Death and the Cult of Celebrity

The year 2016 is being reflected upon as a bad year for people who had attained celebrity status. Several major icons from the world of film, sports, music and television have died. The carnage was perceived to be so bad there were suggestions on social media that Time magazine’s Person of the Year shouldn’t be Donald Trump but the Grim Reaper himself.

The folks at the BCC keep a good record of obituaries, and they found that there had indeed been a spike in celebrity deaths. In the first three months of last year, there were five times as many deaths as in the first quarter of 2012. As the year 2016 progressed the number of celebrity deaths quickly flatten out; with the number of obituaries only being 30 percent more than the previous year.

A possible reason why there has been so much news on this subject is because we live in a culture that is fixated on celebrities. Someone who helped develop a vaccine that saved millions of lives can die without notice, but if a minor rock star dies from a drug overdose, people will mourn like he was one of their family members.

The death of famous people should only cause us to reflect on our own mortality and our need for the Saviour. The premature death a famous person should warn everyone that there is a narrow path to everlasting life.

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Most of the celebrities who died last year should be shown as an example of what not to do. I can think of two major singers who had perverse lives and their deaths were directly related to their sinful lifestyles. The media coverage made them out to be angels because they sold a few million records.

The worst example of the cult of celebrity and its relationship with death is the story of Zsa Zsa Gabor passing. After she was cremated, her ashes were scattered from a Louis Vuitton bag because she was considered the queen of style. Gabor’s husband, Frederic von Anhalt, gave a 40-minute eulogy that focused on Gabor’s thirst for the limelight.

“I want to remember the way she walked the red carpet,” von Anhalt said. “She loved it so much. Her life was only red carpet, nothing else.” The priest at Gabor’s memorial service gave the same glowing praise. “She epitomized and personified Hollywood glamour,” Father Edward Benioff said. “She could write. She could act. She had many, many talents.”

It may be true that Zsa Zsa Gabor was a queen of style and the embodiment of Hollywood glamour, but these are not qualities that are productive for the kingdom of God. If you have people boasting at your funeral how much you conformed to the world, you clearly made tragic choices in your life.

Debbie Reynolds died the day after the passing of her daughter, Carrie Fisher. The media said that this was “destiny” and “such a beautiful sentiment” that they died together.

These observations are just wishful thinking. Sure, they both had wonderful lives and meant very much to each other, but a positive outcome depends entirely on their standing with the Son of God.

We live in a world where even the worst of celebrities get positive press. When Fidel Castro died, he was hailed by many at the UN as an iconic leader of the 20th century. He was said to be an activist in pursuing independence, justice and development. In reality, Castro was an evil dictator who murdered in order to hold on to power.

I think it is a bad sign for anyone to make an annual list of dead celebrities. Author Tim LaHaye died last year, and I didn’t see him on any list. He had one of the bestselling books of the last two decades, and he helped establish numerous productive Christian organizations. When I read that Alexis Arquette, a D-List transgender actress was on most lists, I thought, clearly LaHaye should out rank this weirdo.

The only list that dying should hope to be on is the one in the book of life. The money, fame, and power all become void in the end. The only thing that matters is Jesus Christ’s saving grace.

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

–Todd

 

---

Verify But Trust

Russian/American relations are front and center in the news at the moment of this new year’s dawning. Conflicting approaches to these relations are also very much in the headlines.

The outgoing Obama administration, it is offered for public consumption, wants Russia punished for hacking into the presidential election process. The incoming Trump administration, mainstream news purveyors put forth, wants to cozy up to Russia and its President Vladimir Putin, because Mr. Trump is–they claim–Mr. Putin’s pal. The perception they want to create is that Trump doesn’t trust U.S. intelligence sources who, according to the mainstreamers, all agree that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, etc.–thus in order to help Donald Trump get elected.

