Quest for Truth

The Bachmann Dilemma

I am experiencing a conundrum, a moral/ethical/spiritual dilemma of understanding when it comes to GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann’s public statement regarding her submission to her husband.  On the one hand, I find it commendable and praiseworthy that a public figure openly proclaims her commitment to such a godly and scriptural stance.  But on the other hand, if she were to be the president of the United States, still the most powerful position in the world, how would that work?  I’m really struggling with this.

What if her husband, to whom she is in submission, had a vehement and visceral opposition to some position or policy that she were required to act on in her capacity as POTUS.  Does that mean she would relinquish her presidential authority and duty to act on or render a decision on that issue in favor of conjugal submission?  One would have to take precedence since you cannot serve two masters.  (Although I am not implying that her husband is her master, simply that taking a submissive posture would render her subordinate to him and his decision in the matter.)  In that case, her husband would, by default, actually be put in a position as president himself.  If this submission only applies to issues within their personal relationship, it is not really true submission at all.  We can’t cut the baby in half!

Many people got very upset when Chris Wallace, during the GOP debate, posed the “submission” issue to Congresswoman Bachmann.  He was accused by some of somehow attempting to undermine, minimize or ridicule her spiritual beliefs or something.  But I believe it was a legitimate and important issue that deserved addressing and I do not believe she convincingly or adequately delivered an acceptable response to it.

Now, we really get to the heart of the matter as it concerns me. (So just go ahead and pick up the stones and get ready to stone me now!)  Here goes:  I am not sure whether I even believe that a woman should be president of the United States in the first place.  There – I said it!

The issue of how much authority women should have is raging due to the feminist movement which has wreaked havoc on American society (and probably other societies also).  Even broaching the subject of or questioning female authority is likely to incite great wrath and elicit accusations of sexism, misogyny, etc. The Apostle Paul’s admonition that women should not teach men or usurp authority over them is clear even though he is accused by feminists, and even Christian women, of being a woman-hating chauvinist.  But does that apply only to an ecclesiastical setting or to any situation of female governance or power?

Feminism has so marginalized, feminized and emasculated the male population in American society that men are confused about and resentful of what role they actually play.  Husbands and fathers are portrayed in media, entertainment, advertising, etc. as sort of bumbling, inept buffoons who need women to tell them what to do and when and how to do it.  This has crept into and now permeates the organized church as well, most likely due to the fact that women inordinately outnumber men in most congregations.   

I believe that God has made it crystal clear that He has ordained the order for mankind (excuse me if I use some old-fashioned, politically incorrect terms).  After all, He designed and set forth the hierarchy, the organizational structure:  Men are to be leaders, women are to be subordinate supporters and helpers.  Both are loved and esteemed by God equally in every way, except positionally. 

Whenever mankind attempts to upstage God or upend his order of things, nothing good ever results. The bible is replete with examples of women usurping the authority over men and taking it upon themselves to dominate.  Eve tried it and how did that work out for us all?  As a result of her disobedience, ultimate deception and Adam’s wimpishness, we are all doomed to spend eternity in hell unless we are redeemed by the blood of Yeshua unto salvation.  Then there is Sarah who took it upon herself to override her husband’s authority and God’s timing.  Jews and Arabs, to this very moment, are killing each other as a direct result of her act of insubordination against Abraham and ultimately against God.  Then there was Jezebel who totally dominated her cowardly husband Ahab and things didn’t turn out too well for her either.  There are doubtless other such examples in scripture.  In defense of a woman in authority, some cite Deborah, a prophetess and judge, as an example of a godly woman in power and she was married. (Judges Chapters 4 and 5).  Her authority appears not to have been usurped, however, since God set the judges over the people of that era who each “did what was right in their own eyes.”  Sound familiar?

Oddly enough – and I know this may sound rather strange – if Congresswoman Bachmann were not a Christian woman, this whole issue would not bother me as much.  For instance, if it were Hillary Clinton I wouldn’t be concerned since she has never expressed such a commitment or portrayed herself as a woman dedicated to submitting to her husband.  We can’t expect unsaved people to act like saved ones even if they are out of order.

