Asa Hutchinson Rebukes Jesus; News at 11

Begin Transcript:

Moderator: Hello, welcome to Both Sides Tonight on Coyote News Network. Tonight we will be discussing recent events at the Q nightclub in Colorado with a pair of guests debating the problem of transphobic language.

First up, let’s here from current Arkansas governor and aspiring Presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson. Good evening governor, and what would you like to say to your fellow Republicans whose transphobic language created the climate of hate that led to this shooting?

Governor Hutchinson: “I know you’re talking about Republicans, that we use rhetoric and words that try to bring people together and not divide us, and it’s true whether you’re talking about race or whether you’re talking about, you know, sexual identity, you don’t want to say things that’s going to cause others to hate more, and they might respond with violence. That is not what we need. We need to suppress that every chance we get.”

Moderator: Thank you governor. Now let’s here from the radical right which we all know your party represents. Although we intended to schedule Jesus the alleged Christ, He sent a representative instead. Hello, Mr., ummm?

Raguel: Raguel.

Moderator: Ah, Mr. Raguel. And you are?

Raguel: I’m the archangel of vengeance. I have authority to bind demons and fallen angels who violate the parameters of their allowed activities.

Moderator: Umm, okay, I see. So, Mr. Raguel, what do have to say for yourself after this horrific shooting? I mean really, should anyone, even an alleged angel or so-called son of God be using hate-filled language like “groomer”?

Raguel: I am authorized to say that as for anyone who causes offense to any of the children who believe on our Lord, it would be better for him to have a giant rock tied around his neck and be thrown into the ocean.

Moderator: REALLY???? Governor Hutchinson, what would you say to that?

Governor Hutchinson:  “I think that we need to show compassion for all elements. There is a debate we had this in Arkansas as to what you do with trans children that are struggling with gender identity and how you handle the medications and things like that. Those are fair points of discussion in the policy arena. But you don’t have to translate that into hate or harshness that again stigmatizes.”

Moderator: Well, Mr. Raguel, what is your take? After all, with the separation of church and state, shouldn’t the trans community be able to enjoy their lifestyle without any fear?

Raguel: In regards to human government on Earth, I have been authorized to say, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

Moderator: Ummm, I’m not sure we’re allowed to say that on TV. I think we can all agree that reasonable people should avoid that kind of inflammatory rhetoric. What do you think, Governor Hutchinson?

Governor Hutchinson: “Well, in all of our society, we need to tone down harsh rhetoric that causes others to hate. That’s not what our society should be about.”

Moderator: Indeed, thank you governor. Mr. Raguel, you actually suggested these poor people should have rocks tied around their necks and be thrown into the ocean! Why can’t you use a more civil tone, like Governor Hutchinson?

Raguel: First of all, I didn’t say that. I said that having a rock tied around their necks and being thrown in the ocean would be the easy way out. What they truly have coming if they fail to repent will be far worse. As for civility in the face of pedophilia, my King has authorized me to say on His behalf, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Moderator: King? Authority? Seriously, who does this guy think he is? Does your boss really think he has the right to say that kind of things?

Raguel: All authority has been given to Him in Heaven and on Earth. He is the King of kings who rules at His Father’s right hand in Heaven.

Moderator: Really? Then why doesn’t he show up here himself? Why send some flunky to take question?

Raguel: He already came here once and bore witness to all things. He will come back at a time of his Father’s choosing, with flaming fire, taking vengeance on those that know not God.

Moderator: Okay, enough of all this vengeance talk all the time! Governor, what do you say to this stuff?

Governor Hutchinson:  “I think whenever, even in our own caucus, our own members, if they go the wrong direction, I mean, it has to be called out. It has to be dealt with, particularly whenever it is breaching the civility, whenever it is crossing the line in terms of violence or increasing the divide in our country.”

Moderator: Thank you governor, I think that would be a good note on which to move on. Next up, how to tell if your cat is transgender and how to identify its pronouns.

The links must flow…

Quit killing cereal….

Points in the maze…

The government wants you disarmed for what they have planned next….

Debate atheism/theism…

The Mostest Bestest….

I think this is a little off base, but whatever….


Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t Be Little Kenny

Some years ago, in my Professional Capacity, I worked for an extended period at a homeless shelter. My employer had contracted to provide educational services, and I was teaching G.E.D. and basic job skills classes to an indigent population. I learned a great deal while working that assignment; for one thing many of the homeless men I worked with were gainfully employed already, or recently had been, but had nonetheless found themselves penniless and on the street thanks to divorce court and its associated evils. I also found that women make up only about 10-20 % of the homeless population, and that to be a homeless woman you have to have messed up a great deal worse than most of the men who were homeless. Of course, as one would expect, there was also a large portion of that population that had substance abuse and/or mental health issues. Of these, many were veterans, yet trying to get assistance from the VA was an impenetrable maze that nearly always led to a brick wall.

Despite all this, the shelter did a great deal of good for the homeless populace. They had plenty of good food to eat, a safe and comfortable place to sleep, shower and get medical help; they had classes on managing their finances and getting and keeping a job, etc. Once in the system at this shelter they were allowed to live on site for up to two years, so long as they followed a few basic rules…

  1. No drugs or alcohol. I don’t know about other shelters, but we enforced this rule with surprising rigor considering I worked with a bunch of bleeding heart liberals (most of whom I became somewhat fond of in spite of myself).
  2. Get a job. If one of the clients was having difficulty getting a job, we would provide one on the campus until they could find one in the community. Many of the businesses in the area were aware of our program, and to their credit were willing to give our clients a chance, so we got some pretty good results.
  3. If you didn’t have a high school diploma, you had to get a G.E.D. If you had a high school diploma, you had to take financial literacy classes (we used the Dave Ramsey program) and job skills classes, at least until you got a good job.
  4. No sex offenders, and most especially no pedophiles. This was especially important as we were the only shelter in the area to provide intact family housing… A homeless family did not have to be broken up and sent to different shelters if they got into our facility.

We would, of course, lose clients… Most often due to falling off the wagon with alcohol/drugs.

And then there was Little Kenny.

Little Kenny was bright, personable, and generally pleasant to be around. He was also shiftless, utterly unemployable, and hopelessly addicted to weed. (I had not thought marijuana addiction was a real thing until I met Kenny. Maybe it isn’t a real thing for anyone else… but Little Kenny definitely had the reefer madness in his veins.)

Little Kenny always had an excuse as to why he could not get a job. The number one complaint, over and over again, was that he did not have any clothes to wear suitable for a job interview, and as a result no one would hire him. Such was his perpetual complaint.

Then one day I got a call to my office asking me to come up to the large meeting room at the main building. I arrived to find a Jos. A Bank truck backed up to the building, unloading all manner of clothing. (I do not receive any payment from anyone for what I write here, and certainly no clothing store sponsorships, in case anyone is wondering). There were brand new suits, sports jackets, khakis/slacks, dress and polo shirts of all different sizes. All the garments were brand new and in pristine condition. I do not know for sure, but I imagine it was the previous season’s overstock being removed to make way for new stock, and doubtless the store took a nice tax write-off, but nevertheless I appreciate what they were doing.

I had been called up because, unlike most of the men in the shelter, I had some idea as to how to size a suit, and could help our clients find clothing with a proper fit to make their best possible impression. I spent several hours that day helping indigent men put together well-fitting wardrobes for employment, and I remain grateful to that store and brand for what they did.

But guess who did not show up. Where oh where could Little Kenny, the perpetually insufficiently attired and thus unemployed unfortunate be?

A few hours later, towards the end of my day, Kenny came be-bopping into my classroom. As soon as he saw me, he realized his error in showing up, but it was too late to escape. I (rather forcefully) inquired as to where he had been, and why he had not availed himself of the opportunity to put together a professional wardrobe. I told him of new suits, sport coats, dress shirts, khakis and polos. Little Kenny looked at me aghast, wounded at my transgression against his person. He informed me, with all apparent seriousness, of the insufficiency of the day’s offering. “You gotta know,” he told me, “they didn’t bring me no shoes. How am I supposed to get job with no good shoes?”

I came close to getting in trouble with my own boss that day, and afterward Little Kenny never again darkened my door. I was unsurprised a couple of weeks later to find Little Kenny had been expelled from the campus for a drug violation.

Some time later, driving through downtown, I spied Little Kenny sitting on a street corner with a “will work for food” sign. Shabby, unwashed, and by the looks of him anything but sober, but imperiously secure in his dignity of having turned down a new suit that did not come with new shoes as well.

What can you do?

The missing links….

White supremacist mass shooting…

On workin’ with womyn…

Mr. Clean…

Why are women that way?….

