sent Federal ships to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.  These ships were full of not only soldiers but Federal Tax Collectors who were to collect the Morrill Tariff with the help of the soldiers. (What?  You never heard this story?  Could it be because the radical abolitionists rewrote history?)
We all know what happened.  War ensued.  But what the war was about depends upon what you know, (or better stated what you've been taught) about history.  If you believe the modern teaching, then you believe the war was started by the South when they fired upon Ft. Sumter.  But if you look at it from the viewpoint of a Southerner, you see it for what it really was -- A second War of Independence.
Some call it to this very day by the deceptive term of the "Civil War."  But it was anything but civil.  In fact, it was atrocious!  It was not about slavery, even though that played a key in justifying the war in Northern propaganda.  Nay, it was rather about Southerners being left alone and being free from Northern taxation, Northern religious hatred, and Federal occupation.  In short, the best way to label that war would be to call it what it really was -- A War of Northern Aggression.
But way before it was a physical war, it was a spiritual battle.  The North began their crusade against Southern Christians and Southern Biblical doctrines many years before by attacking the deity of Christ, man's need for a Saviour, the Biblical mandates of God towards slaves and their masters, and much more.  
Oh how Satan must have savoured the widespread hatred he instilled in Northern hearts and gloried in the savage bloodshed it produced as the ground was littered with the dead bodies of Christian soldiers from each side! (And yes, there were some true Christians in the North.  And they fought without malice, rather only doing what they felt was their duty in the Northern Army).  
But the joke was on the Devil, for during the Civil War something happened, that is very seldom mentioned to this very day.  During the physical skirmish and amidst the ghastly slaughter and bloodshed, God upon his throne in heaven smiled as a spiritual fight took place in the hearts of men.  And during the Civil War (better called the "Un-Civil War") in which the depravity of man was unleashed on a tremendous scale, God, the Holy Spirit, went forth convicting the souls of men with a mighty power.  For during that war there was probably the greatest revival the United States has ever known, greater than even the first and second "Great Awakening" in the 1700's.  And during that conflict the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached everywhere by godly ministers, Honorable Generals, lowly privates, and even starving slaves.  Spiritual campaigns and revivals broke out in towns, cities, villages, and even within the armies themselves on both sides.  Men like D.L. Moody preached with such a furor that men cried and accepted Jesus as their Saviour by the thousands. The Gospel drenched the land deeper than the stain of the blood of the fallen.  There are countless stories of men laying bleeding and dying on the battlefield, where one soldier begins singing "Amazing Grace" and then soldiers on both sides joined in.  Witnesses tell us the singing of hymns were so loud by dying soldiers that it sounded like an angelic host of heaven had descended upon the earth.
It was the Christianity of the SOUTH which spread abroad and blessed the hearts of men, pointing them to Christ crucified, and not the religion of the North which sought only destruction, ruin,  devastation, recompense, and chastizement. 
Even to this very day the fruit of Southern Christianity is known world-wide, and has been given a term which endures to this very day -- "Southern Hospitality."
Yes, even though the battle was won by the North politically.   And they are remembered as the physical Victors, the truth is a spiritual battle brewed for the souls of men, and many were turned to the grace and knowledge of God's wonderful salvation during such a terrible and dismal time.
Only heaven will reveal how many people came to Jesus during that dreadful and appalling awful conflict.  But the war did not end there.  After the forced re-union of the Southern states with the North, the Gospel was carried up into the land of the "apostate yankees" by countless soldiers, and even many chaplains and ministers who journeyed there after the war.   They preached the Gospel message in the army of the Lord using the sword of the scripture with as much courage and determination as they fought with a rifle in their respective national armies.  They were true soldiers of the cross! 
Not only that, many went westward with the Gospel, preaching to Sinners in saloons, ranches, mining towns, cattle prairies, coastal towns, and schools.  And their ranks swelled by leaps and bounds, as the true Gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the country, emboldened by the great revivals of the Civil War, and more people converted to true Christianity. 
