Archives For August 2016

RadarIf the facts cannot be squeezed into a meme the level of attention those facts receive is reduced. Attention to detail is overlooked for what will best attract a view, a like, a follow or a share. Information is seen purely as a commodity.

The problem is that when information is seen purely as a commodity, truth is easily compromised.

We don’t need to look any further than the internet. It’s now common place to log on and find someone accusing someone else of being a Nazi or a racist. This may have reached the status of cliché, and as such is easily dismissed, nevertheless real concern should be given to it. Especially, when we’re bombarded with accusations from celebrities, and articles written by professionals, equating their opponents with the National Socialists of the 1930’s, without qualification.

For example: in August 2016, a lecturer from Sydney University,  compared fair-minded conservative opposition to same-sex marriage, with the Nazi treatment of homosexuals. In addition, a student was reported to have been disallowed from presenting a case,  linking examples of how anti-Israel sentiment, is linked to antisemitism. [source]

Historical comparisons made between present and past, should be measured for accuracy. Responsible self-criticism leads us to ask ourselves whether or not our opponent has a point. However, measuring the accuracy of our opponents claim shouldn’t stop with us. For it to be completely fair, the enquiry must also include the consideration of whether or not our opponents, are themselves guilty of doing the very things they’re accusing others of doing.

One good practice, when being likened to the Nazis, is reading material from those who’ve studied the historical context; the history of and the history associated with Nazism. Those who’ve engaged with the primary sources, and who understand not just what the Nazis did, but how, and why, they did it.

It’s here that books like Thomas Doherty’s insightful and well researched 2013 book, ‘Hollywood & Hitler‘ shines:

Page 9, citing a PCA[i] report on the prohibition of the movie ‘All Quiet on The Western Front‘, Dec, 18, 1930:
“There is no doubt that this wave of intense national prejudice, which is for now going on, will continue and that any pictures, particularly foreign pictures, which offend the sensibilities of the National Socialists will be a signal for riots and demonstrations.’ [i]
Page 21: ‘Even before Goebbels laid down the law, the Nazi rhetoric on race was being implemented by pumped-up S.A. thugs and zealous party bureaucrats. From Berlin radiating outward, the iron grip tightened over all aspects of film-related culture – artists and technicians, film content and style, trade periodicals and reviewer bylines, theatre ownership and ticket buyers.’ [ii]
Page 97: ‘The Nazis, said Prince Hubertus Lowenstein [an early critic of Nazism], had annihilated all that was good in German culture.”Everything that had made for the glory of Germany has been destroyed in the past three years. The best actors and artists have been expelled. Approximately 1100 scholars and scientists have had to leave, only because they believed in freedom of art, of thought, and of religion.” Jews were forbidden to buy milk for their children, and Catholics were jailed for keeping the faith. The jackboot crushing Jews and Catholics, he predicted, was but a preview of oppressions to come. All those speaking that night urged a united front against Hitler. “We must organise to fight the Nazi invasion before Americans lose their constitutional liberties”‘[iii]

Doherty’s descriptions of Nazis behaviour and policy helps to shine a light on where Nazism or fascists are active today. When matched against current events descriptions such as, “intense prejudice, the iron grip, that which offends the sensibilities is a signal for riots and demonstrations; rhetoric on race by pumped-up thugs and zealous party bureaucrats”, all show that those pointing their finger and crying wolf about Nazism and fascism, reflect it the most.

We have to ask: is there any real difference between what we know as the radical Left and what we know as the extreme Right?

The radical Left is already suspect, when the adherents use its political platforms to denounce all opposition as Nazism, without any real qualification. It’s already suspect when those same adherents ignore questions, make false claims and turn all fair criticism into “hate speech”. It’s already suspect when this very same ideology backs policies that undermine the humanity of the unborn, democratic debate, diversity of thought, reasoned opinion, expression and faith.

It’s already suspect when some of its most fervent adherents remain silent about the current events in Turkey, or Islamism in general, and yet continue to promote the BDS academic boycott movement against Israel. [source] The radical Left is more than worthy of our suspicions when we only hear the sound of crickets chirping to the tune of double standards, hypocrisy, selective outrage, suppression of faith and reason, political evasion, and propaganda.

