Translate

Friday, September 7, 2018

CHURCHES GONE CONTEMPORARY-AN ANALYSIS

CHURCHES GONE CONTEMPORARY-
AN ANALYSIS
GONE CONTEMPORARY 
(Friday Church News Notes, September 7, 2018, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“Gone Contemporary” is the title of an article by Dave Mallinak exposing the error and danger of the contemporary music philosophy that is spreading rapidly among Independent Baptists. We commend the entire report, which has links to Independent Baptist contemporary worship services and a video dialogue between Josh Teis and Robert Bakss, author ofWorship Wars. Following is an excerpt from the report that gets to the heart of the issue and rightly calls for separation from those who are committed to the contemporary philosophy: “The contemporary music push is the death rattle of a dying church. This style of worship is not becoming more popular because we are becoming more faithful. In our attempt to pander to the audience, we have forgotten that God is the audience. God now bores us. The more dependent we become on this kind of external approach to worship, the more we lose the very heart of worship. Eventually, Christians will find that they must have the contemporary kind of music or they cannot worship. Contemporary worship turns the audience into spectators and the music into a performance. It produces a low view of God, a delight in the experience of worship rather than the God we worship, a superficial sense of passion that loses the passion of true worship, a growing dependence on the experience produced by the music itself, and the false idea that worship is easy, that devotion can be whipped up in a couple of choruses. True worship is challenging--it requires focus and diligence and depth, all things that CCM discourages. ... Musical style indicates what a church thinks of God. Scripturally, we cannot pretend to be in good fellowship with churches who have chosen relevance over reverence. So, while we do not attempt to dictate the way another church should worship, we most certainly do have a God-given responsibility to determine the limits of our fellowship. ... The claim that musical style is nothing more than a preference choice demonstrates just how relativistic these men have become. They have purposely ignored the study of music theory. They believe that we should only need to study the Bible to see what kind of style is required.  They remind us, somewhat condescendingly, that the Bible says nothing about syncopation or ‘beat anticipation.’ So saying, they purposely ignore the clear message musical style sends about the occasion of worship. Their determined know-nothingness aside, style still informs us about the meaning of the occasion. Movie producers understand this. Most people know what music is appropriate for weddings, funerals, classy restaurants, backyard barbecues, military parades and basketball games. These men believe we can drag any style into the worship service, slap some sacred lyrics onto it, and somehow ‘redeem it.’ ... Style is the meaning. The music, dress, and trendy look of the contemporary Independent Baptists tell us less about their view of style and so much more about their view of God. The same can be said for most events. The way we dress and the music we play tells more about the way we view the event than it does about the way we view style.” Dave Mallinak’s report “Gone Contemporary” can be found at the following link - villagesmithysite.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/gone-contemporary/
__________________________________________________________________
SEE: https://villagesmithysite.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/gone-contemporary/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Recently, several pastors reached out to me about a conference in the Northeast where both Southern Gospel and Contemporary Christian music were a major part of the program.  As a result of their call, I began to look into the use of contemporary music among Independent Baptists.  For quite a few years now, a segment of Independent Baptist pastors and churches have been “modifying” contemporary worship music, attempting to use the music without the characteristic soft rock beats and rhythms.  Over the past few years, some have thrown off their inhibitions, so that we now have a group of men who do not conceal their whole-hearted embrace of contemporary worship music.   They don’t water it down.  They don’t deny it or downplay it.  They have in fact launched a campaign to correct what they see as the “unscriptural” view of worship held by so many stodgy Independent Baptists.
Though I find their position appalling, it at least has the advantage of being honest, which cannot be said for those who have watered-down contemporary music and pretended that their standards have not shifted.  These guys don’t hide their embrace of CCM.  I won’t hide my absolute disagreement with them.
The most important link I could provide is this video, where two such contemporary Independent Baptists provide us with the rationale for their embrace of contemporary worship music:
Here are seven brief observations, followed by a longer response.