Today seldom is heard of a "universalist" or a "unitarian."  But the entire country has heard of the words: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian.   These denominations have endured to this very day, while the hateful Northern religions have proven themselves spiritually fruitless.  (*Note:  Many of these denominations today are now in complete apostasy.  Truly we are in the last days as the Bible prophesied.  But the fact that they still exist prove that after that great and awful Federal war against the South, God himself fought and won a spiritual battle and his truth prevailed and covered the country from sea to shining sea).   
Let us therefore always remember the cost of War.  Many died, and sadly many went to Hell because they were unsaved.  But thankfully amidst a horrible, bloody, and ghastly war, a spiritual seed was planted in the hearts of men and even in the entire country.  Those saved went to a much better place, and are there today.  Many of their descendents preached to others of the same hope they had in Jesus.  And the Gospel spread to every corner of the nation. 
Many today remember only the PHYSICAL War of 1861-1865.  I hope this small article will help to illustrate the SPIRITUAL battle that took place at the same time.  It was not to build a kingdom on earth, rather to fill a kingdom in heaven with the souls of men.   

Monday, February 25, 2013

The Truth About the First American Slave

The United States of America is not perfect, and today we are clearly taught this. History records the many mistakes made by the government of this nation, one of which was the senseless slaughter of many native American Indians.  But probably the greatest "evil" in the eyes of many today is that of slavery. Many consider the practice of slavery upon blacks as the single, most deplorable thing in the history of the United States. And because of this, there has long been a long-standing condemnation of the South, and those Southerners who once owned slaves. They further have been "demonized" and scorned to the point of making them appear to "deserve" any type of reprecussions they received during and after the Civil War. So much so, that Sherman's total war policy has even been "justified" by many, claiming the South "got what it deserved" when it was burned to ashes, and then raped and empoverished by "carpet baggers" in the years thereafter during the horrid time of "Reconstruction."
For so many years this idea has permeated the minds of Americans, that they still to this day try to enact upon white people a sense of "guilt" for slavery in America. (Even though it happened over 150 years ago!) 
It's not just the South who are viewed as evil for allowing slavery, it's ALL white people, for the Northern Whites where those who wrote slavery into the Constitution and who shipped Africans to America in their own ships to sell on the market to the South. Thus, if you are white, then you should be "ashamed" in the eyes of many for what your people did in enslaving an entire race of people. 
This "slavery guilt" continues to our very day in seeking to "shame" whites into trying to make up for the past.  And in so doing, it justifies the political action of giving "special rights" and "handouts" to black people, while excluding whites.  But rather than helping heal the past, this has lead to even more racial division, in which blacks are taught to "hate whitey" or "get all you can out of the white man," while whites despise being taxed even more to "redistribute" their wealth to others.  In some cases, this racial "welfare" policy has encourageded white people to despise blacks, and want to "segregate" themselves even more from them, as racial division of black and white grows more and more in the United States of America. 
Some people thought having a black president would finally heal the racial divide, and bring people together as "Americans." They hoped it would cease people viewing others as "African Americans" vs. "White Americans."  But the opposite effect in many cases has come to fruition, as racists blacks look at the president as "their president" and racist whites look at him as the prime example of the inaptitude and incapability of blacks to lead.  (Note:  Not all people are racist.  But there are those on either side who are.  That is, there are just as many blacks who hate whites as there are whites who despise blacks.  Racism is not one-sided!  But what is one-sided is the "guilt" of trying to make whites feel bad for slavery.  Whites don't try to make blacks feel bad for anything!)
Because of this "white guilt" mentality, we've been taught that whites have no voice and shouldn't be allowed to talk about blacks, their plight, and their struggles.  We are further lead to believe that whites can never understand what they went through, and since it's all their fault then we owe black people certain special priviledges, and in some cases even compensation.  But what if the entire narrative was not the whole story?  And what if white's weren't the only slave owners, but there were black slave owners as well?