Fact is, however, all the U.S. intelligence services aren’t in complete agreement. They neither are of consensus opinion that Russia did the cyber-hacking, nor that Putin’s intention was to help Trump’s election effort. But, as we all know, the facts have little to do with mainstream reporting within today’s reality. The president-elect has embraced many of President Ronald Reagan’s thoughts, particularly with regard to Russia–in Mr. Reagan’s case, the Soviet Union. “Trust but verify” was perhaps the most famous statement/position stated by Reagan that best frames his position in dealing with the Soviets.

Reagan signed the Intermediate range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1987. He used the phrase “trust but verify” to explain the in-depth procedures that would be in place to make certain the treaty stayed on the up and up.

The statement was from the Russian proverb Doveryai, no proveryai, taught him by a Russian translator in preparation for the meetings with Gorbachev. This requirement for dealing with the Russians will be highly necessary when Trump takes the oath on January 20. It is a precautionary thought that hasn’t been followed by Barack Obama for the last eight years and the present state of disarray with regard to the cyber-hacking hubbub proves the statement’s worth. Besides Israel, there is no more relevant nation than Russia in view for Bible prophecy yet to unfold. Let’s pray that some within the new president’s close circle of advisers can add prophetic understanding in Mr. Trump’s dealing with the Russians.

With that trust-but-verify relationship between America and Russia as a foundational premise for the further thoughts I hope to present, I would like to get into the reasons the title of this commentary has Mr. Reagan’s statement reversed–“verify but trust.”

I wish to try to apply this reversal to the personal relationship each of us–you and I–has with our Lord.

If you might indulge me for a brief time, I will, in order to hopefully make the point I wish to convey, reveal a small bit of relational goings-on in my own life at present. Realization of what all is involved in those goings-on completely escaped me until I began thinking on and praying about this commentary. The Holy Spirit was clear and to the point in whispering to my own, more often than not dull-of-hearing spiritual ears.

When the epiphany struck, it was so obvious that its simplicity sort of stunned me. My uncomfortable relationship of the moment with the uncertainties of life wasn’t mere chance. It involved the things I have believed–have taught and written about most all of my Christian life.

My wife, Margaret, had just had a car accident. It was one in which only she was involved, but it was a bad one, so far as the damage done to the car was concerned. Thankfully, Margaret had only her heel badly fractured as a result of the big sedan rolling over and ending right side up.

The state police officer who worked the wreck said it could have easily been a deadly accident. The car was totaled. So, needless to say, we are grateful to the Lord for His protection–and to the car manufacturer for the sixteen air bags that deployed during the violent rollover.

However, I’ve nevertheless been lamenting ever since that accident that happened on the Monday leading up to Christmas. Poor me. I’ve been so inconvenienced by it all. Christmas this year was, in my commercially minded self-centeredness, a disaster. Plus, I’ve been called into service as caregiver for Miss Margaret–and me a poor, old, blind guy.

The epiphany, that hit just this morning, is that this was no accident in the purest sense. This was a faith- and character-tester–to my own life, at least. It was a test to see how I would react to an occurrence allowed, not caused, by the Lord. His only involvement in the accident itself was that of protecting Margaret’s life. What part Satan and his minions had in it, I have no way of assessing. I failed the test miserably, dwelling only on how deleteriously it affected my daily routine–which I do not under any circumstance want to be disrupted.

Well, that routine is continuing to be disrupted. I still don’t like it, but the Lord has most assuredly spoken to me and let me know that it is sinful indulgence to expect the world to revolve around one’s self.

I would hope that from this point forward, for however much time I’m allowed in this life, I would–after this lesson–at the very outset of life’s such disruptions, understand the spiritual implications. I hope that I will immediately verify in my spiritual understanding that nothing happens in the believer’s life in which our Lord is not intimately interested. We do not believe in and serve an existential God. Then, I would hope that I would always apply this primary “trust” Scripture to my life: “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Verify but trust. That’s my prayerful New Year’s wish for you as well when you face life’s sometimes unpleasant surprises.