Some Observations:

  1. These men represent a growing movement among Independent Baptists.
  2. They like to remind us that they are – actually that “we” are – Independent Baptists, with an emphasis on independent.
  3. They do not like the fact that some separate over music.
  4. They argue for the use of electric guitars, trap sets, and so forth on the basis that the instruments mentioned in the book of Psalms include Philistine guitars and various Egyptian instruments.
  5. Their main premise is that musical style is a preference, and thus a matter of indifference. They see no reason to study music theory.  Since the Bible says nothing about a particular musical style, we are free to choose for ourselves.
  6. They take the same approach to style in clothing and platform style as they do to musical style.
  7. They think worship is about stirring up their own passion for God, rather than about giving God what He wants.

Some Responses:

  1. The contemporary music push is the death rattle of a dying church.  This style of worship is not becoming more popular because we are becoming more faithful. In our attempt to pander to the audience, we have forgotten that God is the audience.  God now bores us.  The more dependent we become on this kind of external approach to worship, the more we lose the very heart of worship.  Eventually, Christians will find that they must have the contemporary kind of music or they cannot worship. Contemporary worship turns the audience into spectators and the music into a performance. It produces a low view of God, a delight in the experience of worship rather than the God we worship, a superficial sense of passion that loses the passion of true worship, a growing dependence on the experience produced by the music itself, and the false idea that worship is easy, that devotion can be whipped up in a couple of choruses.  True worship is challenging – it requires focus and diligence and depth, all things that CCM discourages.

  1. It is true that they are independent. Our objections to contemporary worship styles are not an attempt to deny these churches their autonomy.  They certainly can pursue whatever worship style they choose.  So can snake-handlers.  But autonomy as far as church government goes must not be confused with autonomy as far as God goes.  I would not deny these churches the right to act as independents.  Certainly, one church has no authority to dictate the way another church worships.  But God does.  His Word certainly does set standards for music and worship (Hebrews 12:28-29).  Independence does not mean we can do what we want.

  1. We are independent as well. As such, we have a responsibility to follow Scripture when it comes to fellowship and cooperation. We have a duty, in particular, to separate from those who walk disorderly.  Musical style indicates what a church thinks of God.  Scripturally, we cannot pretend to be in good fellowship with churches who have chosen relevance over reverence.  So, while we do not attempt to dictate the way another church should worship, we most certainly do have a God-given responsibility to determine the limits of our fellowship.  In a video dialogue between Pastor Josh Teis and Pastor Robert Bakss, author of Worship Wars, the argument is made that to separate over musical style is to place musical style on the same level as doctrines such as the Virgin birth, salvation by grace alone, and so forth.  This is a neat trick, a sleight of hand argument.  Having assumed that the worship debate is about style in worship rather than the very substance of worship, they proceed to minimize the significance of the issue.  But the debate is over the very nature of worship, and whether the contemporary style of music is appropriate for our approach to a holy God.  Is it appropriate to make worship about our style preference, or must we worship God in the beauty of holiness?  Worship is a major doctrine, and reducing God to the level of the common and profane is a serious slight against God.  And that is as serious as the doctrine of the Virgin birth.  We strongly urge faithful Independent Baptist Churches to use your liberty to honor God with dignity and reverence in worship, and to separate from those churches who turn what is holy into something profane.

  1. No doubt Israel brought a variety of musical instruments with them out of Egypt, and no doubt they collected some Philistine guitars along the way. It is one thing to play a Philistine guitar.  It is quite another to play that guitar like a Philistine.  Far too many contemporary performers play like Philistines.