I believe that Joshua-like advice (Joshua 24:15) is in order for Congresswoman Bachmann:  “Choose you this day whom you will serve …” – either the state as president or God by marital submission.  I do not see how she can do both effectively and with integrity.  Even if she calls upon the Spirit of God to lead her in her presidential decision making, it would still seem to be the epitome of double-mindedness.  The epistle of James declares that “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8)

How should we then, as Christians and as citizen voters, feel about this situation?  Since the above is only my opinion, we each must decide.  I’ve just about made up my mind, though.

Brenda

 

Let's Forget About Eligibility

After months, even years now, of pounding on the table demanding that Barack Obama prove that he is a “natural born citizen,” that he was, in fact, born in America, and that he is constitutionally eligible to hold the highest office in the land, I have concluded that we need to cease and desist from trying to remove him from office.  Following are three reasons why I feel we should abandon this effort:

 1)      As a black conservative, I experience almost daily (mostly from other blacks and flaming white liberals) incredible vitriol, unbridled hostility, antagonism and downright hatred for even criticizing anything Obama says or does.  I am labeled an Oreo, an Uncle Tom/Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a brainwashed, self-loathing idiot.  Now, if I get that kind of reaction for simply criticizing the man, think what would happen if he were actually removed from office.  I am convinced that if it were proven that he is ineligible for the position and he were removed, blood would literally run in the streets of America.  Race riots, the likes of which we have never experienced before, would consume this country.

             I lived in the inner city during the riots in my hometown of Cleveland in 1966 (hitting the floor at the sound of gunfire); watched the Watts riots on TV; and lived in Los Angeles County during the Rodney King riots of 1992.  In each of those cases, blacks burned, looted and destroyed their own property in the inner cities, leaving other areas pretty much unscathed.  But Obama has done such a good job of dividing this country by race AND class that you can be sure that this time the destruction would be leveled at and felt by the “haves” in Scottsdale, Beverly Hills, The Hamptons and many other affluent neighborhoods.

 2)     Secondly, in the 235-year history of this country, we have never had to “undo” a presidency before, although we have had three instances of impeachment.  Even when Nixon was impeached, we didn’t have to undo his presidency but simply prevent it from moving forward.  We cannot begin to wrap our minds around the incredible range of actions that would have to be taken to undo the presidency of Barack Obama – recalling all of his appointees (just firing the czars could take months), rescinding all of the Executive Orders (and there have been many), rendering the huge amount of legislation he has signed null and void, and myriads of other mind-boggling tasks.  The chaos and havoc which it would wreak would create a national and international crisis from which America would never recover.  It would be an unfathomable disaster.

 3)     The third reason can be summed up with one word – Biden!  If the two reasons above did not convince you, this likely will. This guy can’t even stay awake while his boss gives a speech (although that can be challenging, I must admit).  Can you imagine what having him for president would be like?  

I remember once seeing someone with a T-shirt that said, “I’m with Stupid →” and the arrow pointed to the person next to them.  Obama needs a T-shirt that says, “If You Get Rid of Me You’ll Get →” and stand next to Joe.  It was a stroke of genius for Obama to choose him -- a sort of job security.

So, for the above reasons and unless God moves before then, we need to abandon these efforts and concentrate on removing him from office via the electoral process in November 2012 and not before then.

God raises up leaders and takes them down. If Obama is re-elected in 2012, I personally will concede to and accept the fact that he has been appointed “for such a time as this” and for the sole purpose of taking America down.

Shalom,

Brenda

What's Good About "Good Friday"?

Ever since I became a Christian over 30 years ago, I have wrestled with some of the traditions of Christianity that seemed to me to be at odds with what the scriptures were teaching. One of the most perplexing issues was the observance of "Good Friday." This is the day that Christ was said to have been crucified. I always thought that even if he was crucified on Friday, there was certainly nothing "good" about it. He suffered a cruel, unjust, humiliating and excruciating death on that cross. But His resurrection? — now that was good! (Note: The Latin word "crux/cruces (pl) " means "cross"; the prefix "ex" means "from or out of"; hence, excruciating means "from the cross.")