–Terry

Arming Up for Armageddon

We live in a time of great conflict between perception and reality. The general view in the media is that of peace and safety. While we have this carefree attitude in America, the rest of the world is in the midst of an arms race.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin is working on strengthening Russia’s nuclear potential. His goal for Russia is to fortify the nation’s military nuclear capabilities and develop missiles that can penetrate any missile-defense system. He also seeks to develop precision weapons across various branches of the armed forces as well as electronic warfare systems.

“We must carefully monitor any changes in the balance of power and in the political-military situation in the world, especially along Russian borders, and quickly adapt plans for neutralizing threats to our country,” said Putin.

Despite heavy sanctions from the West over the annexation of the Crimea region, Putin has been successful in modernizing his military. He said that about 60 percent of modern armaments are currently in the Russian nuclear forces.

A Russian missile design company recently unveiled the first image of a new weapon in Russia’s arsenal: the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, nicknamed “Satan 2.”

The rocket “is capable of wiping out parts of the earth the size of Texas or France,” claimed Russian state news outlet Sputnik. The missile can carry up to 15 separate warheads with a combined explosive power of 50 million tons of TNT.

India has just tested its longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) Agni-5, which is capable of striking targets in Asia. Heralded as the “weapon of peace.” the missile has a striking range of up to 5,000kms. Sometimes dubbed as the “China killer,” the missile can carry a one ton warhead and is capable of reaching almost all of Asia including India’s key rivals—China and Pakistan. India’s foes will likely respond by improving the range and carrying loads of their missiles.

The evolving threat of North Korea’s nuclear program has come about primarily because of the neglect of western nations giving them too much leeway—by dismissing their ongoing threats. We kept hoping that this little dictatorship would collapse under the weight of its massive military spending. With an endless supply of slave labor and radical ideology, North Korea has built up a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons. It will soon be able to fire them from missiles putting Japan and the Western U.S. at risk.

China has been very aggressive in expanding its military. This year, China’s fleet commissioned its first aircraft carriers. The Chinese government could potentially build a number of additional aircraft carriers within the next 15 years. The willingness of Beijing to demonstrate its military power in the Western Pacific has made the region a favorite stop for the world’s arms merchants.

There is growing concern that Japan is on a plan toward re-militarization. In the face of growing threats from China, the Japanese government has moved away from its historical pacifism, passing bills to bolster its military presence. A new, hotly contested package of 11 security bills gave the Japanese military the option to engage in battle to protect their allies, including the United States, even if there is no direct threat to Japan or its people.

Last week, the Japanese government said it will spend $44 billion to confront China. The money will be used to bolster its coast guard capabilities to defend disputed islands in the East China Sea.

The greatest threat from a militarized Japan would be its huge cache of weapons-usable plutonium. Since WWII, Japan has banned the production of nuclear weapons. With more than 47 metric tons of plutonium, Japan has enough to make nearly 6,000 warheads like the one that flattened Nagasaki.

The U.S. has the largest nuclear force on the planet, but it’s a very old arsenal. The U.S. Air Force maintains a fleet of 450 Minuteman III ICBM missiles. A key leg of the nuclear triad, the Minuteman III missiles went into service in the 1970s. The Air Force has 76 B-52 strategic bombers that have been flying since the 1960s. The Navy has 14 Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine fleet that first went into service in the 1980s.

Donald Trump has frequently talked about upgrading our nuclear arms. He recently tweeted that the United States “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” Asked to clarify his comments, MSNBC reported that Trump had said: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Trump’s words may be mostly bluster, but after 8 years of neglect under Obama, he may need to accelerate the development of arms just to keep up with the growing capability of our enemies.

This latest arms race has “prophecy” written all over it. Political leaders may talk about the need for peace, but very little has been done to prevent the world from sliding into the abyss. The military hardware being developed today will eventually find its way onto the battlefields of the Tribulation hour.

“Proclaim this among the nations: ‘Prepare for war!’ Stir up the mighty men. Let all the warriors draw near. Let them come. Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weak say, ‘I am strong’” (Joel 3:9-10).