What women need, not what they want…

This is tomorrow’s to-do…

Gays bashing gays…

The Adam gives thanks…

Good advice…

Thanksgiving proves Plato was a fraud….


Filed under Uncategorized

Election Night Part 2

In the Oklahoma governor race, recent news polls from October showed the Democrat challenger ahead, the last poll before the election had the incumbent Republican Governor Stitt up only 1 point. With 78% of the vote in, Stitt is now up 56.3-40.9, or 15.4 points, which is quite a bit more than 1. These polls had been used to try to convince voters that Stitt could not win (and hence suppress the non-leftist vote). Stitt recently signed into law a bill which banned abortion from the moment of conception in Oklahoma, a prime reason the left wants his head on a platter. BTW, the alleged margin of error in the poll showing Stitt up only one was 4.4. Once again the media has a narrative to push.

Democracy is dead?….

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Election Night Part 1

Watching the NYT website, with 94% in Rubio (FL Senate) leads 57.6-41.3, a margin of 16.3. Why does this matter? U.S. pollsters had ranked this race as tight; the Real Clear Politics average had the spread at Rubio up 8.8. Specifically, the local “right wing” (as if) Fox affiliate polled the race at Rubio up 6, with a margin of error of 4.2 just before the election. Now my math says 16.3-6 is 10.3, which is more than double 4.2, which causes me to doubt the scientific validity of this poll, and also causes me to wonder why a news agency would publish such easily illustrated “fake news.” One might even get the idea that media outlets were trying to suppress the enthusiasm of the non-leftists voters in Florida (and other states). BTW, the remaining votes to be counted are primarily in the Florida panhandle, which is heavily Republican, so it’s almost certain Rubio’s final victory will be by an even larger margin.

In the same vein, Desantis (FL Gov) is up 59.3-40 over his Democratic rival with 88% reporting, a margin of 19.3. The RCP average on this race was 12.2 for Desantis, Fox had Desantis up 10 with an MOE of 4.2. Once again, 19.3-10 is 9.3, more than double 4.2. Certainly seems as if someone is trying to make the story rather than report the story.

Other election stuff…

What they really want…

Girls fight dirty…

Why women do what they do….

Coming down the pike…

Duck dynasty has kinda gone downhill…

Vote against fascism…

This one strikes home…

Alternate timeline nightmare….

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

On Authority (Part 1)

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matthew 28, KJV

When discussing headship, be it in family, the government, or the family, we need to first understand that headship implies authority, and that without authority there is no true headship.

First and foremost, we must understand that all rightful authority comes from God. Please understand that I used the word “rightful” on purpose, for there are principalities and powers that we must oppose, who have a form of authority from the god of this world, but who have no rightful authority. One of the mistakes made by many Christians is to lump all authority into one basket, whether rightful or not, and demand submission. This is of course not proper, and we should avoid that mistake.

We can observe that God has established three institutions on Earth through which He manifests His authority and gives authority to His designated rulers. The first institution, created in the Garden of Eden, is of course the family, beginning with husband and wife. Wives are commanded to obey their husbands in all things; children are commanded to obey their parents “in the Lord.” Here we have a clear chain of command, the man governing the woman and both the children, with the man under the rule of Christ and responsible to Christ for his conduct vis a vis his wife and children.

Later, God instituted civil government among men for the purpose of upholding what is good and punishing evil. He ordained that the governing authorities are not to “bear the sword in vain” but should be a terror to those who do evil (Romans 13). Governmental rulers serve in a position ordained by God, and are responsible to God for their conduct towards those whom they govern. This is not to say that all persons who are given a role in civil government were individually ordained; rather the position and role of civil government is what God created. Nor should civil authorities always be obeyed; when the Sanhedrin, the civil authorities of Jerusalem, commanded the apostles not to preach in the name of Christ, Peter responded “we ought to obey God rather than men.” Hence we see a limitation placed upon civil authority.

Finally, the church was established by God on the day of Pentecost after the resurrection. Christ is the head of the church, the fullness that fills all in all. Paul tells us that elders (aka bishops, aka pastors) are to be appointed in each congregation based on a specific list of criteria found in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. The elders are responsible to shepherd the flock amongst themselves, but Paul warned that even from such men would ravenous wolves appear.

The universal theme is that God is the ultimate author of all rightful authority, but that men may corrupt the offices which they hold and use them in ways contrary to God’s commands, which is something we will continue to study in the near future.

