WigtuneStudio_banner12x1.5_96dpi_grey-2_small.jpg (40828 bytes)

A_House_Divided_thumnail_small.jpg (50639 bytes)

Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, Union, Confederacy, Slavery, the Founders, modernist, modernism, Christian heritage, Richard Hofstadter, John Adams, James Madison, Newtonian, Isaac Newton, Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, The Constitution, Herndon, Missouri Compromise, Unitarian anti slavery, Christian abolitionists, abolition movement, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln Douglas Debates, John Breckinridge, slavery, Republican Party, Professor Charles W. Ramsdell, C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Setting the Record Straight

Just because the Founders chose to create a republic rather than a pure democracy does not mean they were "anti-democratic. It simply means that they were wise men who understood the world through the lens of Scripture. Even the modernist must admit that the distrust of man, that caused the founding fathers to form the government in the manner that it now exists, emanated from a Biblical foundation. It is in the Scripture that we find that man is a sinner.

"Whether the Fathers looked to the cynically illuminated intellectuals of contemporary Europe or to their own Christian heritage of the idea of original sin," Hofstadter admitted, "they found quick confirmation of the notion that man is an unregenerate individual who has to be controlled. . . . Men had found a rational order in the universe and they hoped that it could be transferred to politics, or, as John Adams put it, that governments could be 'erected on the simple principles of nature.'

"Madison spoke in the most precise Newtonian language when he said that such a 'natural' government must be constructed 'that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.'"

And who is the author of all nature upon which these men fashioned their government? The devout Christian and physicist, Isaac Newton (whose ideas Madison alluded to) could tell you Who he observed as he studied the universe. He was looking into the eyes of the originator of all creation. . . the God of the Bible!

So (deriving their thought from the notion that man is innately a sinner) a system of constitutional government was formed in a manner that various sources of interest would check each other. A federated government was developed to confront the evils that would develop within of a state that was ruled according to the democratic whims of sinners.

If a single state faction sought to rise up and take the situation by force, the totality of the states, bound in a federation by a constitution could stop it through the power of a central government. So, the constitutional government was formed filled with a system of checks and balances, and a representative form of government that in itself was a check against the iniquity that could come about if the people were merely left to rule themselves if given a pure democracy.

The founders of the Constitution have left us with the three branches of government that are carefully placed as to balance one another out lest any become dominant. John Adams in his Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America stated his beliefs as paraphrased by Hofstadter, "The aristocracy and the democracy must be made to neutralize each other. Each element should be given its own house of legislature, and over both houses there should be set a capable, strong and impartial executive armed with the veto power. This split assembly would contain within itself an organic check and would be capable of self-control under the governance of the executive. The whole system was to be capped by an independent judiciary."

 

The So-Called Lincoln Legend

But the modernist is no longer content to accept the underlying Christian-based beliefs upon which these men authored our Constitution. Hofstadter concluded, "No man who is as well abreast of modern science as the fathers were of eighteenth-century science believes any longer in unchanging nature. Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for a means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles, can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced government as it was set down by the Constitution-makers of 1787."

The message that is being taught here is clear. We are an advanced society, far too sophisticated and enlightened by science to accept the passť philosophies embraced by the founders of the Constitution. We have advanced beyond those old notions of power according to property and man's inert sinful nature. Didn't you know? Man is not a sinner. Rather he is noble! We need to look at government in a new way. God forbid where it is going to take us.

In the same revisionist vein, Lincoln, according to the liberal teacher, was primarily motivated by success. So we proceed with the argument that this self-made man image that Lincoln made up, reeks with pride and selfish ambition that "is closely akin with the cardinal Christian sin of pride. . .How can an earnest man, a public figure living in a time of crisis, gratify his aspirations and yet remain morally whole? If he is, like Lincoln, a man of private religious intensity, the stage is set for high tragedy."

So Lincoln was a pitiful hypocrite! He professed Christianity, but lived according to another standard. "Oh no," they say, "Christianity is not what has made our country strong, but rather it is the perpetrator of sorrow and anxiety."

Lincoln was stimulated by far less than Christian virtue, Hofstadter's story progressed. In fact, "like his father, Lincoln was physically lazy even as a youth. . .When only fifteen he was often on stumps and fences making political speeches, from which his father had to haul him back to his chores."

Now according to this historian, in Illinois, if you didn't want to work for a living but you were intelligent; you could either go into the ministry, law, or politics. So, law and politics it proved to be, the latter being the central driving force in Lincoln's life. Lincoln's associate, Herndon wrote after his death, "Politics were his life, newspapers his food, and his great ambition his motive power."