–Todd

---

Israel’s 100-Year Storm

These days, it seems, we are more and more frequently given reports that a 100- year storm has occurred. These are happening about every other year, and many prophecy watchers believe that these great storms have biblically prophetic overtones.

Certainly, I have to admit that there appears to be some relevance, these storms to how Israel is treated. White House correspondent Bill Koening is one Bible prophecy student who writes on these kind of weather and other occurrences with regard to, particularly, America’s dealing with Israel. John McTernin is another writer on these matters that I find fascinating.

We remember Hurricane Katrina, for example, when the Bush administration had pressured the Jewish state to move Jewish Israelis in order that so-called Palestinians could move in. Katrina entered the Gulf of Mexico during this time and the results was that thousands of Americans along the Gulf Coast and beyond were forced to leave their homes. The storm was one of the worst in U.S. history.

With major tornadoes in many areas and flooding along U.S. rivers having seemed to increase over the past number of years, some have attributed the virulent weather to climate change or global warming. Others have seen the significance of these 100-year-type storms as relating directly to the treatment the Obama administration has given Israel over the past eight years.

We remember that close to the very first thing the president did was to snub the Israeli prime minister, leaving him after a few minutes of their meeting in the White House to go to the family’s private dining quarters. Mr. Obama has continued with his coolness to Benjamin Netanyahu since that very first meeting. At the same time, Obama has made nice at every opportunity with the leaders of the Muslim world, while giving lip service to support for the Jewish state. As a matter of fact, Obama is on record as saying right up front of his eight years in office that he intended to “put space” between America and Israel. This, ostensibly, to develop better relationship with the Arab states so that there could develop a greater chance for establishing peace in the region.

It was the old George W. Bush effort revived–trying to show the Muslims and the world that we were really their friends. The question to ask, of course, is: Have relations improved? No, they have grown worse.

The 100 year storm to which I refer as given in this commentary’s title is the international, diplomatic storm in which Israel currently finds itself. The first such storm it faced happened almost a half century before it became a nation in 1948. Israel was promised territory for establishing a nation in the region of its traditional homeland when the British issued the Balfour Declaration, written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour and issued by the government led by Prime Minister David Lloyd George.

That promise read:

Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917. Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

While there is little doubt that there was a genuine desire to establish a Zionist safe haven with the declaration, it is even more certain that the action was primarily taken–in the view of most historians–to give the British access to the Suez territory for hegemonic purposes.

When British General Edward Allenby entered Jerusalem, there was relative peace for a time. The Arabs of the region began to create strife against the Jews shortly thereafter, determined to not allow the British to put their geopolitical plans into action.

British General Louis Bols, put in charge of Jerusalem, disliked Zionism and rather than see to it the Balfour Declaration accomplished establishment of a Jewish homeland and protected the Jews, looked the other way at the Arab atrocities. The betrayal by the British instigated a regional conflict–an ethnic storm that is raging today. And now, one hundred years later to the year, there has been set in motion another storm, instigated by Britain–and sadly–by the United States of America.

The Palestinian Authority has since 2015 pushed to change the language by which UNESCO speaks of Jerusalem and the holy sites, so that they are referred to almost exclusively by their Muslim names. The U.N. and its Israel-hating membership has done all within that body’s power to de-legitimize Israel as having any historical ties to the Temple Mount, or to the region, for that matter.

And now the Security Council resolution condemning settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, unopposed by Israel’s allies, America, and Britain is a betrayal of the worst sort.

Secretary of State John Kerry said on December 28 that the only chance for Israel to live in peace in the future is to accept a two-state solution. Implicit within his words is condemnation of Israel as the sticking point to peace in the region. Also, I infer, he is, along with his boss Barack Obama, threatening to abandon Israel altogether if Netanyahu refuses to give land for peace.

This last-ditch effort of the Obama administration to intimidate Israel comes as too little, too late, for their nefarious plans. Donald Trump has reassured Netanyahu and the Jewish people that the betrayal will not stand. Maybe, for a time at least, there is to be a ray of sunshine beyond this 100-year storm.

—Terry