Does Robbie Parker, father of Newtown, Connecticut victim Emilie have a connection to the Illuminati? Is he a paid actor for a false flag CIA operation?

· Illuminati, Popular culture

The above picture is being circulated around the Internet. There are three main issues that the picture brings up for conspiracy theorists. I am not sure who the original author is of the conspiracy, or who did the collage in the first place, but I will be glad to give you credit if you notify me.




Anyway, the first issue that has been raised about this picture is: Why are the children smiling when the tragedy has already occurred? My answer to this is that they have not fully internalized the horror (thank goodness) of the tragedy yet because they are so young. They are probably excited to see President Obama, because how often do little children get to meet the President of the United States? He is smiling, too, because he probably wants to relieve tension and not frighten the children. They are probably picking up on his vibe of trying to be happy and positive.




The second issue is it appears that Emilie is one of the little girls in the picture. But this cannot be, as she is one of the victims of the mass shooting. Little blonde girls often look a lot alike, and it is possible that it is Emilie’s sister, or perhaps another girl altogether, who is in the picture.




The third, and most important, issue is: Why is Robbie Parker smiling and joking with photographers and journalists seconds before he gives his talk to the press? This would be the most serious, and the issue that would give conspiracy theorists the most pause. Could there be a possible connection between Robbie Parker and the Illuminati? I really don’t think so. I know the Illuminati is supposed to be controlling the United States government, and while that may be possible, I do not think this Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting is a false flag operation run by the CIA. And I don’t think Robbie Parker is an actor who is pretending that his daughter died. I am sure there are people who know him in the community, and who knew Emilie. He seems, as I stated in an earlier blog, found at and entitled Father of Newtown, Connecticut victim Emilie, Robbie Parker: A great example of a Mormon, to be an ideal example of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He wants forgiveness for the shooter. If he were an actor for the CIA, I do not think he would be suggesting forgiveness. Instead, he would be trying to inflame the American people into becoming as angry as possible so that they would agree, even possibly demand, that the government enforce stricter gun laws. Isn’t that the whole point of the gun control conspiracy theory? That the government wants to disarm the American population so that it can’t fight back when the government (finally) decides to impose the tyranny of martial law on the nation? I think Robbie Parker is what he appears to be, a simple, extremely loving and spiritual, young man who has a deep relationship with God, and the fruits of that love are shown in his incredibly forgiving attitude toward the shooter, Adam Lanza.




I’m not sure what the original conspiracy theorist regarding this collage of pictures was thinking. Why would the Parker family be pretending that Emilie was a victim, when she wasn’t? If you are trying to solve a riddle, the easiest explanation is probably the one that is real. It makes far more sense that that is Emilie’s sister. I’m not sure if the dresses are the same or not, but they do not look identical to me. I’d have to see them fully before making that decision. I think Robbie Parker is someone to be celebrated for his spirituality, not suspected of having connections to people who wish to do harm. What do you think? 



Comments RSS
    • admin

      That’s very interesting about the devil sign. I hadn’t realized that’s what the sign is. But it’s hard for me to believe that the Parker family worships the devil. They are Mormons, right? Although one thing is clear. Since the article discusses the grandfather, etc., it’s obviously not a made-up family like some conspiracy theorists are saying.

      • Subtext

        First thing I thought of was ‘oh Texas Longhorns’; it’s not a devil sign.

        • admin

          Thanks for mentioning that! I didn’t think it was a devil sign, and now I’m even more convinced. It’s vile what some people dream up! The family seems wonderful.

          • Tani

            in which classroom Emilie was???

            Soto and her aide, Mary Ann Murphy, were killed there, as were six students. Six other children escaped because, police believe, Lanza stopped firing briefly either because his gun jammed or he had trouble reloading his gun. Seven other students survived because Soto hid them in a closet.

            The class photo from Victoria Soto’s class does not line up with these numbers. [link to]

            First, 6 killed, 6 escaped, and 7 hidden adds up to 19 kids, and there are only 15 students in the class photo. Were four kids really absent the day they took their photo?

            Second, the Courant says that 14 kids died in the first classroom and 6 kids died in the second, but the photo only identifies 5 children who died. It is possible that at least one child was absent. Victoria’s friend reportedly posted on facebook that Victoria had 16 students. [link to]

            P.S. This is the class photo from the other class [link to]

            As much as I hate to feed the Emilie Parker conpsiracy tards, she’s the one who’s missing from either photo. Robbie Parker apparently told the Daily Mail that she was in Lauren Rousseau’s class but was absent that day, but that doesn’t make sense if 14 children died in that classroom. All 14 of those children are accounted for in their class photo.

