Friday, May 02, 2008

Thou Hast Rejected Knowledge

Hsa 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

That verse was brought to mind after watching the Glenn Beck show last night. Glenn did a segment on the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright. Since Wright claimed (on Moyer's show, I think) that the media only took sound bites from his sermons and presented them together, the context of his sermons were being distorted.

In the final 30 minutes of his show [click on following link and scroll down transcript page] Glenn took three of the brief sound bites and presented 3 minutes worth of the sermons. If you take the time to listen to these 3 minute clips, the shock of the additional rhetoric makes Wright's hateful spewing even worse! If interested, perhaps you could go to Beck's website and view the videos there [links in upper left hand corner of page].

When the Lord brings to mind a Bible verse to me, I often like to check out some of the best Bible scholar commentaries to see what has been written about such verses. It was stunning to me, to find that what Matthew Henry wrote about the Hosea verses in the 1700's could be directly applied to condemnation for Wright's awful rhetoric.

Here is a portion:



Hsa 4:6-11

God is here proceeding in his controversy both with the priests and with the people. The people were as those that strove with the priests (v. 4) when they had priests that did their duty; but the generality of them lived in the neglect of their duty, and here is a word for those priests, and for the people that love to have it so, Jer. 5:31.

[Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?]

And it is observable here how the punishment answers to the sin, and how, for the justifying of his own proceedings, God sets the one over-against the other.

I. The people strove with the priests that should have taught them the knowledge of God; justly therefore were they destroyed for lack of knowledge, v. 6. Note, Those that rebel against the light can expect no other than to perish in the dark. Or it is a charge upon the priests, who should have been still teaching the people knowledge (Eccl. 12:9),

[Ecc 12:9 ¶ And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, [and] set in order many proverbs.]

but they did not, or did it in such a manner that it was as if they had not done it at all, so there was no knowledge of God in the land; and because there was no vision, or none to any purpose, the people perished, Prov. 29:18.

[Pro 29:18 Where [there is] no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy [is] he.]

Note, Ignorance is so far from being the mother of devotion that it is the mother of destruction; lack of knowledge is ruining to any person or people. They are my people that are thus destroyed; their relation to God as his people aggravates both their sin in not taking pains to get the knowledge of that God whose command they were under and with whom they were taken into covenant, and likewise the sin of those who should have taught them; God set his children to school to them, and they never minded them nor took any pains with them.

II. Both priests and people rejected knowledge; and justly therefore will God reject them. The reason why the people did not learn, and the priests did not teach, was not because they had not the light, but because they hated it—not because they had not ways of coming to the knowledge of God and of communicating it, but because they had no heart to it; they rejected it. They desired not the knowledge of God’s ways, but put it from them, and shut their eyes against the light; and therefore "I will also reject thee; I will refuse to take cognizance of thee and to own thee; you will not know me, but bid me depart; I will therefore say, Depart from me, I know you not. Thou shalt be no priest to me.’’
1. The priests shall be no longer admitted to the privileges, or employed in the services, of the priesthood, nor shall they ever be received again, as we find, Eze. 44:13.

[Eze 44:13 And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy [place]: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.]

Note, Ministers that reject knowledge, that are grossly ignorant and scandalous, ought not to be owned as ministers; but that which they seem to have should be taken away, Lu. 8:18.

[Luk 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.]

2. The people shall be no longer as they have been, a kingdom of priests, a royal priesthood, Ex. 19:6.

[Exd 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.]

God’s people, by rejecting knowledge, forfeit their honour and profane their own crown.

III. They forgot the law of God, neither desired nor endeavoured to retain it in mind, nor to transmit the remembrance of it to their posterity, and therefore justly will God forget them and their children, the people’s children; they did not educate them, as they ought to have done, in the knowledge of God and their duty to him, and therefore God will disown them, as not in covenant with him. Note, If parents do not teach their children, when they are young, to remember their Creator, they cannot expect that their Creator should remember them. Or it may be meant of the priests’ children; they shall not succeed them in the priests’ office, but shall be reduced to poverty, as is threatened against Eli’s house, 1 Sa. 2:20.