I mulled this concept of Good Friday over in my mind as I compared the observation of it to the words of Jesus himself in Matthew 12:38-40 (KJV):

 37     Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master,  we would see a sign from thee.

 38    But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

 39    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;   so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Now, I believed that ever since creation in Genesis when God separated the light from the darkness, day has been characterized by 12 daylight hours and night was when the sun set and 12 hours of darkness followed, making a full 24-hour cycle or day. According to the preceding text, this nightfall had to take place three times while Jesus was in the grave.  It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there was no way that this could happen if he was crucified and buried on Friday. So I did some research. This was over 20 years ago, and I must admit that I no longer have all of the materials from which I gleaned the following information. However, it was enough for me to believe the words of Jesus, the God who can never lie, and not ever again believe the pagan myth of "Good Friday." This is what I found out:

The Jews observed a number of sabbaths, but we in Christendom focus mainly on the weekly Saturday sabbath since the others are not that familiar to us. However, there was an annual Sabbath, a high holy day, that was observed during the week of Passover each year. In the year that Jesus was crucified, this once-a-year Sabbath fell on a Thursday. Therefore, when the scriptures mention that his body had to be taken down from the cross before the Sabbath, it was that annual Sabbath of which they spoke.   Following is the verse, John 19:31, which speaks of that [emphasis mine]:

 (NIV) - Now it was the day of Preparation and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.   Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

 (KJV) - The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

(NAS) - The Jews, therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

These scriptures make it perfectly clear that this Sabbath was a special one, a high holy day, not the weekly Saturday Sabbath. Therefore, if this was the Sabbath for which he had to be taken off the cross before sundown when the Sabbath began, that preceding day, the "day of preparation", the day when he was crucified had to be Wednesday. Now it all made sense -- HE WAS CRUCIFIED ON WEDNESDAY! He was in the grave three nights (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) and three days (Thursday, Friday and Saturday). He specifically said (and Jesus is very precise - He always said exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said) that He would rise up the THIRD DAY, which would have been Saturday. It is also clear that He was not in the grave on what we would call Saturday night because the scriptures say that when the women when to the grave before sunrise, He was not there:

John 20:1: Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

Now that I believed that I knew the truth, I wanted to know where this dastardly hoax had originated and, even more baffling, how the Church had bought into it and continued to deny the words of Jesus in favor of it. So I did some more research.

The pagan fertility goddess of antiquity (who is still worshipped by those in the feminist/ Mother Earth (Ghia)/goddess movements of today) was known by many names, depending on what part of the world you were in. This deity was known as Ishtar, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Isis (Egypt), Mia Dona/Madonna ( --  sound familiar?), etc. In the Norse/Scandinavian area she was known as Friga or Fria — get it — Fria-day?  The pagans named Friday after her! So when the pagan Roman church wanted to continue to have a day to worship her, they came up with the bogus claim that this was the day that Jesus was crucified.  They then could continue surreptitiously to worship her.  After all, [sadly] the authentic Christians wouldn't even question it.

One of her symbols of fertility was the rabbit, which is known to multiply rapidly – hence, the Easter bunny!  Eggs, which rabbits do not lay (-- sorry, I don't mean to insult your intelligence), were also a symbol — voila! Easter eggs!  I  had always wondered, even before I was a Christian, what in the world rabbits and eggs had to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and was told that they represented springtime, new beginnings, or some such thing.  

Even the word "easter" is said to be a variation of Ishtar. It only appears once in the Bible and I was not able to find out exactly when it began to be used. I'm still working on it.

Even as a fish was used to identify real Christians, a fish was also used in association with her. When I was growing up in a small community in Ohio with a large number of Catholics, before the 1962 Vatican Council, they did not eat meat on Friday. They ate eggs or fish on Fri(a)day! Must be how the Friday "fish fry" got started?

Okay, so now I want to know why the Church of Jesus Christ is so gullible and undiscerning that even to this day they continue to buy into this fraud. Preachers try to dazzle us with how they counted days differently in biblical days, that part of a day was considered a whole day, etc., etc. But they cannot explain away the three nights. The sun goes down and it gets dark at night and that happened three times while Jesus was in the tomb, according to his own unfailing words. Although I may not have every fact exactly right, the conclusion seems clear – we have been partakers of a blasphemous and diabolical deception in observing Good Friday.

