Christianity – Page 17

Larry Norman 1947-2008

I just read on WorldNetDaily that Larry Norman had died. I will miss Larry and wanted to reflect on his music and influence on my life.

In the mid 1970’s, I made my peace with God. I had been looking hard for Him in fifth and sixth grade. I went from being a “good Catholic boy” to an agnostic and then began reading the Bible. I knew there was more to knowing God than what the nuns at my Catholic school were teaching to me.

At the end of seventh grade, I began attending a Baptist church in the town where I lived. The youth program was full of people with a living faith. They were really a breath of fresh air to my soul. (To this day I still see some of that group from time to time.) At church camp I walked forward and began my walk with Christ. While God has led me in other directions, I have continued to walk with Him.

At the Baptist church youth group we sang many songs each Wednesday night. Unknown to me at the time, Larry Norman had penned at least a third of the songs that we were singing. I remember being terrified by many of the songs and the fervor created by Hal Lindsey and The Late, Great Planet Earth. The church was full of “rapture fever.”

We loved to sing, “Life was filled with guns and war, and everyone got trampled to the floor, I wish we’d all been ready…”

Dispensationalist and Pre-Millennial theology were the tenants of orthodoxy at the church. This was the type of church that defined itself by what its members didn’t do. “I don’t smoke, drink or chew; and I don’t go with girls that do.” Another thing we didn’t do was listening to that “evil” Christian rock n’ roll. As far as I know, no one in the youth program ever mentioned Larry Norman.If the pastor had known, I’m sure there would have been hell to pay.

It wasn’t until college that I learned that Larry Norman had written those songs we were singing at church many years before. It was at this time that I realized that Larry Norman had been one of the earliest artists to blaze a trail for Contemporary Christian Music.

Norman also helped others to follow his lead in singing for God in a way that was uncompromising. Larry Norman was followed by Keith Green, Randy Stonehill, Michael Omartian, Gary S Paxton and others. These musicians helped to create a market for Christian music with a popular beat.

Larry voiced this idea when he song. “I don’t want any of those funeral marches, I aint dead yet. All I’m really tryin’ to say is why should the devil have all the good music?”

A few years later, I joined the Navy and had a chance to see Larry Norman in concert. I took the photo for this article in the early 1980’s.

Larry Norman had been in poor health for the last several years but is now at rest and with the Jesus that he loved so dearly. Maybe it is time for me to start buying all those Larry Norman CDs that I failed to get for Christmas last year.

One-Way Downloads

Free Christian Music from the 1970’s and 80’s is available for download at http://mp3.one-way.org/mp3/ . The music found on this site is mostly stuff that was never issued on compact disk. They are listed by artist (alpha by first name) and each subdirectory has from one to six LPs per artist. They are taken from vinyl but many have been professionally done with new LPs and great cleaning software. A few are not cleaned-up at all but the quality is great when compared to my scratchy, cue burned music—much of which survived my disc jockey days at WDDT and KJBU.

Artists listed include: All Saved Freak Band, Bash n the Code, Cruise Family, Darrell Mansfield, Denny Correll, Ed Raetzloff, Fireworks, Michael Omartian, Prodigal, Servant and Wall Brothers Band.

I found the site purely by accident when I did my periodic Google search on Ed Raetzloff. In the past, I have spent lots of time on the one-way.org site but never seen any link or mention of this download area before. I’m not sure if the site owner intended for this stuff to be public or plans some profit making way of using these at a later date but the proverbial “barn door” is open for interested parties.

Oh, in case you were wondering, most of what I am interested in on this site is the stuff I already own on vinyl but cannot buy on CD or digital download. I still have more than a hundred albums that I cannot buy in a digital format. The less I have to convert on my still to be purchased USB turntable the better. I hope I will be able to do as good a job as the person at one-way that is working hard to preserve the Christian music experience of the 70’s and 80’s.

Follow-up

The copyright lawyers shutdown parts of the website but it is still up and running. One-way has a related Facebook group.

Fox News Publishes Mormon Questions

Today on the Fox News website, Fox posted answers to questions about Mormonism that the church chose to answer. Which ones were left out was not stated.

Of the 21 questions that the Salt Lake church chose to answer, most are misleading and purposeful distortions of their beliefs. One problem is that the church does not see itself as bound to the teaching of either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Mormon doctrine is not once and for all time delivered to the saints. It is a moving target. Mormon theology is like a cafeteria meal where you pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest.