          • Tani

            in which classroom Emilie was?
            Updated: 12/14/2012 10:17 pm | Published: 12/14/2012 9:38 pm
            Reported by: Cristina Rendon

            Ogden girl killed in Connecticut school massacre
            OGDEN, Utah (ABC4 News) – Love and prayers are pouring in for Emilie Parker, an Ogden native who was killed in the Newtown, CT school massacre.

            The 5-year-old was born in Ogden to parents Robbie and Alissa Parker. Emilie has two younger sisters.

            Brad Schultz, a close family friend, said the Parker family moved to Connecticut last year. Emilie’s father is a physician’s assistant and found work in the Newtown area.

            Emilie, a kindergartener, was one of 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary Friday.

  1. Pip


    The Puritans’ “Christian” Agenda?

    One of the opinions most persistently and widely held among American evangelicals today is that America had essentially Christian origins. They rest heavily on an appeal to the Puritan heritage as the most influential Reformation tradition shaping American culture. If it were shown that the Puritans who settled America did not establish truly Christian cultural principles that were in some important ways perpetuated, then a strong suspicion might be raised that the entire case for a now-lost Christian America rests on rather nebulous foundations. (See: The Search for Christian America, p. 28.)
    The fact is, the Puritans were the forerunners of today’s Kingdom/Dominion/Reconstructionist teaching. The Puritans believed that they were carrying to America true Christianity as decreed by God, especially as written in the Old Testament. They believed too that they were on a divine mission to America, a place specially appointed by God to be the “New Israel,” a theocratic “city upon a hill.”

    John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts Bay, assumed that he could transfer the principles of nationhood found in ancient Israel to the Massachusetts Bay Company with no need for explanation. This led the Puritans to interpret Scripture in an ultimately pretentious way that gave their own state and society the exalted status of a New Israel. Old Testament law was directly, if not exclusively, incorporated into the legal systems of New England. The Massachusetts “Body of Liberties” of 1641 stated that “if any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.” Death was also prescribed for witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, homosexuality, adultery, and kidnapping. Old Testament texts were copied directly into the New England law books. The most notorious cases of major miscarriage of justice in New England were the Salem witchcraft executions. (See: The Search for Christian America, pp. 34-35.)

    The Puritans viewed themselves as God’s special people, replacing national Israel. Nowhere do the dangers of this assumption become clearer than in the Puritans’ treatment of the native Americans. Since the Puritans considered themselves God’s chosen people, they concluded that they had the right to take the land from the heathen Indians. The American Indians were the “new Canaanites” in America’s “Promised Land.” The fruit of Puritan theology was brutal. They saw their mission as convert these “Canaanites” to Christianity; failing that, it was acceptable to slaughter them in the name of Christ.
    For example, the Puritan massacres of the Pequot Indian tribe on May 26, 1637, and again on July 14, 1637, were deemed by the Puritans to be directed by God — Captain John Mason declared, “God laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven … Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies” (Segal and Stinenback, Puritans, Indians, and Manifest Destiny, pp. 111-112, 134-135). Converting the pagans for God was acceptable to the Puritans, but killing the pagans for the Lord was also acceptable!

    Defenders of the Puritans claim that it was the hostility of the Pequots that led to their unfortunate demise. But the Pequots were one of the most tranquil tribes in New England. History reveals that their “hostility” did not manifest itself until they were hunted like animals. For argument sake, let’s say that the Pequots were the instigators of hostilities, virtual savages if you will (which they were not). Does this justify hunting them down, slaughtering the men, women, and children in their sleep, and then doing it again six weeks later to finish the job!? (Not exactly “battlefield” victories!) Moreover, the Puritans claimed it was in obedience to God that these pagans were slaughtered!
    Here the reasoning of the Puritans defies logic and a sense of common decency, let alone Christian principles. Captain John Underhill also wrote of the Pequot slaughter:

    “Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents … We have sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings.”

    What an incredible testimony for one claiming to be a Christian!

