NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


Coming Soon









By William Owens, Jr.
December 13, 2014

I'm absolutely aghast at the “gibberish” espoused and written today by this nation’s community of thinkers, writers and leaders.

Before I proceed, let me define the word “gibberish,” so we will be on the same dictionary page.

“Gibberish” is a concert of thoughts expressed through words that attempts to identify the problem, and offer an opinion that's typically based on a faulty premise or even good logical idea. “Gibberish” conclusions lacks any foundational basis that identifies the real origin of the issue. Those babbling “gibberish as pundits over TV and radio talk shows and scribbling “gibberish” in newspaper columns and blogs are incapable of presenting a solution that touches both the practical and the spiritual, which is part of the human experience.

This is not about being smart, a good writer, a profound thinker or even someone with a gift for connecting the dots regarding what is happening in our communities, our nation and the world. There are many “good” angles that still can amount to nothing more than “gibberish.” To be fair, a wealth of information is needed in order to formulate a coherent dialogue that can help us move toward resolving the many areas in which our world is in crisis. Thus, I am not classifying these insights in and of themselves as “gibberish.” However, when the same idealism is consistently repeated, eventually it will turn into . . . you guessed it . . . “gibberish.”

Let’s begin expanding on “gibberish” with the Constitution of the United States. While much of what we see and hear and read unfolding, undulating and unraveling in the United States is in direct conflict and even in violation of the principles on which this country was founded, we quickly turn to the Constitution to review that foundation. There’s only one problem. This country was not founded upon the Constitution. It was founded upon the Biblical foundation from “which” the Constitution was derived. There was no Constitution when the pilgrims arrived in their quest to freely worship God, there was just a Holy God of the Holy Bible.

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who writes extensively on the Constitution. Writing in her June 23, 2012 “The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution” article, Huldah asserts: “The Constitution we subsequently ratified was based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible.”

Therefore when we seek to argue against an act that is stipulated in the Constitution, we first and foremost argue against God. It’s little wonder that we lack the power to resist the current acts against our Constitution. All claims against the Constitution then become “gibberish” when we identify these acts to be against the Constitution, but not against God, from “whom” that document was derived.

Those promoting the homosexual agenda want to redefine heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. There is really no need to argue that issue because it is absolutely preposterous. Need I ask “why” when some things can be resolved by simple anatomy? Let me ask and answer anyway as a means of explaining my basic point.

One side argues that people should be treated equally or fairly and that each person is entitled to the “adult” life-style they choose. The other side argues that same-sex marriage is a detriment to society and that God did not create human beings to share sexual acts between members of the same gender. It is clearly condemned in the Holy Bible and deemed as an abomination by Holy God before a Holy God.

When does the discussion about this hotly-contested issue become “gibberish?” Will either side stop dealing with this issue and should they? No, of course not. That's not my point.

Any form of communication become “gibberish” to the other side when it is no longer relevant, heard or received. Those on one side of the argument have committed themselves to the lifestyle of homosexuality or they strongly support those who have done so. Their agenda will not change. They cannot, don't know how to, and do not want to change it. Likewise, those who hold to the position of biblical definition of marriage must remain steadfast in defending the biblical standard. Conscience and a call to stand for truth when that truth is being brought into question require it.Nonetheless, they mustn't allow this to become the Gospel in and of itself. Christians are told to speak the truth in love. Though we continue in defend the faith, if that is our mandate, we must be sure to avoid “gibberish” by expanding our reach to new frontiers and new people, and to incorporate relevant discussion that proves not only to be the truth, but also to be effective.

Consider Constitutional revisionism and traditional marital redefining as two examples and use them as a guide to reflect upon four other issues that attract an excessive amount of “gibberish,” such as:

Our tax structure
The economy

My point involves the Christian worldview.

As a Christian, my world view is literally from another world!

When Pontius Pilate attempted to have a conversation with Jesus, he made the mistake of assuming that he had the power to have Jesus crucified or to set Him free. Jesus answered him with one statement of truth that reaches into every sector of life, of politics, of relationships, into every family, every business deal, every nation, every law, and . . . well, everything

John 19:10, 11 KJV
[10] Then saith Pilate unto him, speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
[11] Jesus answered, Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

A Christian worldview puts everything into perspective and takes into perspective the times in which we are living. Even Jesus made clear that some of these things must come to pass before the end will come, and he admonished us to not be afraid, but to know that our redemption is near. In fact, He even said that we would be brought before the courts and some would even die! This is literally happening today in parts of our world on a regular basis.

Those who are without Christ, who uttered the words “what is truth,” are literally without the Kingdom of Heaven, by which this world abides. As Christ recognized that this world was not of His Kingdom, as Christians, we must realize this and avoid the pitfalls of gibberish. Jesus did so with Pilate and we should follow His example.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

John 18:38 King James Version
[38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Jesus didn't even answer Pilate. He was silent because he knew that Pilate was looking at the Truth standing directly in front of Him and did not recognize Him. Let us also know when to avoid the “gibberish” and recognize that Truth will not come with many words. It will only come to those who have been chosen.

So when you hear the “gibberish” that so permeates our world today, know when to speak and when to simply be quiet. Silence can be deafening when it matters most.

William Owens is the Author of: Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts

� 2014 William Owens, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


William Owens is a prolific author, having written seven books in the Christian literature genre, including Divine Protocol, Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts, and Warriors Arise. He most recent work; Naked Before God - Words that Express My Heart is a compilation of his poetry that debuts Christmas 2014. Owens has spent two decades in the publishing industry and is also a noted activist within the Christian and Conservative communities. His current project is Race to Reconcile, a coast-to-coast bike trek in the Spring of 2015. The journey, which will include stops at orphanages, veterans’ homes, soup kitchens and prisons, is designed to inspire acts of forgiveness that will lead to reconciliation to God and one another regardless of color, religion, political affiliation and other differences. Owens’ new book, entitled Race to Reconcile: A Christian Approach to Strengthening Race Relations in America, will debut at the same time and will feature stories and experiences continuing the message of forgiveness and reconciliation. He is also launching a series of panel discussions throughout the nation called, “Celebration Forgiveness”.





When does the discussion about this hotly-contested issue become “gibberish?” Will either side stop dealing with this issue and should they? No, of course not. That's not my point.