  1. The claim that musical style is nothing more than a preference choice demonstrates just how relativistic these men have become. They have purposely ignored the study of music theory. They believe that we should only need to study the Bible to see what kind of style is required.  They remind us, somewhat condescendingly, that the Bible says nothing about syncopation or “beat anticipation.”  So saying, they purposely ignore the clear message musical style sends about the occasion of worship.  Their determined know-nothingness aside, style still informs us about the meaning of the occasion.  Movie producers understand this.  Most people know what music is appropriate for weddings, funerals, classy restaurants, backyard barbecues, military parades and basketball games.  These men believe we can drag any style into the worship service, slap some sacred lyrics onto it, and somehow “redeem it.”The Book of Psalms, one of the largest books of the Bible, gives us 150 examples of music for praising the Lord.  The dignity, reverence, majesty, and solemn joy that permeate the Psalms show us clearly what God wants from us (see for instance Psalm 66:2; 92:1-3; 95:1; 96:3-10).  In fact, a big part of our problem is that we stopped singing Psalms years ago, and therefore we don’t really understand the ways God wants to be praised and worshipped.  We have to import a lot of emotion and sensory experience into our music because we stopped praising God with His own words.

  1. Style is the meaning. The music, dress, and trendy look of the contemporary Independent Baptists tell us less about their view of style and so much more about their view of God.  The same can be said for most events.  The way we dress and the music we play tells more about the way we view the event than it does about the way we view style.  Sports teams don’t play classical music during breaks.  If a person wears wingtips and a suit to a basketball game, he tells us clearly what he thinks of the occasion.  When people show up at a wedding in shorts and sandals, they say what they think of the wedding itself, not just what they think of clothing style.  The clothing and platform style of these contemporary Independent Baptists displays a casual view of God.  When the pulpit is removed, the auditorium lights dimmed, stage lighting lights the platform, the pastor preaches in skinny jeans, and the electric guitar and trap set take center stage, these men clearly communicate what they believe worship to be about.  The prominent display of this contemporary style on their church websites tell us what they think church is and what they want everyone to know about their church.  This is what they advertise.  With the contemporary Independent Baptists, worship is trendy.  God is casual.

  1. Their view of worship is not all that unusual. In fact, they have taken the worship experience of most Independent Baptist Churches to its logical conclusion.  For years now, we have designed our services around the worshipper rather than the one worshipped.  We sing more about our own experiences and feelings for God than we do about God.  We preach to stir the audience rather than to declare the whole counsel of God.  We sing “In the Garden” like we are having a tryst with God, and we are too busy touching emotional chords to really sing to the Lord.  Contrary to Teis and Bakss, worship is about God, not about feeding my passion for God.  When we make our music about giving God the praise and honor that is due to His name, worshipping Him with solemn joy and delighting in Him personally, then we don’t need to import superficial excitement into the song service.

Some final thoughts

Style in worship reflects our view of God and shapes our view of God.  The contemporary style of music pulls God down to our level and makes Him one of us.  If our music presents a true picture of God, there will be a transcendent quality to it, a majesty and glory that proclaim to a watching world the glory of our God.
Some have attempted to boil the issue down to a conflict between the “traditional” and the “contemporary.”  Some are conservative, others more progressive.  But these labels misidentify the true conflict.  The real conflict is for the heart of worship.  That conflict will be settled when we stop playing for the audience in front of us.  And we will stop playing for the audience in front of us when we remember Who the real audience is – because God Almighty is our true audience.

Links and Demos

For a sampling of Independent Baptist Churches watering down the CCM, watch the music at https://summit.northeastvision.org/summit-live.html
Also, view this cantata:

For examples of Independent Baptist Churches who have fully embraced contemporary worship, here are three such churches:
Also, these videos provide more examples:

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE: MICHAEL W. SMITH LEADS CONCERT THAT HE PROPHESIED “WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT GREAT AWAKENING” BASED ON UNBIBLICAL DREAMS AND VISIONS

"SURROUNDED" BY 
"PROFESSING CHRISTIANS" 
OF WHOM CHRIST WILL SAY 
"I NEVER KNEW YOU"