Karen says MLK was a white supremacist because reasons….

Green propaganda…

If everyone would plant a tree….

On validation….

Learn to farm…

Raise your expectations….

Do it for the right reason…

Is white a race?….


Filed under Uncategorized

Of Ends (not) Justifying Means

For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their [c]condemnation is just. Romans 3, NKJV

Florida Surgeon General: High Risk of Death for Young Men Receiving mRNA Covid “Vaccine.”

We knew, from the rollout, that the Covid “Vaccine”; aka the clot shot, stroke poke, slab jab, etc. was derived from the cells of a pre-born baby girl who had been murdered via elective abortion; specifically the vaxx used the HEK 239 cell line both in testing and production of the end product. Various religious leaders of all stripes and denominations signed on to having their members take the jab, including members who were being coerced to do so against their will (e.g. military service members). The current pope in Rome helpfully explained that although the abortion had been sinful, we are now so far removed from the original act, and the need for the vaccine is so great, that time and necessity remove the guilt of participating in an innocent child’s murder.

Now to be honest, I am not a Roman Catholic, but in the past I had been fairly certain that church still taught that the only thing that cleanses the guilt of sin is the Blood of Christ. I am unaware of Vatican II giving any different teaching, and if they held a Vatican III I haven’t yet heard about it, so I’m not sure exactly when that basic doctrine would have changed.

Be that as it may, I consulted with my Bible, and sure enough it still teaches that the only path to the removal of the guilt of sin is through Christ Jesus. Part of this process is, and remains, a renunciation of sin. Simply saying “I committed that sin a long time ago, so time has fixed it, and anyway I really needed to do that at the time because reasons” doesn’t remove the stain of sin. Had that infanticide taken place a thousand years ago, continuing to participate in it and trying to benefit from it still carries blood guilt.

But, surprise, surprise, surprise, the devil didn’t even keep his end of the bargain. The shot wasn’t salvific after all; it’s just another way to die. Our leaders made a deal with the devil, and many of us signed on, and what, exactly, did we get? The opportunity to “feel safe” from a virus that was never going to harm most of us anyway. And what did we pay? We painted our hands with blood and poisoned our children.

In my “professional capacity” I was working with a fifteen year old girl this week. This particular girl is brilliant, beautiful, happy and a good person in almost every way. And she will almost certainly never have children. She was confused and upset because her parents had her get the vaxx, and afterwards her menstrual cycle completely stopped. Not paused, not irregular, not spotty…. but completely shut down. She is currently working with a clinic that is giving her large hormone doses to try to “re-start” her reproductive system, but so far that’s not been very successful.

What do you tell a well-adjusted, high-iq, professional model level looks fifteen year old who has just learned she can never have children of her own? How do you explain that was really for the “common good” to stop a virus that was never a threat to her to begin with? How do you explain that your omelet needed to break some eggs, and her ovaries were on that list?

Our leaders, knowing full well what they were doing, chose evil that good may come. See what Paul has to say about that in Romans 3.

The links must flow….

Ask this question and get raided by the feds…

Is this a thing?….

Looking for love in all the wrong places….


Leadership in dating…..

Breaking up is hard to do….

On being a force for good….

Dude should not have resigned, make them fire you….

More good links…

Free Sci-Fi…

Avoid the temptation to simptation….


Filed under Uncategorized

Additional Thoughts on the Head Covering and Submission

In my previous post I more or less “reviewed the literature” concerning the historical understanding of Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth regarding women having their heads covered in the assembly of the church. I’m going to give some summary thoughts here, some application and some observations.

First of all, Paul gave these directions to the Corinthians as a direct messenger from God, an apostle of Christ and through direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if you don’t believe this, you don’t, and there’s really no reason for further discussion because I’m not going to debate this basic foundational principle. If you do not believe in the apostleship of Paul or the plenary inspiration of the scripture then you are in the wrong place.

Paul instructions are, in point of fact, basic and easy to understand:

  1. No other church in the entire world had the custom of allowing women into worship with their heads uncovered. The Corinthians, and the Corinthians alone, had introduced this man-made custom into worship. Every single other congregation in the entire world, without exception, required women to have their heads covered in the assembly.
  2. Women were also to have long hair and men short hair. If a woman wears her hair short she is behaving as a whore; if a man has long hair he has shamed himself.
  3. Anyone who opposed Paul’s teaching on the head covering was behaving in a contentious fashion.
  4. If a woman refuses to wear a head covering in worship she should be shorn. (For an example, see the French treatment of women who were lovers of Nazi occupiers following the liberation of France in World War II).