By now you might be thinking, "Okay, so what? What difference does it make when He was crucified so long as he rose up from the grave for our redemption and salvation?" Well, if you're thinking that you've missed the whole point of this article:  Truth is the difference! Are we going to believe Jesus or are we going to believe some lie spawned in hell?  Jesus informed the devil in Matthew 4:4 that "... man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." When he was rebuking the Pharisees for not caring for and honoring their parents in Matthew 15:6, He informed them that they were making the commandment of God, the fifth commandment in that case, of no effect by their tradition. In the same way, we are negating Jesus' words by observing a pagan tradition. 

Oh well, I still don't know why the Church continues to be so naive, ignorant, and/or outright rebellious against the truth of God's word, or why people who likely know the truth choose to deceitfully perpetuate the lie. All I know is that I personally will never observe "Good Friday" again.   I choose to believe the words of Yeshua, my Messiah and Savior, every time. They are truth and they are life. They will also set us free!!

Brenda

An Aversion to the Versions

My views about the plethora of bible versions in print today are quite radical and definitely out of the mainstream.  First of all, I usually use the New American Standard only because, from what I understand, it is closer, word-for-word, to the original text, Textus Receptus (although I need to do more to verify that myself since “experts” say this is true of the King James only).  

But I have a really hard time with bible translations in general, and the paraphrases are, to me,  an abomination, an insult to God (especially "The Message," et al). I have studied just enough of the Greek New Testament to be dan­gerous and I can tell you that A LOT is lost in the best of translations because English is weak, wimpy and colorless compared to the vibrancy of the Greek and Hebrew.  Often it cannot capture the depth and richness of those languages, which are able to convey an entire concept even in one word. 

Having said all that, overall I am very disheartened with the current move to vulgarize or commonize (is that a word?) the Holy Scriptures. The scriptures are obviously meant to be read, studied, understood and believed on by everyone since that was why they were translated in the first place.  But I don't believe the Bible is meant to be reduced to street talk. Here we are, a society that, by its own assessment, considers itself probably the most intelligent, enlightened, literate and sophisticated that ever lived.  We have more education, more information, more technology to access information, and more brain power (to hear us tell it anyway) than any in the past. Why do we need to "dummy down" the Bible like we have dummied down our educational system, art, entertainment, etc.? (I also worry about the warning given in Revelation 22:18 and 19.)

My grandmother was freed from slavery at age 11 in the middle of the 19th century.  She embraced Christianity as a teen and served and worshipped Christ with her whole heart until her death at age 93. I have a picture of her with the bible (King James Version presumably) open on her lap. From what I heard, she read and studied the scriptures diligently and could quote and apply them, rightly dividing the word of truth, as could most of her peers of that day. If those people who never went to college, many of whom had no formal education beyond learning to read, could understand the KJV, what's wrong with us, the really smart people?

I think that what they (the bible pushers) are trying to do is reduce the scriptures to a level that can be understood by the unregenerate. But this can never happen because it is the Spirit of God who illuminates the Word into the heart of man.  Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, the Bible says.  We can reduce the Word to a 2nd grade level but without the Holy Spirit to sink it into and witness it to the heart, it still won't be understood, except perhaps by mental assent, if then.

I find it so interesting that Christian conservatives get all upset when an "activist" judge puts his/her personal spin on the Constitution in rendering some wacky verdict.  That judge claims that the Constitution is a fluid, dynamic and living document that must change with the times. We object, yell and argue that the Constitution must be strictly interpreted exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote it and is not subject to personal interpretation. Yet those same Christian conservatives have no problem when someone like Eugene Peterson ("The Message") puts his personal spin on the document upon which we hang our eternal existence, reducing it to the vernacular as though he were “hangin’ out on the block” somewhere, diluting, convoluting and misrepresenting the meanings of words. The Bible itself attests that no scripture stands alone nor is subject to any personal or private interpretation apart from itself.