MICHAEL W. SMITH LEADS CONCERT THAT “WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT GREAT AWAKENING” 
(FridayChurch News Notes, September 7, 2018www.wayoflife.org,fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Michael W. Smith, one of the most influential contemporary Christian musicians, led a concert last week in Nashville that he believes “will be the beginning of the next great awakening through the US. and the world” (“Singer to Fulfill Prophecy over Nashville,” The Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2018). The concert, called “Surrounded: A Night to Pray, Worship and Be Awakened,” was held in partnership with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network), which has spewed out heresy and worldliness since its founding by Paul Crouch in 1973. 
Smith claims that the concert is the result of “dreams and visions.” 
One of the major goals is to break down “all denominational lines,” which is the reason that Contemporary Christian Music is one of the chief elements in the building of the apostate “one world church.” 
It is impossible to obey God’s Word and at the same time strive for Christian unity in an hour when the vast, vast majority of churches are either totally apostate or deeply compromised with the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is impossible to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints, which is a command of God, and at the same time to strive for ecumenical unity. Michael W. Smith and his compatriots are deeply confused, tragically deceived people. The bottom line is that Contemporary Christian Music is just rock & roll, and there is nothing spiritual about it. 

ARETHA FRANKLIN'S "CHRISTIANITY" WAS ECUMENICAL, WORLDLY, SENSUAL

Aretha Franklin's Hometown Church Holds Vigil for the Soul ...

Ariana Grande Performs at Aretha Franklin’s Funeral, With Bill Clinton 

"Impressed"

The stars have come out to say goodbye to the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, at her funeral in Detroit’s Greater Grace Temple. Among the moving tributes were songs performed by Smokey Robinson, Faith Hill and “American Idol” winner Fantasia Barrino, while Ariana Grande belted out the Franklin classic, “A Natural Woman.” Franklin, who passed away from pancreatic cancer at age 76, was laid to rest in a sparkling gold gown with matching shoes.
ARETHA FRANKLIN'S "CHRISTIANITY"
(Friday Church News Notes, September 7, 2018, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Aretha Franklin’s death and funeral have been the focus of news reports worldwide over the past three weeks. In my teen years I was captivated by her incredibly sensual hit songs, such as “Respect,” which took the airwaves by storm in 1967, the year I graduated from high school. Known as the “Queen of Soul,” she was eulogized as “a musical titan, an American icon, a legend.” The tributes at her funeral in the Greater Grace Temple of Detroit stretched on for eight hours. In attendance were former presidents, prominent pastors, civil rights leaders, entertainment stars, and sports heroes. 
It was a fitting celebration for a singer who so perfectly represented the spiritual character of America and its churches. She stood for syncretism and ecumenism: the merging of Christ and the world, the blending of spirituality and sensuality, the amalgamation of holy and sexy, the yoking of sacred and secular, the integration of the church with the filthy pop culture, the friendship of truth with error. Her funeral exuded this spirit even in the choice of songs, from the sacred “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” to the worldly “You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman.” In reality, this mixture philosophy is confusion and wickedness and heresy. It is the Christianity that America loves (whether it goes by the name of Baptist or evangelical or charismatic or emerging or whatever), but it is no kind of true Christianity. It is the Christianity of end-time apostasy, of the one-world “church.” 
The Lord Jesus Christ taught that “no man can serve two masters” and “ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). It is impossible. It is a lie. Any “christ” who commends such a thing is a false christ. Any preacher who preaches such a thing is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Bible commands separation from the world, the flesh, and the devil (Galatians 5:17; Ephesians 5:11; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17). It forbids the yoking together of believers with unbelievers, the fellowship of righteousness with unrighteousness, the communion of light with darkness, the concord of Christ with Belial (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). Aretha was the daughter of a Baptist pastor who used his God-given talent (known as the man with “the million dollar voice”) to serve mammon and destroyed his marriage by infidelities. She was at the forefront of breaking down biblical barriers between Christ and the world, and the entire field of Contemporary Christian Music has exactly the same philosophy. Her producer, Jerry Wexler, said Aretha’s song “Spirit in the Dark” was a “perfect R&B blend of the sacred and the secular. It’s Aretha conducting church right in the middle of a smoky nightclub. It’s everything to everyone.” But this is impossible. There is no “church” in the middle of a nightclub unless that “church” calls the nightclub to repentance, but Aretha and her music called no one to repentance. Christ is a friend of sinners, but Christ called men to repentance from sin in the sharpest language. He said, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” and He repeated it for emphasis (Luke 13:3, 5). He warned men of eternal hellfire, and He repeated that, too, for emphasis (Mark 9:43-48). That kind of preaching would put a quick end to any worldly party, but that is the true Christ of Scripture. He is the Friend of Sinners, but He is also “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Hebrews 7:26). He is the Saviour, but He is also the Judge. He is the Lamb of God who came to atone for man’s sin (John 1:29), but He is also the Lamb who will pour out “the wine of the wrath of God upon the impenitent (Revelation 6:16; 14:10). This is not the message that America hears from the vast majority of its “reverends” today, but they are no reverends at all. Reverend means holy, and they know nothing of holiness. They are the blind leading the blind, and all will fall into the ditch of eternal destruction. God says to the Aretha Franklin crowd, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).
________________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MAGA RALLY IN BILLINGS, MONTANA