For example:

Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?
A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

Well actually, this was not the case until 1978, when Blacks were allowed full membership in the church. Prior to that time, Blacks were regarded as cursed by God and unable to enjoy his full blessing and fellowship just because of their skin color. Only in the midst of Jimmy Carter’s human rights campaign was church doctrine revived.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?
A: Absolutely not. Mormons believe that women and men are complete equals before God and in relation to the blessings available in the Church.

This is another distortion of their teaching. I did a college paper on this exact subject in 1980 and it was clear from multiple official Mormon sources that a woman’s salvation was directly tied to her husband’s performance of the priesthood within the church. A woman could not make it without a man.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?
A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

This is a lie. Brigham Young taught extensively about the doctrine of Adam-god and the folks in Salt Lake simply were uncomfortable about this idea and revised many of their church doctrines to make it go away. It is not just the evangelical Christians that criticize Brigham for teaching Adam-god but other Mormon groups like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (they now call themselves the Community of Christ).

The frustrating thing about Mormon doctrine is that the Mormons want it both ways. On one hand, they want the foundation of a restored church via Joseph Smith and on the other, the ability to revise beliefs to fit modern contexts.

Mormons claim that Joseph Smith had a series of special encounters with God. Joseph single-handedly did not reform but restored to true gospel, which had been lost to the world since the end of the early church. Mormons contend that what Joseph taught was superior to the Bible because the Bible was only correct “in so far as it was translated correctly.” Therefore we could not use the Bible to evaluate the Prophetic word of Joseph Smith, but could only use Smith’s word to interpret the Bible. This is the basis of why the Mormon church—however large—is called a cult.

Joseph Smith launched the attack on Christianity

I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt see Joseph Smith History 1:18,19

All we are doing is defending the faith of our fathers.
At the same time Smith gets credit for restoring correct doctrine, the Salt Lake church has not spared any effort trying to make changes small and great to make Smith’s teaching more marketable to the masses. There have been hundreds of changes to the Mormon Scriptures since Smith first published them. Mormon doctrine has undergone significant rewrites over the years. The church has morphed Adam-god, polygamy, race relations and many other things over the years. It is Orwellian how easily the church can shift its beliefs.

The problem is that if God truly spoke to Smith then what he taught must be fixed and immutable. Like Moses and the Ten Commandments, God’s teaching should be etched in stone. Smith claims he wrote it down exactly as he was commanded. Smith personally took it to the publisher. How could there be any error?

Yet the LDS church has taken many liberties to correct, amplify and even outright change church doctrine. This creates a big problem. Either God spoke to Smith and he got it wrong and therefore is a false prophet or the church has purposely departed from the teachings of Smith and is apostate. The whole structure of the LDS church is built on the foundation that Smith and Brigham laid. Either way the church is wrong. Clearly this is the case.

What should be done when we are confronted with the claims of the LDS church is to evaluate them on the basis of the Bible. We know God spoke through the Bible, if what Joseph and Brigham taught is contrary to this revelation then they are wrong and should be rejected.

Huckabee on Jesus and Satan

Recently, Mike Huckabee did the candidate’s equivalent of asking one of those dreaded marital questions, “Honey does this dress make me look fat?” Once the question is on the table, you find yourself in a box that only Solomon could get out of and Huckabee is clearly not Solomon.

The issue has blown-up one two fronts. First is what Huckabee said true and second why did he say it?

Both Scripture and life experience tell us to watch what we say. This is doubly true for Presidential candidates. Below are some Scriptural admonitions that are very familiar to Governor Huckabee and most Christians.

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. James 1:26

Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. James 3:5, 6

During an interview with a reporter writing for the New York Times Magazine, Mike Huckabee recently asked, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

The quick and dirty answer to the question is ‘yes’.

This statement was widely introduced into evangelical circles by Dr. Walter Martin.

Martin was a prolific author, lecturer and pastor that specialized in Christian apologetics. Apologetics is the defense of the faith and has its basis in the scriptural admonition to “. . . be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” I Peter 3:15.

The two best-known works by Dr. Martin on Mormon theology are Kingdom of the Cults and Maze of Mormonism. Martin concentrates on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the core theology of the nature and work of Jesus Christ and compares this teaching to historic Christianity.