As Theodore Kupfer asked, ‘Where are the Academic Boycotts of Turkey?”. It’s tragically ironic that anti-Israel protesters are loud and proud, yet they remain silent about Turkey:

“The response of Western academia has thus far been limited to expressions of grave concern for the fate of individual academics who have been subject to the purge [in Turkey].
No organized boycott effort has surfaced on any level. Mere proclamations of solidarity are supposed to suffice in the case of Turkey, while the same organizations agitate for nothing short of a blanket institutional boycott in the case of Israel.
Mind you, academic conditions in Israel are far superior to those in Turkey. Even attempts to portray Israel as hostile to academic freedom are evidence for this.” [iv]

The irony feeds suspicion of the radical Left. All that’s missing from the trajectory of this ideological radicalism is a figure-head with the power to influence enough people to fanatically fall in line behind them. With the upcoming election in the United States, such considerations should be weighed carefully.

Whether we like it or not, we’re being forced into categories by those who want to define us, determine what we think, and turn our freedoms into a carrot on a stick. The agenda isn’t about equality, it’s about dominance. The agenda isn’t about rights, it’s about power. The agenda isn’t about progress, it’s about pride.

It’s ironic that a people’s court stands ready to condemn those who don’t align, agree or pledge allegiance to the Left. Victims who are, as a result branded as Nazis, without trial or just cause.

I’m not big on the Right/Left political metaphors in politics because throughout history, they’ve shifted. The metaphor is inadequate. We cannot rely on it entirely. I’m even more suspicious of this metaphor when its applied to theology.

Theology, if it is to remain authentic theology, as Timothy Gorringe states, ‘stands as a critique of ideology.’ [v] To confess that Jesus Christ is Lord necessarily means to admit that Jesus Christ is no human pawn. Christian theology is and always will stand as a critique of all human centred strongholds that claim godlikeness; a challenge to all towers of Babylon. Whether they be, modern, futuristic, ancient, primitive, progressive, conservative, material or spiritual.

‘Christianity is the protest against all the high places which human beings build for themselves’ (Karl Barth C.D IV/II p.524).

Just as bandwagon support for hashtag movements or one’s Facebook activity isn’t the ultimate determiner of the legitimacy of one’s Christianity. Allegiance to an ideology cannot justify or earn a place before the throne of God’s grace.

While it may be too early to say for certain that history is being repeated. Given the growing list of facts, it’s not an overstatement to suggest that history is being repeated, but not according to the story we’re being sold. In this case, those in the West who claim to be victims of fascism, who are chasing “Nazis”, and pushing for safe spaces, have more in common with the Nazis, than they do the victims of Nazism.

May we be free, and well informed enough to differentiate between the real and the wrongly labelled.


[i]  Doherty,T. 2013 Hollywood & Hitler: 1933-1939 Columbia University Press

[ii] ibid, 2013

[iii] ibid, 2013

[iv] Kupfer, T. 2016 Where Are the Academic Boycotts of Turkey? sourced 24th August 2016 from

[v] Gorringe, T.J 1999 Karl Barth: Against Hegemony Christian theology in context Oxford University Press New York

Image: Courtesy of, Creative Commons

BarthTravis McMaken is a published Barth scholar and blogger. Last week he featured in a one hour interview with Tripp Fuller from ‘HomeBrewed Christianity‘, answering the question: ”Why Go Barthian?

For which McMaken gave these five reasons:

1. Barth’s reform of the doctrine of election. Where the reformers didn’t develop a Christocentric double-predestination (putting Christ at the center of God’s election, electing and who He chooses to elect) Barth does.

2. Barth was not a fan of mixing philosophy with theology. Speculation is the cardinal sin for theologians. Theologians deal in the tangible “what was, what is and what will be”, not “what in ifs?”

3. Barth’s reassertion of the Doctrine of the Trinity and his rejection of natural theology as being another means of God’s revelation.[i]

4. Barth’s anti-nazi theology, as expressed in letters and manifested in the Barmen Declaration.

5. Barth’s early involvement with socialism due to his pastoral experiences in Safenwil, Switzerland, between workers and factory owners.

I agree with the first three of the five points. I am in cautious agreement about the fourth and consider the fifth debatable.