    There is a book titled NEW ENGLAND FRONTIER: Puritans and Indians 1620-1675 by Alden T. Vaughan. It was originally published in 1965 (Little Brown & Company, Boston/Toronto), and revised as recently as 1995. Vaughan, an admitted friend of the Puritan colony, makes a well documented case for the efforts of the Pilgrims (Separatists) and early Puritans to win the Indians to Christ. The book contains three chapters detailing the Puritans successful missionary endeavors during those early years. For example, the first Bible printed in the Western world was the Indian Algonquin Scripture. Harvard University (1636) was founded not only to train whites to become ministers of the Gospel, but there was also for a time a training program for young Indian men to minister to their people. At least six Boston area communities, thriving today, were started by Christian Indians. The famous island, Martha’s Vineyard, once was the site of Indian Christian congregations through the missionary endeavors of the Mayhew family. Dartmouth University had its beginning through the efforts of a Connecticut Puritan to train Indian young men to preach the Gospel.

    But Vaughan’s book also reveals just how brutal the Puritans were in their dealings with the Indians — specifically, Chapter V, “The Pequot War, 1637.” What is amazing about the account in this chapter is the frankness with which the author recounts the events and the Puritans part in them. The carnage and the Puritan justification for participation therein is quite revealing — self-defense is one thing, but outright purposeful slaughter is, to say the least, questionable Christian behavior (from 1965 edition):

    (1) pp. 127-128 — The so-called Christian response of “merciless revenge” was carried out “vigorously” by Captain John Endicott — “Dissatisfied by the paucity of Indian casualties, the English soldiers heartlessly ‘destroyed some of their dogs instead of men.'”;

    (2) pp. 132, 141 — The Puritans demanded and accepted, as signs of loyalty and sincerity from allied Indian tribes, the body parts of their common enemies (see also p. 142, where the Puritans viewed these indications of loyalty as a sign from God and an answer to prayer);

    (3) p. 143 — When embarking on an expedition of Indian hunting, the Puritans entreated the Lord to direct them in their pillage and slaughter;

    (4) p. 136 — Concerning the Indians, the Puritans viewed themselves as the enforcers of “law and order” due to their view of themselves as God’s “New World Zion,” a reconstructionist view of history, to say the least (see also p. 138, where the Indians are viewed as “Satan’s horde,” thus justifying their slaughter);

    (5) p. 141 — The Puritans were not content to merely kill their perceived enemies; they saw fit to murder and savagely mutilate them — they literally “tore him [a captured Pequot] limb from limb. Captain Underhill ended the victim’s agony with a pistol shot. The body was then roasted and eaten by the Mohegans.”;

    (6) pp. 144-145 — In one of the Pequot massaquers of 1637, not only was the Indian village set on fire, those men, women, and children not fortunate enough to be burned to death were gunned down as they tried to escape the flames. Captain Mason “gave full credit to God” for the slaughter, while Captain Underhill claimed the Pequots had sinned against God and man, and thus, “We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings”!

    (7) p. 148 — Not content to take prisoners, the Puritans “exterminate[d] the remnant”; those they were unable to capture themselves, they delegated the killing to civilians, requiring the heads of the targeted Indians as evidence of their deaths (see also p. 149);

    (8) p. 150 — Pequots not slaughtered were taken captive and sold into slavery to friendly Indian tribes.
    Some teach that one cannot know the motives of the Puritans nor judge their hearts. But the Puritan’s own words and actions are devastating to their claims of practicing Biblical Christianity. This we can judge (John 7:24). The Bible is clear that one’s actions are an indication of heart condition. It is difficult to imagine what could be going on in the hearts of a professing Christian people that would drive them to murder other human beings, and then claim that God directed them to do it!

    The actions of the Puritans toward the Indians are an excellent indication of how reconstructionist eschatology will lead one into ungodly behavior — one’s eschatology will always affect one’s worldview. The Puritans misguided view of God’s calling for them led them into a worldview alien to that of the apostle Paul’s — i.e., to be sojourners and peacemakers.

    The Myth of Thanksgiving

    Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists–and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.

    In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.

    The Puritans landed and built their colony called “the Plymouth Plantation” near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived–he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists’ language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.

    These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.

    John Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, “But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection.”

    The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the Puritans to survive their first year.
    In celebration of their good fortune, the colony’s governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.

    How the Puritans Stole the Land

    But the peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have 15 years to establish a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 Puritans in New England, scattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth: Boston and Salem. For 10 years, boatloads of new settlers came.

    And as the number of Europeans increased, they proved not nearly so generous as the Wampanoags.