Now that is certainly one way to get the point across.

Part of the problem that men face today is that we expect women to be submissive to us when they have not first been submissive to God. Why are the overwhelming majority of “churched” “Christian” women today not submissive to God?

  1. They are not taught submission by their mothers or the older women of the church. This is in direct defiance of the apostle’s teaching as to the duty of older women.
  2. They are not taught submission by preachers/pastors, who instead teach “Christian feminism” and female superiority and rulership.
  3. They are not taught submission by their fathers, either overtly or by his lived example of ruling his own house well.
  4. They are sent off to secular public schools where they are taught that submission is abuse of the worst sort, unless it is submission in the context of sadomasochistic sexual practices performed exclusively outside of heterosexual marriage, in which case submission is just great.

We should not expect women to be submissive to men so long as they are in rebellion against God.

And we cannot expect women to cease their rebellion against God until men lead by example in submitting to God.

For a starter, this means the removal of pastors who mock men in general and fathers and husbands in particular. This means the removal of pastors who deny divinely instituted patriarchal authority in the home and the church. If it is beyond the power of the faithful men of a local congregation to remove such a pastor, then they must remove themselves and their families from his flock.

It means the removal of pastors who will not openly proclaim that each husband/father has a divine right and God-given authority to rule his own home, and that rebellion against that rule is Satanic. It is well past time that men continue to bow and scrape before the authority of hirelings who themselves deny the authority of God.

And this is the point. A pastor who denies a man his God-given right and obligation to rule his own house is not only denying that man’s authority; that pastor is denying the authority of God who ordained husbands and fathers to this role. Such a pastor is one of the ravening wolves Paul warned of, who would attack the flock from within the church.

Until the wolves preying on the flock are confronted and removed by husbands and fathers nothing will change. The hour is late. Prepare yourself, and above all pray.

The fruits of rebellion….

I think RSM is mistaken, but here is his take on the current thing…

Don’t buy sapphic cookies….

They’ll be coming for the rest of us soon enough. Be ready….

Coolidge is our most underrated President….

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

On Women and the Head Covering in the Assembly of the Church

If one of the men of your congregation took it upon himself to wear a baseball cap, bowler, porkpie hat, French beret, or a ten gallon cowboy hat while waiting on the Lord’s table, or leading a public prayer, or leading singing or even preaching, would you object?  If so, why?  If the hat in question was part of his normal day to day attire, what would be the problem?  If he declined to doff his chapeau while praying, why should anyone object?

If you were to have a young married couple show up for worship services, and the husband had a long, luxurious head of hair flowing down past his waist, while his wife sported a crew cut, would you be okay with that?  Why not?  Are you just binding your own human opinion and taste on the pair?

Perhaps most brethren would appeal to I Corinthians, and Paul’s admonition that long hair is shameful for men, yet glorious for a woman.  Well and good, perhaps, but the exact same passage demands that women wear a veil while praying, and the overwhelming majority of brethren who would oppose the inversion of the young married couple above would nevertheless refuse to require the wearing of the veil with the same adamancy with which they oppose the wearing of the ballcap, even though both instructions are given directly together by Paul.  Why is this so?

 At this point a learned brother will step forward to admonish the wayward advocate of the veil that it is merely a matter of local custom which Paul was addressing, and as such has no relevance to practice in the church in the current year and locale.  It might surprise the learned brother to discover that Paul never, not even one single time, refers to the wearing of the veil as a custom. 

“No!” cries our learned brother, “Paul specifically says the veil is a ‘custom’ in I Corinthians 16!”  In point of fact this is a new and novel teaching which is contrary to grammar, logic, and two millenia of scholarship prior to the twentieth century.  Learned brother should also take into account that if the veil is local custom, so are Paul’s teachings regarding male and female hair length, as well as the prohibition of men praying with their heads covered.  All are found bound together in a single set of instructions; if one is mere custom all are mere custom, and the brother who condemns the teaching that women should be covered, while himself teaching that men should be uncovered, condemns himself for teaching custom as law.

Now let us understand, I do not condemn our learned brother who teaches men should be uncovered; rather I commend him for teaching such, I merely wish to encourage him to be consistent in his teaching about these matters.  

