3 ways to misread the Sermon on the Mount — Southern Equip

The Sermon on the Mount is probably the most famous sermon ever preached, and for good reason. Its speaker is the Lord Jesus Christ; its location on a hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee is unique; and its language is both beautiful and profound. Even non-believers are familiar with many of the words Jesus spoke in this sermon.

Yet, for as well-known as the Sermon is, it is often misunderstand and misused. Therefore, as we begin to study this passage of Scripture, we should look at three common, but misguided ways to approach the sermon.

1. The liberal way

Now, the word liberal used in this context is not a political term, but a theological term. Liberal theology is an approach to Christian doctrine and especially the Bible and the person of Christ, which denies the miraculous, rejects the supernatural claims of the Bible, and explains away the full deity of Christ—to list only a few credentials of Protestant Liberalism.

With respect to the Sermon on the Mount, therefore, a liberal approach extracts this passage from the rest of Matthew’s Gospel. It sees Jesus as a great teacher, but only as a teacher or rabbi. It fails to see how the Gospels present Jesus as God’s Son, and how Matthew shapes his Gospel to highlight the humanity and deity of Christ.

In other words, it fails to see how Jesus’s teaching about the kingdom of God (in Matthew 5–7) is presented in combination his miracles of healing (in Matthew 8–9). Instead of seeing the full portrait of Christ, the liberal way of reading the Sermon on the Mount makes it a “pamphlet” with Jesus as a superlative moral teaching.

Clearly, such a reading mischaracterizes who Jesus is, who Jesus said he was, and what the eye witnesses testified about Christ. But honestly, Bible-believing Christians can also fall into a liberal reading of the Sermon, if we miss the connection of Jesus words with his deeds in Matthew 8–9. In other words, if we only read the Sermon as a corpus of his teaching, disconnected from the rest of Matthew’s Gospel, we are preparing ourselves to misread the Sermon.

Therefore, we must understand the Sermon in the context of Matthew’s Gospel, and specifically in the context of Matthew 4:23–9:38, which is the first of five blocks in Matthew that is composed of Jesus’ speech and Jesus’ actions. For more on the whole book of Matthew read this.

2. The legalistic way

In contrast to the liberal way of reading the Sermon, the legalistic way takes the words seriously. In fact, it reads Jesus so seriously that it seeks to apply the radical demands of Jesus as the regulations of the Christian life.

While there is something to this plain reading, passages like Matthew 5:48 (“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect”) make it sound like we must be perfect in order to please God. Yet, such a reading fails to understand the meaning of this word (teleios) and the wisdom genre Jesus is employing in this sermon. More on this in a minute.

Under this legalistic category, the Sermon has been used in church history as a standard for monastic orders and the creation of a special classes of Christians. The trouble with this, of course, is that Jesus addresses his disciples (5:1), and he tells these same disciples in Matthew 28:19 to teach all disciples to obey all that he had taught them.

So, the Sermon on the Mount is not just for some followers of Christ; it is for all of us. Yet, a straightforward reading, especially one that does not understand the original meaning of the word makarios (“blessed”) in the beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12) and or teleios (“perfect”) in Matthew 5:48 will incline Christians to read the Sermon as a legal document, outlining the rules they must obey.

In response to this sort of legalism and the rewards based on such Christian works-righteousness, we find a third way to read the SM, which is theologically better but also misguided.

3. The Lutheran way

Martin Luther, as you may know, was the man God used to ignite the Protestant Reformation. And it was the goal of this German Reformer to stand against anything that looked like the works-righteousness of the Catholic church, which is why he often questioned the book of James.

Yet, because the Sermon on the Mount is very similar to the book of James—some scholars believe the book of James “echoes” the Sermon on the Mount—and because Luther was so committed to justification by faith alone, he failed to understand the purpose of Jesus words in Matthew 5–7. Thus, when he read the call for righteousness in Jesus’ sermon, he understood it as an “impossible ideal” that was meant to lead him and us back to God’s grace in Christ.