Clearly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a colorful and problematic history. However, both Dr. Martin and the Mormon church agree that the LDS church teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

The following quotes are from the official LDS website (emphasis added)

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.) When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C 29:36–37.)

Some Mormons are not comfortable that their views are discussed in formats that they don’t control and some damage control was needed in this situation.

Stirred by the debate, the Associated Press sought clarification from Kim Farah, a spokeswoman from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She said the question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith, but she evaded a direct answer to the question: “We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”

Kim Farah’s statement is a distortion of LDS doctrine designed to deflect a meaningful understanding of what Mormons really believe.

Joseph Smith rejected any claim of being a Christian or part of a Christian denomination.

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” Joseph Smith History 1:18,19

Mormons are polytheistic not monotheists.

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349

Historic Christianity teaches that Christ was begotten not created. The Mormon definition of “Father” is that God had sex with one of his wives and she gave birth to spirit children, and they are all waiting to come here to have physical bodies in the hope that they too can become gods. By not defining terms, Kim is trying not to disclose what her church really teaches.

While Jesus and Satan were spirit brothers, they offered two competing ideas for salvation of mankind, Jesus’ proposal was accepted and Satan’s was rejected. This rejection caused him to rebel and become the opposite what of Jesus stands for.

And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Moses 4:1,2

Clearly it is established that Huckabee’s question to the reporter is really the teaching of Mitt Romney’s church, the next question to ask is more troubling.

As other bloggers have pointed-out, when the Southern Baptist Convention had their conference in Salt Lake City in 1998, Huckabee was a speaker at the event. The SBC was pushing videos and books that highlighted differences between their theology and the LDS church. For a preacher and speaker at such an event to later claim that he couldn’t recall what Mormons believe is a real stretch to me. I read Martin’s book thirty-five years ago and can recite much of it from memory.

I am uncomfortable going there but it is a possibility that Huckabee setup this whole thing on purpose.

Speaking on this subject, Laura Ingraham used the analogy of a lawyer during a court case purposely asking a question the he knew was impermissible and then withdrawing it once an objection was raised. This gets the issue out in public and into the minds of the jury even if it is not “on the record.”

Is Huckabee a “bomb thrower” or just tone deaf?

It appears that Mike Huckabee is staking-out territory as the anti-Mormon candidate. As a Baptist minister this might be a good position to occupy but as a Presidential candidate it seems like jousting with windmills. On one hand this is probably his “jump the shark moment” but on the other, why did the New York Times and Associated Press decide to hype this particular comment?

Whether Huckabee’s question was a deftly placed dagger in Romney’s back or a dumb redneck comment, he said something that was out-of-bounds in the minds of many people. His comment will not hurt him in evangelical circles but it will impair his ability to expand his base of support to include fiscal and defense minded conservatives.

Any time you asked, “Honey, does this dress make me look fat” it’s going to end badly. Moral of the story, for a happy marriage watch your tongue.

*********
One last thing we learned from this exchange is that Hillary and Huckabee have something in common besides being from Arkansas.

Hillary Clinton claims that much of her leadership experience comes from her time with Bill in the White House. However, if you want proof you can’t get it because all of her papers are sealed in the Clinton Presidential Library until after the election is over.

Similarly, Mike Huckabee is advertising himself as a Christian Leader in his Iowa television spots. His “Christian Leader” status is part of what qualifies him to be president, however, all sermons either printed or on tape are unavailable from any of his former churches. In effect all his records are sealed until after the election too!

Mike Huckabee and Tookie Williams

While no analogy is perfect, enough of the facts are the same to compare the cases of Stanley “Tookie” Williams and Wayne DuMond.

First, Stanley “Tookie” Williams was a street gang member who was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death. While in prison, he had a born again experience and gave his life to Christ. As a result of his conversion, he began writing various articles and tried to encourage young people to avoid street gangs. Because of his anti-gang advocacy, many people thought that his sentence should be commuted and the death penalty should not be carried-out. Even many people that normally support capital punishment thought that the governor—Arnold Schwarzenegger—should pardon “Tookie”.

“Tookie” was finally executed about two years ago.

In 1985 Wayne DuMond was convicted of raping Ashley Stevens.