IV. They dishonoured God with that which was their honour, and justly therefore will God strip them of it, v. 7. It was their honour that they were increased in number, wealth, power, and dignity. The beginning of their nation was small, but in process of time it greatly increased, and grew very considerable; the family of the priests increased wonderfully. But, as they were increased, so they sinned against God. The more populous the nation grew, the more sin was committed and the more profane they were; their wealth, honour, and power, did but make them the more daring in sin. Therefore, says God, will I change their glory into shame. Are their numbers their glory? God will diminish them and make them few. Is their wealth their glory? God will impoverish them and bring them low; so that they shall themselves be ashamed of that which they gloried in. Their priests shall be made contemptible and base, Mal. 2:9. Note, That which is our honour, if we dishonour God with it, will sooner or later be turned into shame to us: for those that despise God shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Sa. 2:30.


[1Sa 2:30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed [that] thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.]

V. The priests ate up the sin of God’s people, and therefore they shall eat and not have enough. 1. They abused the maintenance that was allowed to the priests, to the priests of the house of Aaron, by the law of God, and to the mock-priests of the calves by their constitution (v. 8): They eat up the sin of my people, that is, their sin-offerings. If it be meant of the priests of the calves, it intimates their seizing that which they had no right to; they usurped the revenues of the priests, though they were no priests. If it be meant of those who were legal priests, it intimates their greediness of the profits and perquisites of their office, when they took no care at all to do the duty of it. They feasted upon their part of the offerings of the Lord, but forgot the work for which they were so well paid. They set their heart upon the people’s iniquities; they lifted up their soul to them, that is, they were glad then people did commit iniquity, that they might be obliged to bring an offering to make atonement for it, which they should have their share of; the more sins the more sacrifices, and therefore they cared not how much sin people were guilty of. Instead of warning the people against sin, from the consideration of the sacrifices, which showed them what an offence sin was to God, since it needed such an expiation, they emboldened and encouraged the people to sin, since an atonement might be made at so small an expense. Thus they glutted themselves upon the sins of the people, and helped to keep up that which they should have beaten down. Note, It is a very wicked thing to be well pleased with the sins of others because, in some way or other, they may turn to our advantage. (bold mine)


There is a week's worth of study that could be done by applying what Henry wrote in his commentary to Jeremiah Wright's lack of knowledge; precisely because of his rejection of biblical knowledge in God's Word. The man has, instead, replaced godly knowledge that can be gained from God's Holy Word with his own secular humanistic ideology. It is clear that Wright relishes his own opinions and ideology over and above the wisdom and knowledge of God - as it is revealed through the Scriptures.

The inconsistency of Wright's "reverence" is astounding. His sinful pride is shameful. Applying his own thoughts towards God's thoughts reveals the magnitude of Wright's error.

My questions. Is Wright's theology true to genuine "black liberation theology?" Or, is his hateful rhetoric a total (or, even partial) distortion of it?

Hannity's America will present a show this weekend on "black liberation theology." I will be watching it so that I can hopefully get answers to those questions. [Note: Carlotta - if you are reading this and have so information to add, please email me or include it in a comment here. Thanks!]

To be honest, I would have rather not known about what goes on in black churches such as Wright's.

Furthermore, knowing that dozens (or more?) black pastors congregated (at an event in Florida several weeks back) to honor "Rev." Wright just sickens me. Could you imagine if such a thing was done among white pastors??? RACISM would be screamed from the rooftops across this nation! The newspapers would be calling for the resignation of every white pastor who would ever show up for such a thing!

I realize that not EVERY black church believes and practices such anti-white, anti-American, anti-Jew, anti-government, anti-war, etc. ideology. In fact, I have been a member of two evangelical churches here in CA over the past 20 years. Both are led by black pastors! Neither one of them have a racist, America-hating bone in their bodies!! Each church has members and attendees from different races and backgrounds. This is what I have become accustomed to. I guess that I have been too naive in the past to ever think that racial hatred against white people and Jews would be so prevalent in some black churches in this day and age. It has shocked me. It has angered me. It has hurt me. It has MOSTLY SADDENED ME!!