As Jonathan Pennington puts it in his commentary, Luther saw the Sermon with its “impossibly high demands” as goad “meant to make all people aware of their sin and poverty before God and thereby turn to Christ in faith” (p. 6). Theologically, Luther’s approach has great merit. But it in the end, it fails because it does not rightly perceive the way Jesus is fulfilling the law, bringing the good news of the kingdom, and speaking to disciples who have already been brought within the bounds of this kingdom.

In other words, Jesus is not giving a new law for us to obey, nor is he aiming to afflict us with God’s high ideal, so that we would flee to him for grace. Rather, Jesus is announcing the fulfillment of the law (5:17), the arrival of the kingdom (6:33), and the gracious message that God’s people now have access to the Father through the arrival of the Son.

Jesus is not preaching law; he’s announcing the good news of the law fulfilled. And, as we’ll see, Jesus sermon’s is a message of apocalyptic wisdom—which is to say Jesus is revealing (hence apocalypse) God’s kingdom and bringing healing to the nations. As Matthew 4:17, 23 indicate, he is teaching about the kingdom and fishing for disciples who will join him in the kingdom he is bringing.

— Read on equip.sbts.edu/article/3-ways-misread-sermon-mount/

The most and least biased news outlets in America – Business Insider

Americans believe that 62% of the news they consume on TV, in newspapers, and on the radio — and 80% of the news they see on social media — is biased, according to two new surveys.

Screenshot/Fox News

• Americans believe the vast majority of news on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, and on social media is biased, according to new polls.

• Those surveyed found that PBS News and the Associated Press were the least biased outlets, while Fox News and Breitbart News tied for having the most perceived bias.

• But views on how biased or inaccurate media organizations are differed dramatically based on the respondent’s political beliefs.

Americans believe that 62% of the news they consume on TV, in newspapers, and on the radio — and 80% of the news they see on social media — is biased, according to two new surveys.

Those surveyed also believe 44% of news reporting and 64% of news on social media are inaccurate. And they’re upset about it — more than 80% said they were angered or bothered by seeing biased information and slightly more felt similarly about inaccurate information.

In evaluating news outlets, poll respondents closely associated bias with inaccuracy. Outlets they feel are biased are also inaccurate, in their view, and vice versa.

But perceptions of bias and inaccuracy differed based on the respondents’ political persuasions, particularly with regard to Fox News, Breitbart News, CNN, and MSNBC.

Respondents with different political views also have different perceptions of the pervasiveness of bias in the news. For example, Democrats believe just 44% of TV, newspaper, and radio news is biased, Republicans believe 77% of it is biased. But both groups believe there is widespread bias — between 74% and 83% — in news shared on social media.

Presented with a host of major news outlets, respondents found that PBS News and the Associated Press were the least biased outlets, while Fox News and Breitbart News tied for having the most perceived bias.

Here is the a showing the survey results for each media outlet:

Screenshot/Gallup/Knight Foundation

Here are charts showing the differing perceptions of bias at specific news outlets between left-leaning and right-leaning Americans:

Screenshot/Gallup/Knight Foundation

The two polls, conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, surveyed 1,400 Americans between February 5 and March 11, 2018 and had a margin of sampling error of four percentage points.

— Read on www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-biased-news-outlets-in-america-2018-6

06/23/18 A Double Portion — ChuckLawless.com

READING: 2 Kings 1-4

“And Elisha said, ‘Please let there be a double portion of your spirit on me.’”

2 Kings 2:9

We often remember him because he wanted a double portion of his mentor’s spirit. Nothing else did Elisha ask for, at least that we know of. In that culture, the firstborn son could receive a double portion of inheritance from his father, but Elisha did not ask for material possessions. What he wanted was a double helping of the power that Elijah had, knowing that he needed that power to do the work he would do as Elijah’s successor. The great prophet would be gone, and the task given to Elisha would be more than he could do in his own strength. He knew not to take a step apart from the authority and power of God.

I wonder how many men I know who so walk with God that I would want a double portion of their spirit . . . whose evidence of God’s hand is so clear that few can deny it . . . who hear the voice of God and respond in obedience . . .   who speak God’s Word and something just happens . . . and in whose shoes I would want to walk. I realize the prophetic days of the Old Testament were different than today, but still the metaphor of getting double the spirit of a man of God grabs my attention. I’m deeply grateful for the men I know who walk with God like that.