DuMond said that, while he was awaiting trial, masked men burst into his home, tied him up with fishing line and cut out his testicles. By the time Mr Huckabee became governor in 1996, he had met DuMond’s wife and was promising to release him. After advice from medical experts — thought to have told him that DuMond was still capable of rape — Mr Huckabee allowed the decision to be taken by the parole board, which released DuMond in September 1999.

In 2001 DuMond raped and killed Carol Sue Shields, 39, in Missouri and is also said to have been responsible for the rape and murder of Sara Andrasek, 23, who was pregnant. He died in prison two years ago of natural causes.

While the media doesn’t pay much attention to religion, Mike Huckabee’s faith was understood to be an issue in the decision to release DuMond. Many have speculated that Huckabee was convinced that DuMond had a conversion experience in jail and that facts surrounding his rape conviction were politically motivated. (Ashley Stevens-the victim of the rape-was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton.) The conversion, castration and Clinton connection were enough that many pushed for DuMond’s pardon.

The common thread in both cases is the claim of religious conversion as the basis for some type of preferential treatment for those convicted of crime.

I don’t fault the criminals for wanting to get out of incarceration. I do have a problem with ignorant but well meaning Christians that don’t understand the proper role of church and state. Below is a portion of an article that explorers these roles:

Forgiveness Requires Restitution
by David Chilton

The condemned man sat in his cell awaiting execution. James Morgan had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death under the justice system of 17th-century Massachusetts—the Puritan Colony par excellence.

The Puritans have often been stigmatized as narrow-minded legalists, unconcerned about the plight of “sinners” in their midst. To the contrary, the Puritans, as good Calvinists, believed that all people—themselves included—are depraved and sinful, in need of the grace of God and the mercy of fellow men.

Accordingly, the Rev. Cotton Mather and other ministers visited Morgan in his cell and urged him to pray for repentance and forgiveness. To their delight, Morgan heard them and soon gave evidence of a sound, sincere conversion.

The whole Puritan colony joyously responded to Morgan’s change of heart. They held a special worship service, where Morgan testified to his newfound faith. He was embraced and received as a brother in Christ, with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the heavenly kingdom.

The congregation sang a psalm of praise, thanking God for His goodness to James Morgan, the sinner who had become a saint.

Then they took him to the gallows and hanged him.

Clearly Huckabee has either confused the roles of church and state or doesn’t know the difference. As a former minister, Huckabee clearly has the credentials of being an expert in the role of church in our society. Based on his actions in this case and statements that he has made during the campaign on other public policy issues one can only conclude that Huckabee lacks a core of conservative principles.

Can Evangelicals Trust Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney finally gave “The Speech” about his religious views. I read the transcript and thought it was a wonderful speech. The best line in it was:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

This is the same view expressed in the Declaration of Independence where we are reminded that our rights come from God not government.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .

This is the watershed issue in our culture. Those that agree with the Founders are Conservative. Those who believe rights come from government are Liberals.

I think this speech will help Romney with evangelicals but I’m not sure that it will be enough. I think evangelicals are haunted by Jimmy Carter, George H Bush and Bill Clinton. We remember “reading my lips” and “never worked so hard for the American people” as preludes to broken promises and tax hikes. We remember Carter and Clinton gutting our military and trying to peacefully co-exist with terrorists.

Romney’s problems with evangelicals are not really theological but ethical. We are asked to trust that he is a conservative—one of us—but his track record as a politician and his words as a presidential candidate do not agree. What is his epiphany? What caused the change? Evangelicals happily acknowledge that God has the power to do this in the hearts of men but Romney does not credit God with the change. According to Romney he has been consistent the whole time to his faith in God. Both he and Harry Reid are LDS and they are polar opposites on political and social issues yet both in good standing with the folks in Salt Lake City.

Another reason that trust in Romney is thin is our experience in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger. We threw a known conservative—Tom McClintock—under the bus and went with Arnold because Arnold was a fiscal conservative that told us he could work with Democrats. Now Arnold is counted as the eighth most influential Liberal in the United States and has sold-out to the homosexuals and environmental extremists. Arnold has papered over the debt in California by transferring obligations to 30-year bond measures instead of correcting the structural issues that created the deficit spending. Furthermore, while Arnold Schwarzenegger has raised over 120 million dollars for his campaign coffers the Republican Party in California is bankrupt and two million dollars in debt!