Although I am not wholly a “King James only” person, I feel that God used this king who, from what I understand, was unregenerate himself, to publish the translation upon which countless people have relied and by it entered glory. It definitely has its translational flaws also --because of the translators, of course, not the author, as the Bible is totally without error in its original form. However, I see the bible as unique, profound, divinely-inspired literature like none other, a heavenly work of art, crafted by God and delivered through men, in a form that is not subject to men taking all kinds of license and liberties with it just because our vocabularies have become too weak to deal with the words in it. It seems that the farther we, as a people and as a nation, get away from God, the more we seem to need to commonize the scriptures, bringing them down to street level despite our "superior" education and intellect.

One of the saddest parts of this switch to the myriad of translations is that NEVER AGAIN will Christians be "on the same page" when it comes to reading and studying the Bible.  There was a time when someone could ask the congregation to stand and read Hebrews 1:1 and everyone would read it in near-perfect unison. Today if they try it, it will sound like Babel, uh, sorry, babble.  I believe that Satan was taking notes at Babel when God confounded the languages because man was becoming too powerful when everyone was speaking the same language.  I guess he (Satan) thought he would try it also in an effort to undermine and dilute the power of believers.  I think it might be working since the more translations we get, the more biblically illiterate and spiritually impotent we seem to become, both individually and collectively. It has put a damper on scripture memorization as well since no one seems to know which version to memorize.

Some will probably take issue with my somewhat bombastic views, but this is something I feel very passionate about. The Word of God is everything to me, as it is to every true believer.  I hate to see it being messed with.

Brenda

 

 

Did You Say "Christian" Rock?

During my years of growing up in the ‘50’s and 60’s I had the opportunity to watch the musical genre known as “rock and roll” evolve.  From its inception to the present day it has been loved and hated, awarded and banned, a controversial and, some even say, socially destructive form of musical expression.  Rock and roll has provided enjoyment, recreation and entertainment for young and old alike, as well as eliciting angst and condemnation from its critics.  Dancing to the jukebox tunes, house parties with a neighborhood DJ, attending sock hops, and other activities in the lives of teens were centered around R&R in the day. 

Although it has enjoyed tremendous popularity among folks of all ages through the years, especially youth, it was continued to have its detractors who believe its influence has had an adverse and deleterious effect on the morals and behavior of American society.  Its beginnings were rooted in a belief that certain kinds of music by their very nature (pounding beat, suggestive lyrics, sensual dance gyrations associated with it, etc.) incited moral depravity and juvenile delinquency. 

In the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s, the popular music of black people, known as R&B or rhythm and blues, was considered unfit to be aired on the public radio airwaves of America. It was felt to be “low down,” morally destructive and demeaning.  So in order to hear R&B one had to listen to off-beat stations from remote areas, usually late at night.  Now the music of Nat King Cole, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Sarah Vaughn et al were “acceptable” for airing.  But music by artists like Little Willie John, Little Richard, James Brown, B. B. King, Big Joe Turner, and others was prohibited.  As a black person myself, these were things that I knew well.

But then along came a Cleveland disc jockey in the early ‘50’s named Alan Freed.  Freed, a young Jewish man, decided to break with convention and somehow managed to introduce the R&B genre into a mainline radio station, WJW in Cleveland.  He began a show in which he introduced himself as “The Moondog.”  He came on late at night, only on the weekends if I recall, and started each show by howling, “It’s the Mooooondoggg!!”  I know this since we lived not far from Cleveland and my brother, who is nine years older than me, began listening to the program – that is until my father, who obviously believed the nature of the music to be unsavory, informed my brother that if he (Daddy) ever heard that music in our home again, both my brother and The Moondog were out of there.

So popular did Freed and his music become that a scheduled concert at the Cleveland Arena, which held 10,000 people, was sold out but another 20,000 showed up. A near-riot occurred, the event had to be cancelled and it caused a major social disaster in the city.  Freed later became involved in payola (playing music for bribes) and was prosecuted for it.  He died of alcoholism at age 43, leaving three former wives and several children.  The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is located in Cleveland because of Freed’s pioneering of the genre. 

Freed played the music that had previously been banned and the public embraced it with open arms.  He coined the term for the music “rock and roll” because he contended that in the black neighborhoods where the music was played, it was a term synonymous with sexual promiscuity – people would get in a car and “rock” (have sex) and then would “roll” (drive off).