At the same time, I am asking whether I am such a man to other people. I doubt that I am, but I do wish to be. I want people to see the power of God in me.

ACTION STEPS: 

  • Thank God for the power He gives us as He indwells us.
  • Seek to follow God so deeply and clearly that others want what you have.

PRAYER: “Father, I praise You that You fill us with Your Spirit.”

TOMORROW’S READING:  Make-up and review day ​

via 06/23/18 A Double Portion — ChuckLawless.com

JUNE 23 GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

—1 John 4:10

God is love, so His loving is not something He may do nor not do at His will. Loving us is not an intermittent act or series of acts which God does in between other acts. His love flows steadily out upon the whole human race in an unbroken and continuous fullness. There is not a time, not a fraction of time, when God’s love is not active toward us. It is as constant as the being of God, for it is the being of God in unforced, normal expression….

We are often tempted to wonder how God could love us, but honest as this feeling is, it is nevertheless the result of a wrong way of looking at things. God does not love us because we are hard or easy to love; He loves us because He is God, not because we are good or bad or more attractive or less so. God’s love is not drawn out of Him by its object; it flows out from God in a steady stream because He is love.

“God so loved the world,” not because the world was lovable but because God is love. Christ did not die for us that God might love us; He died for us because God already loved us from everlasting. Love is not the result of redemption; it is the cause of it. NCA107-108

Father, I’m so glad You didn’t look for something lovable within me before deciding to redeem me. While I was yet a sinner You loved me and chose me. You gave me the gift of life. I praise You. Amen.[1]


[1] Tozer, A. W., & Eggert, R. (2015). Tozer on the almighty god: a 365-day devotional. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

People who believe by blind faith are, of all people, most to be pitied

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

image

Don’t look at me, I didn’t say it, Paul did.

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost…

View original post 433 more words

“I leave this life with no regrets” — Triablogue

It’s been however many years since I used to watch Charles Krauthammer on Fox News. Nowadays I get my news from the Internet. Admittedly, I sometimes read his essays.
1. In libertarian circles he will forever be remembered and reviled as a Neocon warmonger. I’m not saying that’s fair. As I’ve remarked in the past, I think where the so-called Neocons went awry is because they were more rational than the enemy. It’s like that old Star Trek episode (“The Galileo Seven”) where Spock tries to use logic on the ogres. Rationality is wasted on an irrational adversary. It’s not that Muslims are unintelligent. They range along the same Bell Curve as everyone else, but Islam is intellectually stultifying.
2. Krauthammer brought cool detached rationality to news analysis. That’s so lacking in today’s knee-jerk, hysteria driven culture, with the social media lynch mobs, academentia, and crazed Democrats. The culture has become so reactionary and polarized.
3. In a sense, the very best minds are wasted on news analysis because the news is so ephemeral. Krauthammer has affinities with other Jewish intellectuals who focus on politics, viz. Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard Posner, Milton Friedman, Paul Wolfowitz. Very cerebral, rather aloof pundits.
4. Krauthammer was a conflicted agnostic. I don’t know why he was agnostic. It may simply be that he saw no evidence of divine activity in human history.
5. Because atheism/agnosticism are so unsatisfying, there are two opposite approaches one can take:
i) Because this life is all there is, you can’t afford to fritter away your opportunities. Every battle is mortal combat. There are no second chances. So fight to the death. Make your mark. Make your life count.
ii) Because this life is all there is, don’t become too invested in anything. Don’t take things too seriously. You and your ideological opponents are headed to a common oblivion. Nothing lasts. Nothing ultimately matters.
Perhaps that accounts for the detachment of secular Jews like Krauthammer and David Berlinski. Rather like Buddhism. Avoid making enemies because, in the long run, nothing makes any difference. A certain kind of detachment may reflect a tragic outlook on life. A resignation to futility.
Krauthammer was a very rational man. But high IQ is worthless on your deathbed.
To my knowledge, his final public words were:

I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.