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MAGA RALLY 
IN BILLINGS, MONTANA 

BOYCOTT: LEVI’S JEANS CO. DECLARES WAR ON SECOND AMENDMENT

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN 

WITHOUT WEARING THESE;

USE THEM FOR TARGET PRACTICE

“For one, plenty of other brands–less expensive brands, I might add–make pretty good jeans that fit me fine."

BOYCOTT:

LeviĆ¢€™s Jeans Co. Declares War on Second Amendment

Levi Strauss & Co. president and CEO Chip Bergh speaks during the Fortune Global Forum on November 3, 2015 in San Francisco. Bergh says business leaders need to take action on gun violence to help prevent more tragedies like Parkland.
 
Justin Sullivan—Getty Images



Levi Strauss & Co. president and CEO Chip Bergh speaks during the Fortune Global Forum on November 3, 2015 in San Francisco. Bergh says business leaders need to take action on gun violence to help prevent more tragedies like Parkland.

LEVI’S JEANS CO. DECLARES WAR 

ON SECOND AMENDMENT

American jeans manufacturer announces 

gun control initiatives

BY ADAN SALAZAR
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/levis-jeans-co-declares-war-on-second-amendment/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Blue jeans manufacturer Levi’s Strauss & Co., a symbol of rugged individualism for many Americans, announced this week it’s taking a stance against the Second Amendment.
The company revealed Tuesday it’ll be teaming up with notorious anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg to form a new gun control alliance for business leaders, as well as donate to groups working to “end gun violence in America.”
In a statement released on the company’s website, Levi’s revealed they will give $1 million in grants to various gun control groups, in addition to encouraging employees to volunteer at anti-gun non-profits.
“We are inspired by the young people who are speaking up on America’s gun violence epidemic,” the company wrote.
The attitude was echoed in a Fortune editorial penned by the company’s CEO Chip Bergh, who in 2016 banned guns from Levi’s stores after a customer shot himself while trying on a pair of jeans.
While acknowledging the company is “known the world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the great symbols of American freedom,” Bergh goes on to say Levi’s cannot sit idly by “on issues that threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work.”
“While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing is no longer an option,” Bergh said, adding, “That’s why Levi Strauss & Co. is stepping up our support for gun violence prevention.”
“You may wonder why a company that doesn’t manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it’s simple. Americans shouldn’t have to live in fear of gun violence.”
Furthermore, the company made known it will match funds for employees who donate to organizations which support similar gun control measures, including Live Free, Gabby Giffords’ Courage to Fight Gun Violence group, and Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety.
While Bergh says he’s not calling to “repeal the Second Amendment,” a member of one of Michael Bloomberg’s previous anti-gun organizations exposed the group’s ultimate goal was an all-out gun ban.
In 2014, former Poughkeepsie Mayor John C. Tkazyik wrote in an op-ed he was leaving Bloomberg’s now-defunct Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) group after discovering its gun confiscation agenda.
“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik revealed.
Writing at BearingArms.com, Tom Knighton, an admitted lifelong Levi’s jeans wearer, maintained he’d no longer support the company.
“And just like that, I’ll never own another stitch of Levi Strauss clothing again in my life,” Knighton stated.
“For one, plenty of other brands–less expensive brands, I might add–make pretty good jeans that fit me fine. Further, those brands aren’t working to take away one of my most basic rights as a human being,” Knighton wrote.
“So yeah, the brand is dead to me.”
_______________________________________________________________
2016: 