Today, I read an article by "Ben Kinchlow," a BLACK MAN, in which he gives the interesting story about who the VERY FIRST SLAVE IN AMERICA really was and WHO IT WAS WHO OWNED HIM.  The answer may surprise you.  For in the articled, entitled: "Father of U.S. slavery was a black man," we read about a court case in 1654 in which the first documented case of BLACK slavery is recorded.  And according to the article, a man named Anothony Johnson owned some slaves, (several of which were WHITE by the way), and went to court to prove that he also owned a black slave named John Casor.  But there is a twist to the story.  Mr. A. Johnson was B-L-A-C-K!  And he won the case and was awarded Mr. Casor as his own slave for life!
So, here we have a BLACK man owning another BLACK man and this is the first recorded case of slavery in what now is the United States!   
Where is the "black guilt?" It's just not there.  Either because of ignorance or willful omission, people have declined to discuss this subject.  They want so bad for whites to be the enemy, they have failed to look at the very foundations of slavery, for if they do, they would find a BLACK man as the first slave owner!
To read more about this article and to learn for yourself the truth about the first American slave, go to:
It's time to let go of the "guilt."  Blacks and whites should not be enemies.  They should not be divided.  Blacks and whites are equal under the law.  Yes, both are Sinners.  But both are also Citizens.  Special treatment should not be granted to others because of the color of their skin.  We should all be treated alike!  Let the past go! 
Feel free to comment below...

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Guilty until Proven Innocent

I think God that in my part of the country (down South) I was actually taught the truth about American History in the classroom.  I remember distinctly sitting in class and hearing from the teacher that the "good guys" in the Civil War were the South.  But that was not just opinion.  My teacher showed me the facts about it.  I further remember reading in the textbooks that the war was NOT about Slavery and freeing blacks.  It was about STATES RIGHTS and the right for states to govern themselves without having to bow down to tyrannical practices and oppressive regimes who sought to tax one region of the country, while not wanting to extend that same tax to another.  I was also taught the horrors of governmental control in the time of "Reconstrucion" when "carpet baggers" pillaged and plundered a conquered people. 
It was a sad story, but was true.  That's why my teachers and the textbooks taught it to me, it was historically acurate.
But even before I heard that sad tale, I was taught about the History of our once great nation.  I was taught by my teachers that the one thing above all else that made the U.S. of America great, and set it apart from any other nation on the face of the earth, or in history for that matter, was that in America, people were viewed in the eyes of the law as INNOCENT, until PROVEN guilty. 
This meant that we as a society thought the BEST of people, not the worst.  And we always held them in high esteem no matter who they were, where the came from, and what they believed.  We were all equal in the eyes of the law, we were all citizens, and we all had the same basic rights.  But the number one right above all others in our free society was the ideal that a every person was viewed as innocent, until through judical process he was proven (beyond any shadow of a doubt) to be guilty.  That is, if someone accused someone else of a crime, then he DARN WELL had to have PROOF of it, otherwise he was in contempt and was a perjurer who proved himself to be guilty of lying. 
It was a golden age.  It was an age of true freedom.  For people were polite and often cared for one another.  The righteous had no fear of being falsely accused and if they were, they knew the evidence would prove they were guiltless.  True fear was only know by the guilty, for if they were caught, they had to worry about witnesses condeming them for what they'd done in a court of law.
Such a law-abiding society makes people want to do right, rather than evil, for there is reward for righteousness and recompense for wickedness.
The early U.S. court system was set up in such a way that it not only protected the righteous, but it also protected the accused, for it might turn out in due process that the accused was innocent all along.  Thus, when an accusation was made, the law demanded a writ of "habeus corpus" being presented to the accused, in which he was commanded to be in court for his actions.  He was NOT arrested and then dragged to court upon a mere accusation.  Rather he was given the opportunity to freely come before a judge.  If he did not appear, then and only then was an arrest warrant written and the sherriff sent to apprehend said suspect.  But notice he was still viewed as "innocent" until after the verdict of his trial!
Notice how vastly different things are in the United States of America today!  Somewhere down the line things have changed.  Police now look at anyone who is accused as a "perpetrator." And without a warrant they can arrest said person and lock them up, (in some cases indefinitely without any trail whatsoever).  The court case for the accused is not to Prove his innocence, as much as it is to Prove him guilty.  And, while he sits for months and even years in jail without release a long and drawn out court case takes place.  In other words, in the eyes of the law, the person is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!  And even if he eventually is aquitted and found innocent, he has still been subjected to the tribulations of imprisonment for a long period of time.