My cautious agreement with point four is justified by the fact that any new anti-nazi theology, if it’s to be true to Barthian anti-nazi theology would have to include a a declaration against,

‘Islamists and their own manifestation of the doctrine of “blut und boden – blood and soil” and Leftism’s selective outrage.
Both of which do violence to classical liberal rights, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and, in the case of the Left, families and thousands of unborn children every day. It’s concerning that academics are falling over themselves to denounce Trump. Yet fail to acknowledge the more pertinent historical parallels, which share a closer affiliation with a Nazified Germany and the compromised Church [and theology] of the 1930s and early ’40s.
Outrage that is often positioned between one selective set of protests and another. The targeted call to inclusion, for instance, shows up as a front for the more sinister goal of picking and choosing those who will have to be excluded; which is potentially those who disagree. It’s not far to jump from this to the assumption that such selectivity could result in the doctrine of “Lebensunwertes Leben – life unworthy of life.” (or in a more milder dosage, people unworthy of an opinion)’ [source]

Such an anti-nazi theology must have at it’s end a solidarity against servitude to any ideology, not in masked conformity to one:

‘From the bullied youth, to the oppressed members of a family, there is a resonance that moves from the suffering of African-Americans out to all the down-trodden. From this resonance comes a basic solidarity of suffering. It’s from here that we arrive at a point, where understanding the pain of others, helps us understand our own.
In recent months we’ve seen the rise of #blacklivesmatter. A cause not without justification, but its presence has always coincided with the caveat from those who’ve read history and heed it. It’s a cause that must have as its inevitable conclusion, #humanlivesmatter.
If it doesn’t, the movement slides into a kind of reverse racism. It fails to mature beyond protest to justice to reconciliation. If this happens, “black lives matter” will inevitably morph into “only black lives matter,” and the positive aspects of the movement’s cause will be lost.’ [source]

These are counter-points that I’m sure Barth would agree with. In his long discussion on the Omnipotence and Constancy of God, this shines through:

‘If we abandon and pay no attention to the question of obedience to God’s Word, but try to seek the limit of the possible in an absolutised system of relationships alongside or in place of God’s Word, we discover and imaginary God and an imaginary world, the fundamental dissolution of all systems of relationships and therefore complete sceptisim and anarchy in the realm of creation, the irruption of a Third Reich of madness.’    (CD.II:I p.537)

Any new anti-nazi theology from Barthians would have to reject the ‘legalistic coercion, control of the narrative, excessive political correctness, excessive shaming, blurred distinctions, a forced allegiance to false ideologies, gods, political systems and totalitarianism’ (source). Subjects that would necessarily also involve the push back against the imposition of new cultural laws such as the redefinition of marriage and the reckless rush into un-democratically erected laws pertaining to the entire spectrum of gender/identity politics.

As Barth, and even George Orwell wrote:

‘It is only wantonly and irrationally that we can aspire to the statement that two and two are five.’ (CD.II:I p.538)

Barthian theology might advocate protest in true Protestant form, but in and of itself Barthian theology is not a perpetual protest against whatever the Leftist disagrees with.

It’s not Barthian theology that exists as the perpetual protest against politics and disorder, it’s:

 ‘prayer, [which is as Barth states, is] the beginning of an uprising, [a revolt] against the disorder of the world’ [ii]

Such prayer would include a revolt against the oppressive and regressive elements of progressivism, not just that which progressives order us to protest against.

Point five on McMaken’s list is debatable. Barth may have danced to the socialist jive in Safenwil, but his life shows that he was far from a propaganda poster boy for any “Red” movement.

For economic reasons, Barth was a member of the Social Democrats, who opposed the National Socialists. Although he firmly opposed the Nazis, Barth never fully tied himself into the politics of the Social Democrats. Which, just like his (failure) to openly criticize the Soviet Union, annoyed people.

That silence should not be taken as a license to assume he was for the communists. Whether that be Bolshevik, Stalinist, Maoist, or the KPD (1930s, German Communists).

He was not a Leftist and, his very own anti-nazi stance, tells us that, were he  alive today, Barth would push back hard against any attempts to force him into such a box. Just as he distanced himself from being owned by American Evangelicals.

Therefore, I reject Travis’ closing remarks, that

“those Barthians who didn’t support‪ #‎blacklivesmatter‬ or ‪#‎occupywallstreet‬, may want to question whether or not they are Barthian, and even may have to repent”

Overall, Travis is to be applauded for the way in which he communicated the Barthian position on election, philosophy, the trinity and for parts of his discussion on anti-nazi theology. However, the applause should stop there.The remainder of the interview becomes a bitterly sour education in what happens with the Left assert their assumed ownership of Barth.