What, then, is the historical teaching regarding the veil?  All of the second century brethren reported that the wearing of the veil was a universal practice of the churches, and cited Paul’s teaching on the matter.  This is the testimony of both Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome.  Later writers, including John Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine confirmed that in the 4th and 5th centuries it was still the universal practice for Christian women to wear a head covering, and that such was based on the teaching of the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians.

 Interestingly enough, as time moved on and more and more digressions and divisions occurred, the wearing of the head covering by women professing to be Christians seems to have never been questioned.  Luther and Calvin, while more than happy to shake everything up in the religious orders of their time, still commanded women to wear head coverings, and still instructed they should do so based on the teaching of Paul in I Corinthians.  I do not claim that either of these men are authoritative, but both were recognized scholars, and both understood the teaching of the apostle in this matter to be what everyone else had for well over a thousand years. 

Now, what is this matter of “custom” in I Corinthians 11:16?  Is it, as most learned brethren teach today, the wearing of the veil (and long hair on women, and short hair on men, and men being uncovered in worship, because they do indeed all stand or fall together)?

Well, let’s see what some of the greatest scholars of the scriptures have to say about Paul’s use of the word custom in I Cor. 11:16.  While I agree these men are not doctrinally authoritative, their scholarship is useful for shedding light on the literal meanings of passages.

But if any man seem to be contentious – The sense of this passage is probably this: “If any man, any teacher, or others, “is disposed” to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided.”

We have no such custom – We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God – The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.”

— Albert Barnes

 “But if any man seem to be contentious – Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler – puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.”

— Adam Clarke

1 Corinthians 11:16But if any man seem to be, &c.— Be, or is disposed to be, &c. “If any one, from a love of disputing, or from his own different views of what is naturally decent, should controvert what I advance, I shall not contend further; but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom, for women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither do I know of its prevailing in any other of the churches of God, whether planted by me, or any of my brethren. I think, therefore, that it ought to be avoided, as a singularity which may appear like affectation, and give offence, even if it be not judged a natural indecorum.” See Doddridge and Cal”

— Thomas Coke

 “VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, 1 Corinthians 11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside”

— Matthew Henry

16. εἰ δέ τις. Not ‘any man’ as A.V., but ‘any one,’ a material difference. The Apostle had special reason to apprehend difficulties on this point. See 1 Corinthians 14:331 Corinthians 14:38, and notes. Thus it would be better to apply the words to what follows, rather than with some commentators, to what has gone before. The Apostle would deprecate further argument, and appeal to the custom of the Churches as decisive on a point of this kind.

δοκεῖ. Thinks fit, not seemeth, as A.V.

φιλόνεικος. Admirably translated contentious in A.V., implying that pleasure is taken in strife for its own sake.

ἡμεῖς. Emphatic. If he like to be contentious, let him be so. It is quite sufficient for us who desire to live in peace that the custom of the Churches is otherwise.

συνήθειαν. See note on 1 Corinthians 8:7. The word has been interpreted [1] as referring to contention, ‘it is not our custom to be contentious,’ or [2] to the practice of permitting women to appear unveiled at the services of the Church. The latter yields the best sense. This appeal to the Churches must not be understood to imply that all Churches ought in all respects to have the same customs. But in a matter such as this, involving the position of women in Christian society, and their reputation in the world at large—a matter of no small importance—it were far wiser for the Corinthian Church to follow the universal practice of Christendom.

Now if the false teacher resolves to be contentious, and maintains that it is allowable for women to pray and teach publicly in the church unveiled, we in Judea have no such custom, neither any of the churches of God.“

—- James MacKnight on the Epistles

A summary by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.

If any man seem – `thinks’ (fit) [ dokei (Greek #1380)] (Matthew 3:9); if any man chooses (still, after all my arguments) to be contentious; if any thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians’ self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1 Corinthians 1:20).

We – apostles; or, we of the Jewish nation. Jewish women veiled themselves in public, according to Tertullian. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context; but he often refers to himself and his fellow-apostles. “We-us” (1 Corinthians 4:9-101 Corinthians 10:5-6).

No such custom – as that of women praying uncovered. Not ‘that of being contentious.’ The Greek No such custom – as that of women praying uncovered. Not ‘that of being contentious.’ The Greek [ suneetheian (Greek #4914)] implies a usage rather than a mental habit (John 18:39). The usage of true “churches” (plural: not ‘the Church,’ as an abstract entity, but “the churches,” as many independent witnesses) of God (the churches which God recognizes) is a valid argument as to external rites, especially negatively-e.g., such rites were not received among them, therefore ought not to be admitted among us; but in doctrine or essentials the argument is not valid (1 Corinthians 7:171 Corinthians 14:33).