I can’t relate to people who say they have no regrets. It’s striking that someone so analytical, so reflective about human affairs and our place in the cosmos, was apparently so lacking in self-reflection, self-examination, that he had no regrets. And that from a psychiatrist!
Perhaps, though, that was part of his agnosticism. Have low expectations. All is fleeting. There’s not much to hope for, so why waste time on soul-searching?

via “I leave this life with no regrets” — Triablogue

Opinion: It’s Important To Hear Blatant Lies From Both Sides Before Forming Your Opinion On Any Political Issue — The Babylon Bee

It’s time to talk about a troubling trend in how we handle our national discourse: the current political landscape is full of lies, half-truths, and fake news, but the average person only ever consumes half of that. Thanks to people being ever more partisan in their news consumption, most people are only exposed to one…

via Opinion: It’s Important To Hear Blatant Lies From Both Sides Before Forming Your Opinion On Any Political Issue — The Babylon Bee

As Bernie Sanders Preaches The Gospel Of Socialism, He Is Actually A Multimillionaire Who Owns Three Luxury Homes — Now The End Begins

For the second year in a row, the Socialism preaching senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders’ income has topped seven figures.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Bernie Sanders, the Socialist senator from Vermont, wants everyone to know that he does not like ‘rich people‘. In 2016, Bernie Sanders income exceeded a million dollars. Last year in 2017, it went over the million mark yet again. Bernie and his wife own not one but two residences, as well as a ‘humble lakehouse’ they use for vacations that cost just over a cool half million. But Bernie Sanders wants to you know, needs you to know, that he does not like ‘rich people’. He likes poor people, like you, who have only one home, and can’t even afford to take a vacation much less buy a vacation home. And as you stay poor, his income will only increase. But don’t worry, Bernie is ‘fighting for you’, the poor people of America. Just as soon as he gets back from his vacation home on North Hero Lake. His third home. 

A recent financial disclosure report shows the junior Vermont senator made nearly $1.06 million in 2017. Most of his income — $885,767 — came from advances and royalties, according to the report filed in May. Sanders earned $174,000 for his service in the Senate.

The senator hit the $1 million mark for the first time in 2016. Most of his income came from a book deal “Our Revolution,” which came out after his failed bid for the Democratic nomination for president.

Sanders, an independent, historically has been among the least wealthy members of Congress. In 2014, for example, he earned little more than his congressional salary and had $330,000 in assets. The 2016 presidential bid catapulted him to national prominence and paved the way for lucrative public speaking and publishing opportunities.

Throughout his political career and during his presidential run, Sanders has railed against “millionaires and billionaires” who don’t pay enough in taxes.

Jeff Weaver, the senator’s senior political adviser, said in an interview with VTDigger that questions about whether Sanders’ newfound wealth undermines his message about wealth inequality were “ridiculous.”

“That was a pretty funny question, Anne,” Weaver said. “Bernie Sanders continues to fight for working class people across this country so I think it’s a pretty ridiculous question.”

Weaver did not know whether the senator is donating money to charity. In 2014, Sanders gave 4 percent of his income to nonprofits.

It is not clear if Sanders will contribute to two nonprofit organizations he founded in 2016 after his presidential bid — Our Revolution, a 501(c)4 political organization, and The Sanders Institute, a 501(c)3 nonprofit think tank co-founded by his wife and stepson.

Sanders formed his own “dark money” group at the same time he railed against 501(c)4s, which are not required to publicly disclose financial information, and have been effectively used by conservatives to influence elections and policy making.

The 2017 disclosure form shows that the bulk of Sanders’ earnings came in the form of a $505,000 advance against royalties from publisher Macmillan – St. Martin’s Press. The New York-based publishing house is slated to put out a new book by the senator later this year.

An additional $306,000 in royalties came from the same publisher, according to the form, which also published his bestseller “Our Revolution” in 2016.

Sanders disclosed six royalty agreements, which involved book projects dating back to 1990 and a spoken-word folk music album he recorded in 1987. He also brought in money from a pension from the city of Burlington, where he was mayor for eight years in the 1980s.

The senator owns three homes, including a retreat in the Lake Champlain islands. Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, purchased the North Hero summer home for $575,000 in 2016. He is identified as a co-trustee on the “Islands Family Trust.”

His disclosure lists two mortgages, one on a property between $100,001 and $250,000 in value, the other between $250,001 and $500,000.