    On arrival, the Puritans discussed “who legally owns all this land.” They had to decide this, not just because of Anglo-Saxon traditions, but because their particular way of farming was based on individual–not communal or tribal–ownership. This debate over land ownership reveals that bourgeois “rule of law” does not mean “protect the rights of the masses of people.”

    Some Puritans argued that the land belonged to the Indians. These forces were excommunicated and expelled. Massachusetts Governor Winthrop declared the Indians had not “subdued” the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered “public domain.” This meant they belonged to the king. In short, the colonists decided they did not need to consult the Indians when they seized new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).

    The Puritans embraced a line from Psalms 2:8. “Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Since then, European settler states have similarly declared god their real estate agent: from the Boers seizing South Africa to the Zionists seizing Palestine.

    The European immigrants took land and enslaved Indians to help them farm it. By 1637 there were about 2,000 British settlers. They pushed out from the coast and decided to remove the inhabitants.

    The Birth of “The American Way of War”

    In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits–land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused.
    The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: “Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy’s will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective.”

    The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire.
    William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
    Mason himself wrote: “It may be demanded…Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But…sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents…. We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings.”
    Three hundred and fifty years later the Puritan phrase “a shining city on the hill” became a favorite quote of Ronald Reagan’s speechwriters.
    Discovering the

    Profits of Slavery

    This so-called “Pequot war” was a one-sided murder and slaving expedition. Over 180 captives were taken. After consulting the bible again, in Leviticus 24:44, the colonial authorities found justification to kill most of the Pequot men and enslave the captured women and their children. Only 500 Pequot remained alive and free. In 1975 the official number of Pequot living in Connecticut was 21.

    Some of the war captives were given to the Narragansett and Massachusetts allies of the British. Even before the arrival of Europeans, Native peoples of North America had widely practiced taking war captives from other tribes as hostages and slaves.
    The remaining captives were sold to British plantation colonies in the West Indies to be worked to death in a new form of slavery that served the emerging capitalist world market. And with that, the merchants of Boston made a historic discovery: the profits they made from the sale of human beings virtually paid for the cost of seizing them.
    One account says that enslaving Indians quickly became a “mania with speculators.” These early merchant capitalists of Massachusetts started to make genocide pay for itself. The slave trade, first in captured Indians and soon in kidnapped Africans, quickly became a backbone of New England merchant capitalism.

    Thanksgiving in the Manhattan Colony

    In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first “scalp bounty”–his government paid money for the scalp of each Indian brought to them. A couple years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a friendly tribe. Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated, skinned alive and forced to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot war to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set fire, and 500 Indian residents were put to the sword.
    A day of thanksgiving was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. As we will see, the European colonists declared Thanksgiving Days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for harvest and friendship.

    The Conquest of New England

    By the 1670s there were about 30,000 to 40,000 white inhabitants in the United New England Colonies–6,000 to 8,000 able to bear arms. With the Pequot destroyed, the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonists turned on the Wampanoag, the tribe that had saved them in 1620 and probably joined them for the original Thanksgiving Day.
    In 1675 a Christian Wampanoag was killed while spying for the Puritans. The Plymouth authorities arrested and executed three Wampanoag without consulting the tribal chief, King Philip.

    As Mao Tsetung says: “Where there is oppression there is resistance.”

    The Wampanoag went to war.

    The Indians applied some military lessons they had learned: they waged a guerrilla war which overran isolated European settlements and were often able to inflict casualties on the Puritan soldiers. The colonists again attacked and massacred the main Indian populations.

    When this war ended, 600 European men, one-eleventh of the adult men of the New England Colonies, had been killed in battle. Hundreds of homes and 13 settlements had been wiped out. But the colonists won.

    In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The “Praying Indians” who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with “hostiles.” They were enslaved or killed. Other “peaceful” Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts–and were sold onto slave ships.

    It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.
    After King Philip’s War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan’s New York colony: “There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts.”
    In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a “day of public thanksgiving” in 1676, saying, “there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled.”

    Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.

    The descendants of these Native peoples are found wherever the Puritan merchant capitalists found markets for slaves: the West Indies, the Azures, Algiers, Spain and England. The grandson of Massasoit, the Pilgrim’s original protector, was sold into slavery in Bermuda.