Levi's CEO Asks Shoppers To Leave Their Guns 

At Home

Levi Strauss & Co jeans company CEO Chip Bergh, published an open letter on LinkedIn on Wednesday, asking customers to not bring their firearms into its stores. The letter explained that doing so could make employees and other shoppers uncomfortable. Bergh said he respects the gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, however he says "It boils down to this: you shouldn't have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don't belong in either of those settings".
_____________________________________________________________

Levi Strauss to Spend Over $1 Million in Support of Increasing Gun Control

A recent political statement made by the CEO of Levi Strauss is likely to see the denim company torn apart just like the pair of jeans on the company’s iconic label.
Chip Bergh, the San Francisco-based company’s chief executive, announced the creation of the Safer Tomorrow Fund, an initiative aimed at “working to end gun violence in America."
“You may wonder why a company that doesn’t manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it’s simple. Americans shouldn’t have to live in fear of gun violence. It’s an issue that affects all of us — all generations and all walks of life,” Bergh wrote in an op-ed published by Forbes.
Bergh concedes that taking a stance on such a socially divisive issue will drive some customers to purchase his competitors’ products. He believes advocacy of gun control is worth the potential loss in revenue. In his article, Bergh justified his move to financially assist the disarming of Americans:
As president and CEO of a values-driven company that’s known the world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the great symbols of American freedom, I take the responsibility of speaking up on the important issues of our day very seriously. We can’t take on every issue. But as business leaders with power in the public and political arenas, we simply cannot stand by silently when it comes to the issues that threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work. While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing is no longer an option.
Including the Safer Tomorrow Fund, Bergh announced a total of three programs the 165-year-old company will develop to achieve its goal of eliminating the right to keep and bear arms. The following description of the planks of the platform was provided by Bergh on a website devoted to the cause.
First, the aforementioned Safer Tomorrow Fund. This effort will direct the spending of “more than $1 million in philanthropic grants from LS&Co. over the next four years to fuel the work of nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence in America.”
Next, there’s the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety. This part of the plan includes a partnership with Everytown for Gun Safety, as well as several high-profile business leaders, including Michael Bloomberg. Bergh writes that this claque of gun grabbers “believe that business has a critical role to play and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country.”
Did you get that? Levi Strauss and Co. insists that disarming Americans is a “moral obligation.”
The third head of this monster is called “Employee Support.”
“We are doubling our usual employee donation match to organizations aligned with our Safer Tomorrow Fund,” Bergh explains. “Additionally, we’re encouraging employees to utilize their five hours a month in paid volunteer time to get more politically active.”
Levi Strauss will now “encourage” their employees to spend their time off volunteering for those organizations active in the grassroots effort to eliminate armed violence by eliminating the only inert element in the commission of such an act: the gun!
Despite spending millions of his customers’ dollars and hundreds of his employees’ hours, Bergh insists he’s not here “to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment.” In fact, Bergh boasts, he’s a “former U.S. Army officer” and as such he took an oath to support the Constitution. 
That said, he adds, he agrees with the statement made by retired four-star general Michael Hayden: “There are some weapons out there that frankly nobody should have access to. And actually, there are some people out there who should never have access to any weapons.”
So either Bergh’s definition of “oath” and mine are very different, or he doesn’t understand the plain language of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
In case Bergh is unfamiliar with the now uncommon ultimate word in that famous sentence, here’s the definition provided by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
“Infringe [in-frinj] verb: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.”
And, just in case, here’s the definition of “encroach:” “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.”
So the Second Amendment — which Chris Bergh insists he doesn’t want repealed and has sworn an oath to protect — forbids the taking of gradual steps toward violating the rights of another person. 
But that is exactly what Bergh and the clothing company he heads is spending the money it makes from customers to accomplish in America.
Finally, Bergh claims that with regard to his company’s drive to disarm Americans, “History will prove this position right.”
Let's be blunt: No history won't show that!
First, there isn't evidence that gun-control laws reduce violent crimes or murders: Countries with very strict gun-control laws such as Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa have murder rates vastly greater than the United States, and in the United States, cities with the most onerous gun-control laws have the greatest ratios of murder per one hundred thousand people in the country. Meanwhile, in U.S. prisons, where criminals are under lock and key and video surveillance, murder rates are greater than in countries in Europe. On the other hand, in parts of the United States with lenient gun laws, homicide rates are comparable with the European countries always lauded as gun-control successes by liberals.
Violent crime is largely a creature of culture: When the U.S. government welfare system gave more money to unwed mothers than wed ones, the result was fatherless families and youth in gangs. High criminality and murders were the result.
In fact, in states around the country where residents have been allowed to defend themselves by carrying concealed weapons, crime has dropped, not risen.
Second, even (honest) left-wing researchers found that gun-control was ineffective, as we noted in our article "Getting Rid of Guns":
Both the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control — anti-gun groups — set out to find the most useful gun-control measures by scrutinizing the world’s gun-control laws. Both came to the same conclusion: Not one gun-control measure in the world actually reduced violent crime and murders. None. The New York Post had this to say about the report by the Academy of Sciences: It issued a 328-page report entitled Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review on gun-control laws in December 2004, “based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work [and] the panel couldn’t identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.”
Here's a short historical observation from one of our own forgotten Founding Fathers, St. George Tucker, that Bergh should read before he calls history as a witness of his anti-gun agenda: “Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