“Bernie is a homeowner in Vermont,” Weaver said. “After 16 years of renting in D.C. he took the radical step of buying a small row house. And like many Vermonters he and Jane have a camp on Lake Champlain.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., did not report any additional earned, non-investment income in either 2016 or 2017. His reported earnings from assets were minimal, with the largest amount disclosed coming from life insurance.

Rep. Peter Welch’s 29-page disclosure details his assets and unearned income, as well as financial transactions. The disclosure provides the amount of income from assets and transactions in categories. It is not clear how much Welch made in total. source

via As Bernie Sanders Preaches The Gospel Of Socialism, He Is Actually A Multimillionaire Who Owns Three Luxury Homes — Now The End Begins

Leading Mexican Presidential Candidate Obrador Calls for MASS EXODUS TO UNITED STATES When He Wins Election — The Gateway Pundit

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson warned Americans of the far left America-bashing leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador who is leading the presidential polls in Mexico.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, often abbreviated “AMLO”, is an ardent Leftist and Mexican nationalist.

Obrador says he will flood the United States with Mexican illegals.

Obrador campaigned in several cities across the United States in 2017.

Now this…
Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass migration into the United States when he wins the election.
Via The Daily Caller:

Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.

via Leading Mexican Presidential Candidate Obrador Calls for MASS EXODUS TO UNITED STATES When He Wins Election — The Gateway Pundit

Socialist Bernie Sanders Earns more than $1M for Second Year, While Complaining About Rich People — The Gateway Pundit

We’ve been sharing this intensely predictable issue since late 2017. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or “AMLO”, is going to be the next President of Mexico.  The self-described “soft Marxist”, a Mexican Hugo Chavez, has been so far ahead of all other candidates – the outcome of the July 1st Mexican election is a foregone conclusion.

Interestingly, people are only now starting to take notice because AMLO is openly telling his fellow countrymen they must flood the U.S. border.

(From the Daily Caller) […] “And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”  He then declared it as “a human right we will defend.”

Most political observers read this and think it sounds crazy. They make comparisons to a U.S. presidential candidate telling Americans to flee to Canada (Daily Wire example). That type of perspective shows a disconnect.  The paradigm, and frame of reference, is entirely wrong.

What AMLO is saying is not a surprise, nor is it an ideological proclamation; there is an actual strategic policy behind these statements.  This has been AMLO’s strategy for years, and no-one was paying attention.   Andrés Manuel López Obrador has long proposed a key economic plan for Mexico to become wealthy. However, his idea has only recently gained broad mainstream Mexican understanding.

Conservative U.S. media have no idea; but democrats, activists and far-left immigration radicals certainly do. AMLO has thought this through, and he has seen the mistakes made by allies in Cuba and Venezuela.

AMLO has an economic plan where hundreds-of-thousands of his fellow Mexicans flood the Southern U.S. border region; overwhelm the system and essentially create an initial border economy; then, with the door and pathway created, begin a process of exfiltration of U.S. economic wealth directly into Mexico.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not crazy; he has a pretty ingenious strategy.

Through overwhelming the Southern border regions, the nation of Mexico will be able to influence local U.S. laws and overwhelm the local U.S. political structures.  The Ameri/Mex zone penetrates into the U.S. and provides a borderless opening for migration, trade, commerce and the education of Mexican citizens through the utilization of U.S. social and economic systems.

All of the long-held grievances of Mexican nationals toward the disparity of their level of poverty and the wealth within the United States can be fixed through this plan.

Within the plan AMLO envisions the U.S. training, educating, employing and eventually paying for a growing standard-of-living for Mexico.  It is a fast way for Mexico to gain wealth; as opposed to the long process of building out an entire societal system of education, investment, infrastructure and commerce.

It would take Mexico several decades to achieve a level of wealth even close to the U.S., and they have no structural (political) systems in place to form the foundation of such an approach.  So, AMLO’s faster plan is to use migration into the U.S. to break down barriers, collapse the economic dam and allow the natural flood of U.S. wealth to flow into Mexico.

From the Mexican perspective this is a pretty solid economic approach that just might work; and they have open-border comrades within the progressive, democrat, republican and corporate political systems (all over the U.S) who already support such a strategy.