I knew that such anger and hatred still raged in some communities. Black on white crime is evidence of this. BUT FOR SUCH HATRED TO BE PREACHED IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH?? I never would have ever dreamed such a thing was happening in America!!

My husband and I have discussed this several times. We are at the point where we don't want to discuss it anymore. It has also bothered my son. He has never been exposed to black on white racism in his life!! Throughout high school, his closest friends included a black young man who is now in AAA baseball. Another friend is bi-racial and is a pitcher in AAA baseball. Another friend is Hispanic. They went to different colleges, but now have re-connected in their friendship. This particular friend helped my son get his current job. They now work together. Both are planning to get their Masters degrees.

I don't know what readers here are thinking about this post. I'm not sure how it will be received. I am just trying to be honest about my reaction to this whole "Rev." Wright thing.

Even though most political pundits and newscasters are emphasizing the "racial" part of this story; I have to wonder - why they aren't paying any attention to the Christian aspect of the story? Sean Hannity is the only one (that I have personally heard) who has brought up that issue on his radio show.

Isn't "Rev." Wright's hateful rhetoric doing harm to America's Christian community too?

Please feel free to express your opinions. All I ask is that you do not profane the name of God, Jesus Christ, or disparage God's Word. Please do not use curse words either. Let's try to keep the conversation civil - even while disagreeing with each other.

*******

Update @ 9:41 a.m. P.T. -

Faultline U.S.A. has an excellent article Revisiting Obamas Liberation Theology

Faultline's article IS A MUST READ!! In order to understand (and counter) this scourge of "black liberation theology,(BLT)" ALL CHRISTIANS MUST LEARN WHAT IT IS ABOUT AND EXACTLY WHY WE MUST OPPOSE IT!!

There are lots of links in the article. However, if time only permits you to read the blogpost - PLEASE DO SO ASAP!! The snippets of information that Faultline shares will unequivocally show you that the "BLT" philosophy and "theology" is VERY HARMFUL AND DAMAGING TO TRUE, GENUINE CHRISTIAN FAITH!!

The fact that Obama sat in the pews of a church with a pastor who follows such reprobate theology shows me that HE IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

5 comments:

Carlotta Morrow said...

Christine, you are so "Wright on" about Rev. Wright! I have much info on his church as my life was indirectly threatened by one of his members back in 2000. This was after his member found out I was the author of the website against Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa principles are built into their "Black Value System."

But I will tell you Christine, that I have thrown my support to Obama. Please have yourself and your readers refer to my blog. I've urged readers to help convince me that I should vote otherwise.

I've been back and forth from McClain to Obama (Hillary is not a consideration at all). So feel free to share even more comments than what you've already done (which has been plenty).

Christinewjc said...

Hi Carlotta,

I hope that you are kidding about voting for Obama!

Yikes!!!!

You wrote: "I've urged readers to help convince me that I should vote otherwise."

You want convincing? Here's a bunch of posts to convince you NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA!!

Still love you, though!

Christine

P.S. What would Miles say???

;-)

Carlotta Morrow said...

Glad you still love me! Of course, my mind could change again before voting time.

What would Miles say? All he says is to "Vote God."

Of the candidates, Obama seems to be the godliest of the bunch. He's the only one that I've heard declare his allegiance to Jesus Christ. McCain seems to be scared to talk about Jesus. And Hillary is not in the equation for me.

Anyways, I'm sure my comments will stir something up here. But as long as everyone keeps "loving me" I'll be fine!

I'll get more into Obama and why I believe he just doesn't believe as his church does later.

Faultline USA said...