This kind of muscling shows that at its worst the Left have no problem with overlooking some aspects of Barth’s theo-political action and thought. Bypassing these in order to conscript Barthian’s and Barthian theology into the service of Leftism by way of the modern political trend to argue half-truths against balance, for the side of the story that sells best.

Whilst I recommend the interview, as with most video mediums: if you’re really interested in Barthian theology, check out the book before you see the movie.

For the best place to start reading Barth, I’m with Travis in his recommendation of  Evangelical Theology.


[i] A rough summary of Barth’s “Nein” to natural theology: in this sense Barth freed theology from any attempts within science and the theological sciences to undermine and over-rule knowledge about God, that He has Himself given to the world through revelation. That knowledge confronts us. We are faced with only responding to it. Humans don’t determine such knowledge and cannot summon it, or as ideologies can go, build a religion around claims to own special knowledge of God (as in gnosticism); building God in our own image around human knowledge (as in Nazism). Rejecting who God is and has identified Himself as, for example: As father who enters into covenant, in Jesus Christ, through His Spirit.

I’m close to three quarters of my way through Church Dogmatics 2/2 and I’ve got a lot to reflect upon. I can see the big attraction the politically left theologians and left leaning Christians have with this volume. It’s tempting to even say that Barth is ”on their side”, but that wouldn’t be quite true.

It certainly wouldn’t accurately describe the knife edge Barth walks between Christian Universalism and Calvinism, or the scriptural tension between the two that Barth plays like a musical genius. It’d be a premature surrender. Besides, I’m almost convinced that to conscript Barth into Leftism, is to selectively misuse and overlook his warnings about, and opposition to Nazism. Including jettisoning a large portion of his own theological position.

I plan to put together a few posts about this as time permits. It’s a great deal to discuss in one blogpost.

So, for now, I’m just dropping this right here: matching quote with verse; a sketch with both. I’ve rearranged the order in which Barth’s block quote appears in the text. This doesn’t take away from the integrity of meaning. There’s quite a few statements throughout 2/2 that contain the same calibre of that which is expressed here.

Karl Barth:

‘Jesus is the One who uniquely and in isolation represents man to God, and God to man […] For as such He is not merely the prophet and proclaimer of the good news of God’s covenant with humanity, nor does He merely call men to hear & receive this news, but in doing so calls them to active co-operation in its proclamation.
When Jesus calls the apostles to Him, He does not promise that He will make them Christians, or even that He will first make them Christians and then apostles; but He immediately promises that He will make them apostles; bearers to humanity of a commission that will be given to them, the commission to seek and gather [in the spheres of world and Church; He chooses them as they are, calling them out from where they are].’ [i]


“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” {Matthew 24:9-13, ESV}


RL2016_multiple barbs SOLO2



[i] Barth, K. CD 2:2, pp.445 & 444 (parenthesis, Barth paraphrased)

13th August 2016 2 002The theme songs from Ulysses 31 and Star Blazers form part of the inspiration for this new composition.  Both are anime’s from the late 70’s early 80’s.

When I reflect back on both Ulysses 31 and Star Blazers, they hold for me more than just great art or an interesting story.They remind me of a time when my childhood was a lot more stable, and each show had epic theme songs: {U-31} – {SB}.

The theological use of light in metaphor forms the second part. God’s word is presented in Psalms as a light bound up in promise and fulfilment; giving reason for hope, guidance, protection, freedom, deliverance and an equipping for life.

Psalm 18:28-30:

‘For it is you who light my lamp; the Lord my God lightens my darkness. For by you I can run against a troop, and by my God I can leap over a wall.This God-his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him.’

Psalm 119:105:

‘Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I will hate every false way. Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.’

John 1:4-5 (speaking in terms of Jesus Christ)

‘In Him was life, and the life was the light of men [humanity]. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’

For those who’ve ever really heard them or even just heard of them, these words bring comfort, conviction and counsel. Through trials, they’re reminders worth reaching out for. The title, ‘Running Lights’, seeks to embrace this. For example: the running lights fitted to a car for use during fog, a lighthouse, or the runway lights at an airport. They all point to a universal human consciousness that sees light as the representation of safe harbour, safe passage, rescue, or home. In sum, Running Lights is about hope and resistance.