So when you see the headlines about the Mexican President telling his people to leave; and when you see him telling government officials to formulate plans and policies to expedite entry into the U.S., don’t laugh them away.  It is a viable plan with just as much possibility of success as any other.

via Socialist Bernie Sanders Earns more than $1M for Second Year, While Complaining About Rich People — The Gateway Pundit

Mexico’s Next President Tells Country: They “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States”… — The Last Refuge

We’ve been sharing this intensely predictable issue since late 2017. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or “AMLO”, is going to be the next President of Mexico.  The self-described “soft Marxist”, a Mexican Hugo Chavez, has been so far ahead of all other candidates – the outcome of the July 1st Mexican election is a foregone conclusion.

Interestingly, people are only now starting to take notice because AMLO is openly telling his fellow countrymen they must flood the U.S. border.

(From the Daily Caller) […] “And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”  He then declared it as “a human right we will defend.”

Most political observers read this and think it sounds crazy. They make comparisons to a U.S. presidential candidate telling Americans to flee to Canada (Daily Wire example). That type of perspective shows a disconnect.  The paradigm, and frame of reference, is entirely wrong.

What AMLO is saying is not a surprise, nor is it an ideological proclamation; there is an actual strategic policy behind these statements.  This has been AMLO’s strategy for years, and no-one was paying attention.   Andrés Manuel López Obrador has long proposed a key economic plan for Mexico to become wealthy. However, his idea has only recently gained broad mainstream Mexican understanding.

Conservative U.S. media have no idea; but democrats, activists and far-left immigration radicals certainly do. AMLO has thought this through, and he has seen the mistakes made by allies in Cuba and Venezuela.

AMLO has an economic plan where hundreds-of-thousands of his fellow Mexicans flood the Southern U.S. border region; overwhelm the system and essentially create an initial border economy; then, with the door and pathway created, begin a process of exfiltration of U.S. economic wealth directly into Mexico.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not crazy; he has a pretty ingenious strategy.

Through overwhelming the Southern border regions, the nation of Mexico will be able to influence local U.S. laws and overwhelm the local U.S. political structures.  The Ameri/Mex zone penetrates into the U.S. and provides a borderless opening for migration, trade, commerce and the education of Mexican citizens through the utilization of U.S. social and economic systems.

All of the long-held grievances of Mexican nationals toward the disparity of their level of poverty and the wealth within the United States can be fixed through this plan.

Within the plan AMLO envisions the U.S. training, educating, employing and eventually paying for a growing standard-of-living for Mexico.  It is a fast way for Mexico to gain wealth; as opposed to the long process of building out an entire societal system of education, investment, infrastructure and commerce.

It would take Mexico several decades to achieve a level of wealth even close to the U.S., and they have no structural (political) systems in place to form the foundation of such an approach.  So, AMLO’s faster plan is to use migration into the U.S. to break down barriers, collapse the economic dam and allow the natural flood of U.S. wealth to flow into Mexico.

From the Mexican perspective this is a pretty solid economic approach that just might work; and they have open-border comrades within the progressive, democrat, republican and corporate political systems (all over the U.S) who already support such a strategy.

So when you see the headlines about the Mexican President telling his people to leave; and when you see him telling government officials to formulate plans and policies to expedite entry into the U.S., don’t laugh them away.  It is a viable plan with just as much possibility of success as any other.

via Mexico’s Next President Tells Country: They “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States”… — The Last Refuge

June 22 Daily Help

WHAT we are taught to seek or shun in prayer, we should equally pursue or avoid in action. Very earnestly, therefore, should we avoid temptation, seeking to walk guardedly in the path of obedience. We are not to enter the thicket in search of the lion. This lion may cross our path, or leap upon us from the thicket; but we have nothing to do with hunting him. He that meeteth with him, even though he winneth the day, will find it a stern struggle. Let the Christian pray that he may be spared the encounter. Our Saviour, who had experience of what temptation meant, thus earnestly admonished his disciples: “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.”[1]


[1] Spurgeon, C. H. (1892). Daily Help (p. 177). Baltimore: R. H. Woodward & Company.