Neither – nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.”

—Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

            Verse 16

16.] Cuts off the subject, already abundantly decided, with a settlement of any possible difference, by appeal to universal apostolic and ecclesiastic custom. But if any man seems to be contentious (i.e. ‘if any arises who appears to dispute the matter, who seems not satisfied with the reasons I have given, but is still disputatious;’—this is the only admissible sense of δοκεἶ in this construction: see reff.:—for the meaning, ‘if it pleases any one,’ &c. would require τινι δοκεῖ: and ‘if any one thinks that he may,’ &c. would not agree with φιλονεικεῖν, which is in itself wrong).

ἡμεῖς] declarative: let him know that …; so, εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν βαστάζεις, ἀλλʼ ἡ ῥίζα σέ, Romans 11:18. We,—the Apostles and their immediate company,—including the women who assembled in prayer and supplication with them at their various stations, see Acts 16:13.

τοιαύτην συνήθειαν] The best modern Commentators, e.g. Meyer and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in understanding this, τοιαύτ. συνήθ., ὥστε φιλονεικεῖν κ. ἐρίζειν κ. ἀντιτάττεσθαι. p. 235. And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calov., al. But surely it would be very unlikely, that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely a censure of a fault common to their behaviour on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion:—‘If any will dispute about it still, remember that it is neither our practice, nor that of the Churches, to dispute.’ It would seem to me, but for the weighty names on the other side, hardly to admit of a question, that the συνήθεια alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of women praying uncovered. So Theodoret, Grot. Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage: and to make the appeal more solemn, adds τοῦ θεοῦ to αἱ ἐκκλ.,—the assemblies which are held in honour of and for prayer to God, and are His own Churches. Obs. αἱ ἐκκλησί αι, not ἐκκλησί α. The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom, is that on which the stress is laid. This appeal, ‘to THE CHURCHES,’ was much heard again at the Reformation: but has since been too much forgotten. See, on the influence of this passage on the Christian church, the general remarks of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198–200.

— Henry Alford, Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary             Now we are to believe that MacKnight, Henry, Clarke, Barnes etc, are one and all mistaken on the literal meaning of the passage here, and that the word custom refers to the wearing of the veil by the Corinthian women.  Of course this also contradicts the testimony as to the understanding and practice of the second century scholars mentioned above, and while it is completely understandable to dismiss the admittedly annoying ramblings of Augustine and perpetual sense of indignation wafting from Jerome, we can perhaps at least look to their testimony as to what the practice of the church was in their day and why it was so.

I guess RSM still hasn’t boycotted the NFL…

Interesting fashion advice…

Everyone goes to Disney after the die in Philly…

Get off the fence…

Feminists against females….

They’ll be coming for all of us soon enough…

On friendship…


Filed under Uncategorized

Freedom Isn’t Free, and Grace Isn’t Cheap

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

For he that is dead is freed from sin.

In certain obscure corners of the internet one may run across the term “churchianity” from time to time, a derogatory appellation for those who profess Christianity without submitting to Christ. I often think of Johnny Cash singing in “The Wanderer” about those who “say they want the kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.” Some have objected to the use of this term, most notably the esteemed writer John C. Wright, seeing it as an aspersion against the faithful. Others use it freely, perhaps too much so at time. If we were to define “churchianity” as opposed to Christianity, how might we do so?

In a nutshell, churchianity is the default setting for those who embrace what Bonhoeffer called the doctrine of “cheap grace.”,in%20place%20of%20God%20himself.

Cheap grace preaches forgiveness without repentance, Christianity at peace with the carnal world, freedom without self-sacrifice, redemption without submission. Cheap grace is the wellspring from which we get a modern evangelical church whose divorce rate is indistinguishable from that of unbelievers and atheists. It is the fountainhead of a church full of unashamed fornicators and adulteresses.

The adherents of cheap grace will usually admit to a belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, although this is not always the case, and those who will not commit to even a belief in the resurrection are growing more numerous. It is a gospel of easy conversion, for the convert never really has to change. Instead, we all simply learn to tolerate one another in our sins. “Come as you are” had become “and stay that way forever.” If you come as an adulteress, God loves you anyway, so stay in your adulteress relationship. If you come as a sodomite, God loves you anyway, so continue to enjoy your sodomy. If you practice child sacrifice through abortion, God loves you anyway, so keep your abortion abattoir open. You get the picture.