    Runaways and Rebels

    But even the destruction of Indian tribal life and the enslavement of survivors brought no peace. Indians continued to resist in every available way. Their oppressors lived in terror of a revolt. And they searched for ways to end the resistance. The historian MacLeod writes: “The first `reservations’ were designed for the `wild’ Irish of Ulster in 1609. And the first Indian reservation agent in America, Gookin of Massachusetts, like many other American immigrants had seen service in Ireland under Cromwell.”
    The enslaved Indians refused to work and ran away. The Massachusetts government tried to control runaways by marking enslaved Indians: brands were burnt into their skin, and symbols were tattooed into their foreheads and cheeks.

    A Massachusetts law of 1695 gave colonists permission to kill Indians at will, declaring it was “lawful for any person, whether English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or can.”
    The northern colonists enacted more and more laws for controlling the people. A law in Albany forbade any African or Indian slave from driving a cart within the city. Curfews were set up; Africans and Indians were forbidden to have evening get-togethers. On Block Island, Indians were given 10 lashes for being out after nine o’clock. In 1692 Massachusetts made it a serious crime for any white person to marry an African, an Indian or a mulatto. In 1706 they tried to stop the importation of Indian slaves from other colonies, fearing a slave revolt.


    Looking at this history raises a question: Why should anyone celebrate the survival of the earliest Puritans with a Thanksgiving Day? Certainly the Native peoples of those times had no reason to celebrate.

    A little known fact: Squanto, the so-called “hero” of the original Thanksgiving Day, was executed by the Indians for his treacheries.
    But the ruling powers of the United States organized people to celebrate Thanksgiving Day because it is in their interest. That’s why they created it. The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday later by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota).

    Washington and Lincoln were two presidents deeply involved in trying to forge a unified bourgeois nation-state out of the European settlers in the United States. And the Thanksgiving story was a useful myth in their efforts at U.S. nation-building. It celebrates the “bounty of the American way of life,” while covering up the brutal nature of this society.

    Onward, Christian Soldiers

    1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.
    Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
    forward into battle see his banners go!


    Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
    with the cross of Jesus going on before.

    2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee; on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
    Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
    brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.


    3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
    brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
    We are not divided, all one body we,one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

    4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
    Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
    we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.

    5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.

    Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King, this through countless ages men and angels sing.


    Puritan prayer in verse and song
    I’ve received several recommendations to check out some of the music from Sovereign Grace Ministries, especially for lyrics that are God-centered rather than me-focused. So I did. I downloaded their album “Valley of Vision“, which was inspired by a book of Puritan prayers of the same name†. And I like it, a lot.

    The lyrics have a far greater depth and richness compared to some of the repetitive drivel that’s out there today, and the music is diverse, but restrained in presentation without any hint of showmanship. The vocals are front and center, and never overwhelmed by the music such that the lyrics become unintelligible.
    Being the somewhat obsessive collector that I am, I went looking for the prayer book and found a copy (to my complete surprise) in our local Christian bookstore. This is not a review of that book. I’ve barely had time to crack it open; but I will admit that my eye was drawn to the prayer “God All-Sufficient” in the index:

    O Lord of grace,
    The world is before me this day,
    and I am weak and fearful,
    but I look to thee for strength;
    If I venture forth alone I stumble and fall,
    but on the beloved’s arms I am firm as the eternal hills;
    If left to the treachery of my heart I shall shame thy name,
    but if enlightened, guided, upheld by thy Spirit,
    I shall bring thee glory.
    Be thou my arm to support,
    my strength to stand, my light to see,
    my feet to run, my shield to protect,
    my sword to repel, my sun to warm.
    To enrich me will not diminish thy fullness;
    All thy lovingkindness is in thy Son,
    I bring him to thee in the arms of faith,
    I urge his saving name as the one who died for me.
    I plead his blood to pay my debts of wrong.
    Accept his worthiness for my unworthiness,
    his sinlessness for my transgressions,
    his purity for my uncleanness,
    his sincerity for my guile,
    his truth for my deceits,
    his meekness for my pride,
    his constancy for my backslidings,
    his love for my enmity,
    his fullness for my emptiness,
    his faithfulness for my treachery,
    his obedience for my lawlessness,
    his glory for my shame,
    his devotedness for my waywardness,
    his holy life for my unchaste ways,
    his righteousness for my dead works,
    his death for my life.

    I am looking forward to exploring this collection with more attention and time.
    †The Valley of Vision: A collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions
    Edited by Arthur G. Bennett
    Published by Banner of Truth (1975)

  2. Matthew Baldwin

    I agree with you, except about the fallacy that the Illuminati are in control of the US government. That’s a fairy tale.

Leave a Comment