Thank you Christine for posting information about the article in Faultline USA “Revisiting Obama’s Liberation Theology Church” at http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2008/05/revisiting-obamas-liberation-theology.html

Here’s a little interesting note about that article, which was originally posted in March 2007. If you do a Google search using only the terms Obama Liberation Theology, you will find that it still comes up #1 on page #1. So imagine my surprise last night while watching Hannity on Fox, to discover that he (or his staff researchers) apparently used my entire article as the outline for their hour-long program on Liberation Theology.

Just a little note to Carlotta regarding Obama’s apparent religiosity. Just because “Obama seems to be the godliest of the bunch.” don’t forget that the Jesus presented by his Black Liberation Theology church is NOT the true Jesus. I urge you to read up on James Cone, the father of Black Liberation Theology before making an informed choice.

The BLT Jesus in a Black revolutionary leader who is intent on destroying the white race. Other than that, the distorted Jesus of BLT is no more divine than any other mortal who goes by the name of “Jesus.”

You must ask yourself honestly if Obama could have sat in that church for 20 years knowing that the church is considered by many as the most radically racist Black church in America?

Carlotta Morrow said...

My apologies for not checking the posts more frequently. I was depending upon my email alerts and for some reason I didn't get faultline usa's response...oh well!

Anyway, I am very aware of James Cones books and the Black Liberation Theology topic. I've had a link on my Christocentric.com website on Kwanzaa to Ron Rhodes wonderful expose of BLT in my links section for almost a decade. My Christocentric website was created to denounce afrocentric teachings such as the BLT heresy. Unfortunately, I just haven't gotten around to expanding my website past Kwanzaa just yet. That's in the making but gosh, I sure missed the boat with this coming out with Obama and Rev. Wright!

Although I encourage blacks to leave those churches, I know it's quite possible for them to be a part of the church and still know Christ because of their greater desire to connect to the black community to anything else. Does that make it right? Not at all. To me, those are weak and baby Christians (if truly Christian at all).

I've experienced this in my own family (which I write about on my blog.) My sister was the same as Obama and his family. But she was more radical because she was very involved in Dr. Karenga's (creator of Kwanzaa) black militant US organization. I was so puzzled by that because my sister had even more white friends than me! She loves her non-black friends and associated with them daily. But because her HUSBAND rejected Christianity, and was more into the black power thing than she, she sought something that he could be a part of. Thus her immersing of Kwanzaa, it's principles, and the whole black militancy thing.

My sister's weak faith in Christ and the scriptures, led to her ungodly compromise. Obama's church is to me an apostate church. Ungodly, little faith in the scriptures and full of people pleasing rather than God pleasing as a whole. Just having a "black value" system should have been the first clue for them to leave... because we know that the bible contains all the principles for any believer to live by... anything else is adding to the scriptures.

In my eyes, Obama is a weak and unknowledgeable Christian. He's not my first choice (Huckabee was) but compared to the others, he seems to have the character (calmness, love for all people) to perhaps lead this country. His participation in that Trinity church is still problematic but I firmly believe that he is not the racist that Rev. Wright is.

Obama being the politician as he is, like my sister, compromised his beliefs for the sake of fitting in with the "black community." That is my feeling about him. I've studied Trinity back in 2000 after my life was threatened by one of its members when they discovered I was the author of the anti-Kwanzaa website, and from my investigation of that church, I found why so many were attracted to it. It's programs were extensive and impressive for any church as for as education and helping the poor. The baby Christian could easily fall prey because of their biblical teachings on most Sundays (Rev. Wright didn't rant and rave on every Sunday). But evidently, those people didn't do as the Berean Christians did, to study everything that came out of that pastor's mouth.

I agree with faultline usa that black liberation theology is a dangerous and racist anti-biblical teaching that divides the races. I just believe that Obama doesn't believe that and doesn't even fit that character of a BLT believer.

Do I believe it's possible for someone to sit in that church for 20 years and not know what they're teaching? Yep! Especially if the ranting is not going on every Sunday. 20 years and only a few minutes of clips of Wrights ranting leads me to believe that folks were fooled because it wasn't done often enough.

But as far as I'm concerned, there's still no excuse for them being there at all.