Freed’s biography states: “Since then, Freed has been widely credited with coining the phrase to describe R&B and the pop music that it inspired. While it’s been noted that “rock and roll” was a well-known slang term, meaning sex, in black neighborhoods, Freed got the credit—and more.” http://www.alanfreed.com/wp/biography/  So not only is the term “rock and roll” a sexual one, it is a stereotypically racially disparaging one as well.   

From Elvis to Michael Jackson, the Beatles to Britney and Beyonce, the music has continued its grip on the American psyche and lifestyle.

So now that we know its etymology, let’s just take the term “rock and roll” with its sexual and racial connotations (never mind the nature of the music itself) and yoke it with “Christian.”  Christian Rock – what an oxymoron!  It would be like linking Christian with witchcraft or like Christian pornography – the epitome of syncretism, mixing the sacred with the profane. The name itself declares the ungodly nature of the music.  Nevertheless, the music style has swept into churches in this country and around the world with a vengeance, replacing godly hymns, anthems and traditional spiritual music. 

Many vehemently deny that there is anything wrong with mixing “rock” in with sacred music. The justification and reasoning behind it is sometimes stated this way:  We “must do church differently” in order to reach “the culture.”  Young people need to identify with something in order to be drawn to God.  After all, this is the 21^st century (as though time changes God’s word).  This gives the impression that the Word of God has lost its efficacy and is no longer powerful enough or sufficient to draw sinners to Yeshua, Jesus the Messiah.  We must now emulate, imitate and yoke ourselves with the world in order to accomplish this. 

Another spin that proponents put on this syncretism is to insist that the Apostle Paul engaged the world by getting involved in their lifestyle.  I believe this is heresy to infer that in being “made all things to all men” (I Corinthians 9:22) he was engaging in anything that was antithetical to the gospel.  Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors but in His sinlessness He never engaged in any of their activities or emulated them in any way, even though he was accused by the Pharisees of being a glutton and a winebibber. He simply introduced them to truth, light and holiness through the gospel. 

The Word expressly states that we are not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. (Romans 12:2).  Further, 2 Corinthians 6:14 warns us, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?”  Mixing ungodly, “golden calf music” into the worship of the Almighty is indeed fellowshipping with unrighteousness and communing with darkness. 

This is the same for those who take the world’s music and substitute Christian lyrics.  God, who gives men gifts and talents, bestows them on Christians as liberally as unbelievers.  Therefore, there is no need to go into the world and dredge up melodies to which to attach Christian lyrics, even though it is said that some of the older hymns originally were set to drinking songs.

Now I must admit it – I had to be delivered from rock music.  I grew up on it. But when I got saved I gradually became aware of the insidious and deceitfully ungodly nature of it.  However, when I was young some of the most popular music included songs like “Poison Ivy”, “Charlie Brown,” “My Baby Loves the Western Movies,” “The Flying Purple People Eater,” “Who Put the Ram in the Ramalama Ding Dong” and other silly or schmaltzy love songs.  Even so, any compromise is not worth possibly grieving the Holy Spirit of God. 

The Beatles, on the other hand, did as much to promote Eastern mysticism and the drug culture as any other force in American history with their veiled references to drugs (e.g., Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds – LSD) and other types of mysticism.  I remember hearing Christians singing their the Beatles tune with the words, “Oh, My Lord, I really want to see you. . .”  They didn’t realize that the Beatles were really saying, “Om (the powerful Hindu deity), My Lord.” The Christians didn’t “get it” even though there was chanting of, “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna” at the end of the song.

Interestingly, many rockers have a background in Christianity and the church, having begun “performing” there.  I once saw Little Richard on “Christian TV” and he exhibited incredible bible memorization by stringing verses of scripture together to give a quite sound presentation of the gospel.  At the end he declared:  “The most important thing is rock and roll!”  I sucked in my breath in utter disbelief.  He then continued with: “Just make sure you’re standing on the Rock and your name is on the Roll.”  So there you have it – the gospel according to Little Richard.

Brenda