MAN CAUGHT PAYING OFF KAVANAUGH PROTESTERS WORKS FOR SOROS-FUNDED ORGANIZATION

Man Caught Paying Off Kavanaugh Protesters Works For Soros-Funded Organization

MAN CAUGHT PAYING OFF KAVANAUGH PROTESTERS WORKS FOR SOROS-FUNDED ORGANIZATION

Bombshell proof of foreign meddling 

in American politics

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/man-caught-paying-off-kavanaugh-protesters-works-for-soros-funded-organization/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The man who was caught on camera paying off protesters who disrupted the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings has been identified as working for a Soros-funded organization.
As we reported yesterday, three doctors said they personally witnessed protesters being paid off before the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
“One thing was there were people who had come along… who had a bag of money, and people would hand them a piece of paper, and then they would give them money. So we know money was exchanged for some of the people to be here, just to protest,” said Dr. Tom Schlueter.
One of the women caught on camera being paid off was later seen being ejected from the hearings after demonstrators caused a disruption.
null
It has now emerged that the man seen paying off the woman works for a left-wing activist organization funded by billionaire globalist George Soros.
“The man handing money to the Kavanaugh hearing protester is Vinay Krishnan. Consultant/organizer at Center for Popular Democracy,” tweeted Nick Monroe.
Krishnan’s bio lists him as a “social justice attorney”. The Center for Popular Democracy “receives the bulk of its funding from George Soros” and back in May last year announced that they were setting up an “$80 million anti-Trump network that will span 32 states and have 48 local partners.”
null
After he was identified, Krishnan locked down his Twitter profile.
null
While the media obsesses about non-existent Russian interference in the American political system, this represents solid proof of a foreign actor meddling in America’s political system by bankrolling fake astroturf protests designed to sow discord and create division.
Will the media cover this massive story?
null
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: 
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.