What a horrid system of law!  And what's worse is its affect on society.  Under the innocent until proven guilty system, people were viewed as basically good and they were well-respected.  But under the guilty until proven innocent system, people now look at one another with disdain and suspicion, immediately thinking the worst of them up front.  Many want to believe the person is guilty so they treat them as such.  And often, a person accused is a person abused by the police, the courts, society, their own fellow prisoners, and their fellow citizens.
What has become of our nation?  Because the government views its citizens through the eyes of "guilty until proven innocent" citizens are always thought of as not capable of making good decisions for themselves.  They are viewed in some cases as "possible future lawbreakers and miscreants" and for this reason the Government takes it upon itself to pass laws to FORBID its citizens from doing certain things, fearing they will lead to other things.  It's almost to the point in which the government arrests people for "thinking" of a crime, without ever committing it, (this is called "Pre-Crime." See the movie "Minority Report" for more), or better stated, for "thinking" at all rather than just doing what they are told!
Gun control is a perfect example.  Crazy people commit gun crimes, and innocent people die.  But rather than prosecute them for their crime, the government wants to punish everyone else by taking away their guns, claiming no guns equals no gun crime.  But why are those with guns viewed as GUILTY of a supposed crime which they have not done?  They have not shot anyone.  Thus, they are innocent.  Should they not be treated as such?  Why should they suffer for the crimes of others?
Today, because government wants to take away all guns, many citizens suspiciously view the government through the misguided viewpoint of guilty until proven innocent.  They think the worst of them, and wonder what they are planning.  Thus, they fear what more they might be accused of in the future, and this breeds the seed of suspicion anew.  And rather than both sides viewing the other as INNOCENT until proven GUILTY, they both view each other as GUILTY until proven INNOCENT.
The system is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers set up.  And a society that views each other as potential violators and evildoers is a society walking on egg shells, waiting to explode upon one another. 
So which system is the best?   Should we view others as "innocent until proven guilty" or should we view people as "guilty until proven innocent."  And what does history say about it?
Well, the United States of America before the Civil War (when Lincoln did away with the writ of habeus corpus) was the freest country on earth.  This also made it the most prosperous nation on earth.  But look at it now.  It's just the opposite.
Those nations throughout history who have viewed its citizens as "guilty" until proven "innocent" have always been oppressive regimes.  Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Mussolini in Italy, Mao Tse Tung in China, Kim in North Korea, and many others show us the fruits of the "guilty" until proven "innocent" mentality.  Sadly, they all have one thing in common.  They never give those they deem "guilty" any chance to "prove" they are innocent, oftentimes just KILLING them instead.
Hitler killed 6 million Jews that he deemed guilty of impoverishing the German people.  Where was their voice?  Where was their trail?  Stalin killed 11 million of his own people, many of which were soldiers returning from the war in Europe.  Why?  Because once they had a taste of war he was afraid they would turn on him with their weapons to free themselves from his oppresive rule.  Thus, they were sent to camps to die in Siberia and other horrible atrocities.  Where was their voice?  Where was their chance to defend themselves?  Where was their day in court to declare their innocence? 
I could go on and on, but I believe I've made my point.  My old teachers taught me right. To view others as "innocent" until they are proven "guilty" in a court of law is the definition of true freedom. While viewing certain people as GUILTY until proven INNOCENT is absolute TYRRANNY!  Why? Because labeling someone as guilty just because you want to get rid of them, and then executing judgment on them without them having any opportunity to prove their innocence is the epitome of injustice.  It is pure evil.
The United States of America is heading the same way that Russian, Italy, Germany, China, and other nations have if it continues this daming ideal of viewing others as guilty until proven innocent.  This is why it's so important to have a society set up on the principle of "Innocent until Proven Guilty."  For a person who has done nothing is guilty of nothing.  They should be left alone to do their own work and prosper.