Cheap grace is also seen in the “prosperity gospel,” which promises that if you really believe, and really pray, and really give a lot of money to a televangelist, you will get all the material possessions you could ever want right hear and now. You and your loved ones will never be troubled by illness. Now obviously anyone who falls for this has never spent any time in any serious Bible study, but that’s the point. How many people in church buildings in the U.S. (or the West in general) today have ever really spent any time in serious Bible study?

So when we speak of churchianity, we speak of those who want their blessings to be physical and in the here and now. We speak of those who want to be thought of as “good people” while they still do evil things. We speak of those who want forgiveness but without repentance or restitution. We speak of those who want the Kingdom without God in it.

Metaphysical thoughts…

Paypal censorship….

Jill Biden is no Lady Macbeth….

Why Mitch, why?….

On the Pericope Adulterae…

RAND plots…

Atheism and slavery…

Fiction break…


Filed under Uncategorized

On Apostasy

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

It often seems difficult to me to even get an unbeliever to listen to the Gospel of Christ. Yet, if I can get them to listen, sometimes I can see the wheels start to turn and the light start to come on, and I realize they are recognizing what Christ offers them. I have long ago dropped any concern about how effective I am as a speaker or how convincing I can make my rhetoric; the power is not in me, it’s in the gosIpel. Even if I am a stammering train wreck of a public speaker, if I can just say enough that my hearers know about Christ, the gospel has the power to do the rest. I plant, it is God who gives the increase.

What is worse than the unbeliever, however, is the apostate. The apostate has tasted spiritual freedom. He has heard the gospel, believed it for a time, and for a time has been obedient. But then the cares of the world choke out his faith, and he is brought down.

Now the Calvinist will claim that this man was never saved to begin with; I am not a Calvinist so the idea that a man may, of his own free will, abandon Christ and the promise of Heaven is something I acknowledge as possible. What will never happen is that Christ will abandon us. If you meet the apostate, who once tasted the richness of God’s mercy, and who has now returned to his own vomit, know that this man did so in spite of all God did for him, not because of anything God did to him.

When we talk about the reasons for apostasy, I think of Tolstoy’s line that happy families are all alike, but unhappy families are all unhappy in their own special way. Just so, faithful Christians are all alike on the same path, while apostates have all found their own special reason to betray the One who loves them most. For some it’s money, others sex, perhaps drugs, political power, personal revenge, etc. The list is far too long to enumerate here. The apostate never has things just as he believes they should be so long as he remains with Christ, so he leaves.

It’s amazing to me that so many men today who see the carnage wrecked by unfaithful wives can still sympathize with the apostate, for what is the apostate if not a spiritual adulterer? Indeed, this is how God referred to Israel and Judah in the Old Testament.

What can guard our hearts from apostasy?

  1. Gratitude. God has done more for us than any of us can or will ever deserve. Christ suffered more for us than any of us will ever suffer here on Earth. The Son of God calls us to be His; God the Father freely offers us adoption into His family. Gratitude for this alone should ensure we never leave Christ.
  2. Love of God. God gave us life, and in Him we live, and move, and have our existence. He is perfect goodness, perfect love, perfect justice and perfect grace. To fail to love your own Creator is to fail to understand yourself. It is nihilism.
  3. Love of others. Love your neighbor as yourself. The apostate has in his possession the most powerful force in existence to help those in suffering. He knows the truth of the gospel, and its power to save souls. To withhold this from others, when we see them suffering and in need, is the worst sort of hatred. It is as if a doctor examined a child suffering an excruciatingly painful disease, realized that he knew a cure that was fully effective and would entirely heal the child, and then withheld it out of spite or indifference. The only difference is that the apostate is worse, for he does spiritual rather than physical damage.

In short, to be an apostate shows a man who is incapable of gratitude or love, and thus without the very most basic components of a healthy and decent man. He is a failure in everything that matters, and as the Hebrew writer notes, He will answer to God for his ingratitude.

Public schools are at it again….

Suddenly as a COD…

Blue on blue, no humans involved…

Close, but no cigar….

Fathers matter…

Free sci-fi…


Filed under Uncategorized