Conservatives want to be charitable with Romney. We need converts to our cause to change the direction of our country. We need the children of the ‘60s to embrace the values of their fathers. Jesus told us to forgive our brother if he offends us even seven times seventy times. Conservatives went way beyond that number a decade ago and still we want to forgive. We just want a measure of assurance that Romney will govern with the same values he wants to campaign on.

Gary S Paxton

Gary S Paxton may not be a household name but his work is widely known. He has produced a variety of musical hits since the 1960’s. His music hits span Top 40, Country and Gospel. Today, his best know hit is probably the Monster Mash, which was recorded in 1962.

He has won Grammy Awards and hits that he has produced have sold tens of millions of copies. He was inducted into the Country Gospel Music Hall of Fame in 1999.

His personal life has been a roller coaster of substance abuse. Paxton has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. In 1973, he converted to Christianity. In 1975 he started his own recording label and he did very well until 1985 when he lost the business due to bad business decisions and problems with drugs.

In 1980, he was shot five times in the head by hitmen hired by a country musician that Paxton was producing. Amazingly, he survived the attack.

Paxton has started his life over again in Branson Missouri.

Gary S Paxton sees the world differently than most folks. Like many artists, he can see the wonder of mundane everyday things and he also can glimpse into the future and see what’s lurking just over the horizon. Some of his songs are serious and sober and others are satirical and fun. Paxton’s music, like Bob Dylan, is and acquired taste. His songs will stick in your head and rattle around long after you’ve shut off the music.

What makes his music stand apart from that performed by others is that each song that he writes has a little piece of himself in it. From what I know of his life, it is safe to say there are two Gary S Paxtons. One is the partying hell raiser and the other is the saint touched by God. Much of his music is one Gary looking at the other.

There are pieces of Gary S Paxton all over the Internet but not in one central location. Even his entry on Wikipedia is spotty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_S._Paxton

Gary has two different websites that each host unique content. Each is incomplete but overlapping.

The main page at http://www.GarySPaxton.net and http://www.GarySPaxton.org are the same but as you drill down each menu item you will find differences. The music link on each page goes to different music offerings. These choices are not duplicated.

If you follow this link and click of CD covers, you hear samples of songs offered on these CDs. http://www.garyspaxton.org/Music/index.htm

His new wife Vickie has two sites
http://www.TimeForJoy.com was used at one time but now just links to the .org site mentioned above. Paxton’s e-mail is listed as garyspaxton@timeforjoy.com
More recent activity and biographical information can be found at http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/koa7/newsletter.htm

Discography http://www.ymg.urban.ne.jp/home/koa7/garpax.htm
Discography of NewPax Records http://www.bsnpubs.com/word/newpax.html

Update

Gary died July 17, 2016

Matthew Ward: Toward Eternity

Matthew Ward is best known for his part of the 1970’s trio known as The 2nd Chapter of Acts. The group often toured with Keith Green, Phil Keaggy and Barry McGuire. During his time with 2nd Chapter, Ward released his first solo album, Toward Eternity. Toward Eternity was one of the best Christian rock albums of the period. I have many fond memories of hanging out at the campus radio station play cuts off this LP on Friday nights.

I have been checking periodically for many years to see if Toward Eternity would ever be released on CD. I’m still waiting. On the Matthew Ward website, there is no mention of Toward Eternity on the Store page on his site. However, on the Music page you will find a list of all the solo projects that Matthew Ward has done. On this page is a box that looks like an ad. It lists many songs in alphabetical order. If you play around with this box you will find that it is in fact a way to play and download mp3 files of songs by Matthew Ward.

Songs that have been purchased previously appear in italics. Note that songs are not listed by original LP or CD. By scrolling up and down on the music page you can figure-out which songs belong to which recording. Setting-up an account on Snocap is easy and doesn’t require selecting the songs over again. Be warned that there is no confirmation screen prior to purchasing the songs. Once purchased you need to either install a download manager from Snocap or right-click each song title and select save to download.

Matthew has a great duel on the Donna Summer album She Works Hard for the Money. Look for the track called Love has a Mind of It’s Own. He also has a great duet with Leslie (Sam) Phillips on her Dancing with Danger CD called By My Spirit.

Matthew Ward’s music is a real treasure. I’m glad he has found his way into the digital age.