Drawing from a melody I created earlier this week, I was able to bring the music together fairly quickly. I sequenced the drums over the raw keyboard melody, then created some rhythm guitar and a bass line. I wasn’t completely happy with the timing of the keys, so redid them. Adding another layer of keys timed at different intervals to create the robotic sound. This allowed me to generate the verse/chorus/verse/chorus pattern. I left out the bridge because I didn’t think the song needed one.

Once this was completed, I looked to the lead guitar. I was tempted not to run any lead, but after a few attempts was convinced that it gave more gusto to the melody. I spent more time working the lead, than any other part of the song (*I don’t quite yet have that perfectionism licked*).

My goal there was to push myself beyond what I’ve already been able to achieve;to learn from the mistakes and improve on what already exists. One of the biggest struggles for most of us, when it comes to being creative is not letting our attitude undermine our ability. Whether that is in regards to being humble with our talent,  feigning humility by putting ourselves down all the time, or listening to the put downs of others.

What I like is the structure. I’m also finding that the more I use Audacity, the more I am getting used to its idiosyncrasies. With that, each song seems to be improving on the production front. As for dislikes, currently I have none.

If you’re looking into checking out Star Blazers or Ulysses 31, be sure to check out the remake (here) and the excellent, 2010 live action feature film, Space Battleship Yamato.



amphitheatre-1004396__180Some academic internet interlocutors recently tried to stick some historical parallels on Donald Trump and American Evangelicals. They were attempting to link the precedent set by the German Christian movement and its support for Hitler, to that of American Christians and their support for Trump.

While I don’t disagree that there are slight similarities within the rhetoric, their conclusions were too easily settled upon.

Hitler was a seducer with a total grasp on the passions and faith of a people. Trump on other hand appears incoherent and at other times inconsistent in his message. To put it simply, he’s proven more to be kryptonite than an advocate for any “Aryan super-race filled with the Übermensch – superman”. As most people would agree, Trump repels rather than attracts.

I wont go into more precise differences because I believe that anyone with a basic education in social etiquette, even before its takeover by the parochialism of the excessively politically correct, knows the truth in the axiom, that “you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.”

Hitler put this into practice and seduced a nation. Eventually bending that nation towards his, and his political movement’s libido dominande (will-to-dominate). The German Christian Movement utilised similar tactics in gaining support for the NSDAP, which was in turn used against the remnants of the German Evangelical Church, the Pastors Emergency League and their justly rebellious descendant, the Confessing Church.

Instead of Trump and American Evangelicals, there are a spate of more relevant current events to choose from. The loudest of which concerns Islamism and the growing militancy of Leftists.

Both of which do violence to classical liberal rights, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and, in the case of the Left, families and thousands of unborn children every day. It’s concerning that academics are falling over themselves to denounce Trump. Yet fail to acknowledge the more pertinent historical parallels, which share a closer affiliation with a Nazified Germany and the compromised Church of the 1930s and early ’40s.

The most significant parallel’s being Islamism’s closeness to the doctrine of “blut und boden – blood and soil” and Leftism’s selective outrage. Outrage that is often positioned between one selective set of protests and another. The targeted call to inclusion, for instance, shows up as a front for the more sinister goal of picking and choosing those who will have to be excluded; which is potentially those who disagree. It’s not far to jump from this to the assumption that such selectivity could result in the doctrine of “Lebensunwertes Leben – life unworthy of life.” (or in a more milder dosage, people unworthy of an opinion)

The secular and sometimes Christian left, for example, are  quick to write-off and then propagandise any dissent against its position. Anyone who does is automatically treated with the suspicion, or worse, the accusation, that their questioning is rooted in a “phobia” of some kind. As is well established, the pattern of behaviour is to denounce any disagreement and then shame anyone who raises honest questions about serious social, theological or political issues, that the Left would claim to be the only answer to.

The pattern is consistent. Shame into silence anything that challenges Leftism. Intimidate and then threaten all who speak out against its narratives. Such as, the use of a politics of diversion and evasion, when it comes to the dangers of Islamism and their bizarre placating of those who’s own self-interests lie in controlling the debate over gay marriage; and in controlling those who oppose the Leftist construct of “gender fluidity.”

The pattern is clear. The Leftist will allow all criticism and violence against those things Leftism hates, but will remain complacent in the face of more urgent historical parallels that demand fair attention.

