campaign.pngWho Is E. W. Jackson?

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr. giving a speech
Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr. giving a speech (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is E. W. Jackson an honorable man? To a large extent, that depends upon who we ask, not what Jackson says or does.

It’s counterintuitive. If we want people to know where we stand, does it not seem obvious we should take a firm, fixed position? If we explain ourselves clearly, don’t we have a right to expect those who care about the issues to listen and try to understand? But is that what happens?

Consider What E.W. Jackson is talking about when he says “rabid radical” gay activists at Virginia Virtucon. As its centerpiece, this blog post features a video of an interview with Jackson. Is Jackson the extremist some would like us to believe? That actually depends upon the eyes of the beholder, not Jackson himself.

  • Do you uphold beliefs that do not affirm Christian traditions and what the Bible actually says? Do you consider your beliefs the ONLY acceptable norm?
  • Have you allowed the corporate mass media to shape, mold, and warp your view of Jackson? Have you listened to a complete speech by Jackson or just carefully selected clips?

You still don’t understand? Just google E. W. Jackson. What you will find is a campaign to destroy the man.

In hit number one, Wikipedia profiles E. W. Jackson. With respect to Jackson’s political opinions, the article does not take great pains to be accurate. Instead of citing primary source documents, the article cites leftist “news” sources with an agenda. That includes:, The Daily Beast, and Often these “news” sources cite Jackson out of context. Each deliberately seeks to portray Jackson as extreme.

Freedom Of Conscience Versus Freedom Of Worship at least cites some of Jackson’s material. Consider what those folks consider “vocally anti-LGBT”.

In launching his “Exodus Now!” movement to encourage African Americans to leave the Democratic party because his opposition to same-sex marriage and government endorsement of religion, he claimed “Democrats are engaged in a concerted effort to do away with all symbols of our Judeo-Christian culture.” He termed the inclusion of marriage equality in the Democratic Party platform in 2012, “a Declaration of War against Bible believing Christians.” His campaign website highlights his opposition to same-sex marriage, observing “Any other arrangement will never be a ‘marriage’ no matter what anyone calls it. This has been the definition for thousands of years, and it is disappointing that we have come to a place where radical activists, politicians, lawyers and judges arrogantly seek to change that definition and turn history, biology and reality upside down.” (from here)

Let’s frame the question. Are Democrats engaged in a concerted effort to do away with all symbols of our Judeo-Christian culture? Isn’t the problem more serious than that? What Democrats “defend” is freedom of worship. What our Constitution mandates is freedom of conscience. Here are some articles that consider the difference.

If you advocate Socialism, freedom of conscience poses a moral obstacle. If we are to each exercise our freedom of conscience, that requires limited government. That’s because freedom of conscience involves each of us putting our own individual religious beliefs into practice. If one’s religion involves human sacrifice, obviously most potential sacrifice victims would prefer to see that prohibited. Nonetheless, if government prescribes all our choices, from how we educate our children to how we receive medical care, how will we as individuals retain the choice to put our religious beliefs into practice? If we insist that government make all moral choices for everyone, have we not made government our god?

Chasing A Will-O’-The-Wisp

In The Source of Tyranny at Thinking in Christ, the author describes the modern worldview.

Let’s assume our modern worldview is right: “Men are just born that way.” We are just born good, born to freedom, born to strength, born to… It is society, in this view, which destroys the innate goodness in man, making him into a mean, angry, bigoted, etc. If you oppress a man, he becomes bitter, his anger lashing out as violence — and since he is being oppressed, there is no way to call that violence wrong, or bad. The goal of society, in this vision, is to remove oppression, to create social justice, to make the outcomes of every man’s life equal. (continued here)

Unfortunately, the modern worldview is a will-o’-the-wisp; it can only lead to disaster. We are born self-centered and selfish. We have to learn to love both our Creator and our neighbors.

Consider how a child views the world. Doesn’t that child see everything from his or her own point-of-view? Isn’t what a child feels about his or her own needs paramount? Don’t parents have to teach a child how to care about others?

What the sin of pride involves is an inability to take seriously any viewpoint save our own. That’s why many consider indifference the worst of sins (see here, here, and here). Instead of feeling empathy and compassion for our neighbors, we turn aside and walk away from them. At best, we direct them to a heartless government agency. At worst, we casually abuse them.

To care about the good of others, to be a people who can make a constitutional republic work, we must love God and man. Only then will we try to understand and empathize with the view from the shoes of others. Otherwise, like greedy and selfish children, we cannot appreciate the fact that other people have rights. Otherwise, just as a greedy and selfish child calls mommy mean and bad when she refuses to give him what he wants, we will label our political opponents extremists. Otherwise, we will destroy each other.