Anne Rice Slaughters Presidential Politics

Anne Rice, the author of the Vampire Chronicles and other tomes about creatures of darkness, posted an endorsement of Hilary Clinton’s bid for President.

Rice has a reputation of delving into the dark world of things that go bump in the night. That she could take a witch like Hilary and transform her into an angel of light is no marvel, but it is fascinating to read her logic in arriving at this conclusion.

Anne Rice seems to have been sucked into the same vortex that recently absorbed Jane Fonda. Both high profile women have claimed to give their lives to Jesus Christ and to be profoundly transformed by the experience. Both are firmly entrenched in the Democrat Party and comfortable being there. Both have used the experience of their conversion to repudiate the Republican Party utilizing arguments rife with Neo-Marxist and Liberation Theology of the 1970’s. Unlike Fonda however, Rice proclaims that she is Pro-Life.

I would like to examine the endorsement posted by Anne Rice.

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT:
August 10, 2007

To my readers:
Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—- which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

If you think her previous statements were incomplete and confusing just keep reading.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

If your life is dedicated to write books about the Lord then to steal a phrase from Laura Ingraham, Shut-up and write.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Irony: associating “soft voice” with Hilary

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

What a strange place to start building a case for endorsing Hilary.

Rice’s comment here shows a complete lack of historical understanding of the Constitution, the First Amendment and judicial activism. The founders wanted to prevent the establishment of a national church like the Church of England. There was a balance between religious liberty in this country and the State. Seven of the thirteen original colonies had state sponsored churches at the time the Constitution was ratified and they saw no conflict with their practice and the Constitution. There is no wall of separation between Church and State only protection of Churches from the national government.

John Kennedy was Catholic and ran against Richard Nixon, a Quaker. Neither was faith was ever considered mainstream at the time of the founding. However, each faith had a state established by its followers from the earliest days of the Republic. Catholics had Maryland and Quakers had Pennsylvania. What this Presidential contest has to do with the separation of church and state—a phrase that comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists many years after the Constitution was written—is beyond my understanding.

Clearly Rice has bought into the myth of separation of church and state. Her citing of Darryl Hart’s book is proof of that fact. Hart advocates a faith that is so heavenly minded that it is no earthly good. He cannot have a church that is “salt and light” in its culture. True Christianity transforms the culture that it is in. Revival is when the church is culturally relevant. In Harts’ version of Christianity, you could padlock the doors to every church and no one else would notice. For him as long as Jesus is only in your heart your faith is ok.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

Christianity by definition must influence and affect every area of your life. But why appeal to Conscience and not Scripture as your standard?

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

Ok, where are we off to now?

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

Since when have Christians disagreed violently about the Gospels? Yes they have a number of applications and lessons to teach us.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point can not be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

Yes we have a two party system but when has either party claimed to be the Christian Party? The question that you fail to ask is which party will allow me to be a follower of Jesus Christ and still participate fully in it activities? Which party better fits a Christian worldview? Which party better respects God, family, marriage, the unborn, liberty, limited government and other values from Scripture?

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

Voting for Ross Perot or Mike Bloomberg is a wasted vote. Ralph Nader won’t like this either.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Anne sort of skips over the part where she evaluates what each party stands for in contrast to her Christian beliefs. Since many candidates don’t agree with their party’s platform it might be better to say that you evaluate each candidate on their merits and pick the best one. However, we abandon all logic and jump to the conclusion.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Her argument is not from logic, this whole essay is just justification for the above facts. I. Anne Rice, am a Democrat and I endorse Hilary.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

Oops, Anne gives away the store here. There is nowhere in the Gospels or any other place in the Bible where to above listed values of “feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies” are the responsibility of government. They are clearly the responsibility of individuals to those around them. Each of us is commanded to do these things.

In the Bible, government is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This protection includes military defense, law enforcement and a judicial system. Only in Egypt during the time of Joseph will you find government running a modern welfare state. Look at it in Genesis. First the Egyptian government fed the people in exchange for their possessions and then the desperate people sold themselves voluntarily into slavery for food from the government. Gary North has written extensively on this subject in such books as Moses and Pharaoh. Many of his works are available at www.freebooks.com

Anne the Bible does have a word for the government acting in the way you desire, it is called theft.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

This is just as logical as saying in 1860 that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of slavery, it will be through the Confederate States or in 1936 Germany that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of Auschwitz, it will be through the Nazi Party.