I get the criticisms of Trump, but as far as historical parallels go, only the short-sighted, given the contexts, would be ignoring the relevance of those historical events to the intolerance of Leftism, ISIS, Islamism and the connection of the latter to these more recent developments:

1. Turkey seizes ALL Christian churches in city and declares them ‘state property (

2. Attacks on Christians in Egypt raise alarms (USA Today)

‘Democracy and Martyrs’ Rally’ on Sunday in Istanbul, marks the climax of three weeks of nightly demonstrations by Erdogan’s supporters.
Banners read ‘You are a gift from God, Erdogan’ or ‘Order us to die and we will do it’ […] [i]

If in mentioning the past we seek to passionately avoid its mistakes, we must answer the  storms of today by shining a light on the folly that enabled those mistakes.

As Churchill, C.S Lewis, and George Orwell pointed out in regards to pacifism and appeasement; and for Dwight Eisenhower, complacency:

“The handicaps were many. The greatest obstacle was psychological— complacency still persisted! Even the fall of France in May 1940 failed to awaken us— and by “us” I mean many professional soldiers as well as others— to a full realization of danger.
The commanding general of one United States division, an officer of long service and high standing, offered to bet, on the day of the French armistice, that England would not last six weeks longer— and he proposed the wager much as he would have bet on rain or shine for the morrow. It did not occur to him to think of Britain as the sole remaining belligerent standing between us and starkest danger. His attitude was typical of the great proportion of soldiers and civilians alike.
Happily there were numerous exceptions whose devoted efforts accomplished more than seemed possible.
Despite the deepening of congressional concern, the nation was so unprepared to accept the seriousness of the world outlook that training could not be conducted in realistic imitation of the battlefield.
We had to carry it on in soothing-syrup style calculated to rouse the least resentment from the soldiers themselves and from their families at home. Many senior officers stood in such fear of a blast in the headlines against exposing men to inclement weather or to the fatigue of extended maneuvers that they did not prescribe the only type of training that would pay dividends once the bullets began to fly.
Urgent directives from above and protest from the occasional “alarmist” could not eliminate an apathy that had its roots in comfort, blindness, and wishful thinking.” [ii]

It must be said, then, that the path to the resurgence of fascism doesn’t begin with Trump, or the rhetoric of Trump’s campaign. Nor does it rest in the endorsement of American Evangelicals.

Granted there are small similarities in rhetoric between Nazism and the German Christian movement, Trump and American Evangelicals. That link, however, if it can even be called that, is weak. No more so then when it is compared to the greater examples of Islamist ideology and Leftist militancy, which appear on the horizon as this century’s very own gathering storm.


[i] Erogden Stages Mass Rally In Turkey sourced August 8th 2016 from

[ii] Eisenhower, D.D. 1948 Crusade in Europe: A Personal Account of World War Two Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Ed. (Loc. 251-256;260-262 ).

Solemn Cheers

August 7, 2016 — Leave a comment

Here’s three cheers for the artist, and the writer, who remain uncorrupted by nefarious social and political forces that seek to conscript their ideas;

a cheer for the scholars, who don’t spam social media seeking to impress their peers;

a cheer for those academics who don’t take themselves as seriously as their groupie fanatics.

Here’s three cheers for the politician who refuses to be unreasonably moulded into the ideological conformity of the rest;

a cheer for the dads and stay-at-home mums, who choose to work at making a family, yet find themselves staring down the barrel of angry feminist hypocrisy;

a cheer for the indigenous community who sets themselves free from the chains of activist protectionism.

Here’s three cheers for that community who chooses to carefully utilise Government programs in order to build a way out of poverty; willing to empower discussion about complex social issues.

a cheer for the teacher and the preacher, who, though faced with uncalled for adversity, stays true;

a cheer for all the homeschoolers that don’t blog, because the little time that they have is better employed elsewhere.

Here’s three cheers for the police officers, who, by the very nature of their job, pay in some way for the crimes of others;

a cheer for the volunteers who keep on giving when they’ve already given enough;

a cheer for all the good dads who stand firm, but forgiving, in the face of mistreatment by unbalanced systems.

Here’s three cheers for the responsible renters,

who still work towards home ownership, even though they’re stuck paying more each week to investors, than they would on a loan for a home of their own.

a cheer for those parents who understand the truism, that a house doesn’t make a home.

Here’s three cheers for the husband and wife,

who buck against the new cultural trends and instead, happily call each other so.


Here’s three cheers for the repentant sinners,

may their sighs defy the world;

and their new life speak loudly of Jesus Christ,

without fear of ostracism, moving from darkness to light.