If you are pro-life in the Democrat Party, you are not allowed to speak at any Party Conventions or publicly dissent. Anne you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

Anne, we never said abolishing Roe would fix everything. It would get the Federal government and some states out of the abortion business and would allow tax money to stop being used to kill millions each year in the name of choice. There would be fifty fights in fifty states. Constitutionally, it is states issue not a federal one. 1/3 of all pregnancies since 1973 have ended in abortion and your party is hell bent on keeping it that way. Take the tax money out of the abortion industry and it would be a good step in reducing the frequency.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history – that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

We gave-up the right to slavery.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

Anne your beloved Party and Liberal theology have given us the situation that we have now.

What happened to the importance of the Gospels in this discussion? If unborn children don’t qualify as “the least of these” that Jesus spoke about then who is? Do the right thing because it is right and let God do his part. If we don’t repent the how can we be forgiven and restored to God?

You talked earlier about a vote for a third party as a vote for one of the two parties. The same applies here. For you to do nothing is to vote for preserving the status quo.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Yes but not by advocating more abortions.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

Better education? Ha! We need the transforming power of the Holy Spirit to change people’s hearts.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

Are unborn children not entitled to human rights too?

Remember when you said that you didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned? Roe says it’s a woman’s choice! The fathers don’t count. That is the law you are defending. Status quo. Now you say what about the fathers? Get a clue. You can’t have it both ways.

Roe legally protects fathers from any responsibility unless the baby is actually born. If the baby is born, the government takes most of the fathers’ responsibility and puts it upon the taxpayers. There is a definite linkage between spending on social programs and children born out of wedlock. The solution to problems created by government is for government to get out of the way not more government programs.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

When you start putting thought into your vote, you will start voting for candidates on their merits not just for guys with a “D” by their name. Maybe you will even give money and votes to a few that are pro-life. The bad news is that these folks are in the other party.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—- on a whole variety of issues—- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

On what basis can you say such a stupid thing? Democrats make money by killing babies. Why should they stop? Anne, their god is the State. Take any of those precious things that God expects his followers to do in the Gospel and that is the Christian view. Now substitute the word government for God in all those same commandments and you will get the position of the Democrat Party on any give social issue. We are back to Mose and Pharaoh.

“The conflict between Moses and Pharaoh was a conflict between the religion of the Bible and its rival, the religion of humanism.”—Gary North

Hilary will keep abortion “Safe and Lethal” so what does this issue have to do with her? Nothing. Can you even name any accomplishments of her in office? What has she done in her time in the Senate to make her qualified for President?

In summary, Democrats love abortions. Democrats love social programs. Therefore Democrats would love to create a social program to stop abortions. Hilary is a Democrat. Therefore Hilary would love to stop abortion.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—- these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

Translation: don’t hold me accountable for interjecting myself into the national political dialogue.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

The only political debate on church and state that I have heard this whole election cycle is about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. What are you talking about? Anne you have wandered into areas far beyond your area of expertise.

Did you ever notice during the debates that thus far in the election cycle not one Democrat candidate has had even a single question about abortion? Why? Because every one of them agrees. They all support abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy and have no problems using your tax money and mine to pay for it. This is the status quo under Roe v Wade.

Debate over abortion only takes place in the other party.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

So how does voting for a pro-abortion candidate in a pro-abortion party reflect your deeply held belief in the sanctity of life?

So Anne, what would Jesus do? Based on my reading of the Gospels, I think he would make a different choice than you have. He might even vote for a third party.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point?”—Martin Luther

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

anneobrienrice@mac.com

Need a Primer on Mormonism?

With all the publicity about the Mitt Romney candidacy, you might be wondering what are the differences between historic Christianity and the LDS church. Does it matter? Hear one of the best experts on the subject. Walter Martin’s classic lectures on the Maze of Mormonism Part 1 & Maze of Mormonism Part 2 are now on the web.

Many of Walter Martin’s lectures and other material are available at Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet This site is run by one of his daughters and her husband. Many of his teachings can be found in the Listening Library in RealAudio format. All are from cassette tapes that were converted to digital. The audio quality is not the best but it is worth a listen. Additional teachings can be found at the page for Kingdom of the Cults page The audio teachings on this page are not the same as the book but go along with some material presented in the book.