So where are we headed with this dissertation? Well, it appears that the ideas Lincoln professed to his country were not his at all. He was no more than a politician who was looking for votes so that he might become venerated. He was a self-seeking individual on a self-fulfilling quest that had nothing to do with Christianity and the freeing of the slaves. These two issues were nothing more than incidental in his plan for power and prestige; and he only professed his loyalty to those causes to the extent that benefited him.

Oh yes, Lincoln spoke out against slavery, Hofstadter's argument progressed, but only when the stance was popular and would afford him political gain. "With all his quiet passion Lincoln had sought to rise in life, to make something of himself through his own honest efforts. It was this typically American impulse that dominated him through the long course of his career before he became interested in the slavery question. It was his understanding of this impulse that guided his political thought."

As the deception proceeds to advance, it was "revealed" that Lincoln associated with the Whig party in the early part of his political career -- not as a matter of conscious but rather opportunity. The party promoted much needed programs such as of internal improvements, stable currency, and conservative banking. So Lincoln, the so-called opportunist jumped on the party bandwagon that was filled with the most affluent and imposing men America was producing at the time. "Lincoln," contended Hofstadter, "belonged to a party of rank and privilege; it exacted a price from him."

Though the author conceded that Lincoln suffered hardship in his youth, Hofstadter nonetheless insisted that success came to him at the very early age as he became the leader of his party in the Illinois House of Representatives. "No man ever had an easier time of it in his early days than Lincoln," wrote Herndon of Lincoln's first years in Springfield that became his home. "He had...influential and financial friends to help him; they almost fought each other for the privilege of assisting Lincoln. . .Lincoln was a pet. . .He deserved it."

Let's not mention Lincoln's years in Salem as a postmaster, the ferryman ventures down the river, the hours spent in store keeping and splitting rails, the flopped business venture, the years in practicing law as he traveled throughout the state doing business as a lawyer, and the fact that he lost his fill of elections. Instead we will claim that he was a pampered politician. Let us assert that the cost of his political associations was personal compromise.

Lincoln did marry into the aristocratic family of Ninian Edwards. So, according to the liberal historian, when he spoke against slavery it must have been done because it was vogue to do so. For example, after a rather obscure stay in the Senate, it appeared as if his political career was over. But the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854, that created division within both the Democratic and Whig parties, generated a situation that Lincoln could use to his benefit. Lincoln used the slavery issue in that instance to revive his own party.

There was no moral integrity behind his feelings towards the black man the author insists. Rather it is asserted, "It was during this period that he learned the deliberate and responsible opportunism that was so later characteristic of his statecraft. . .His keen onslaughts against slavery, in fact, carry the conviction of a man of far greater moral force than the Presidential Lincoln ever revealed in action."

These are strong judgments ascending on a President who explained to a pair of Unitarian antislavery clergymen, "We shall need all the anti-slavery feeling in the country and more; you can go home and try to bring the people to your views; and you may say anything you like about me. Don't spare me!" Herndon recalled Abe saying with a laugh.

Then gravely Lincoln spoke to the group of Christian abolitionists, "When the hour comes for dealing with slavery, I trust I will be willing to do my duty though it cost my life. And gentlemen, lives will be lost." These words sound like action words to me, especially in the light that Lincoln did in fact lose his life over the issue of slavery.

A big to do was made about the fact that Lincoln authorized the concept of revolution in the name of freedom saying, "Any portion of such people that can may revolutionalize and make their own territory as they inhabit." On the other hand, he condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery in an unconstitutional fashion, and suppressed the secession of the South "and refused to acknowledge that the right of revolution belonged to the South." The intellectual Hofstadter continued, "The contradiction is not peculiar to Lincoln; Anglo-Saxon history is full of it."

Now you have it! The true target of the "scholar" has been revealed. Western history, and particularly that of English origin, is filled hypocrisy that leaves it illegitimate and unworthy of respect. And what institution stands as the foundation of Western civilization? You got it; the Church. The implications are clear.

Likewise so are the ramifications that come from the next assertion that contended that for Lincoln, the abolition of slavery was no more than an economic issue. Feeling that the true test of democracy was in its ability to provide opportunities for financial, social and political ascent, Lincoln was pro-labor.

"I like the system which lets a man quit when he wants to," Lincoln suggested, "and wish it might prevail everywhere. One of the reasons I am opposed to slavery is just here. What is the condition of the laborer?"

Obviously, in slavery, there is no chance for upward mobility. Yet observe that Lincoln insisted that this is only one of the reasons for his resistance to the institution. Does the fact that Lincoln recognized that slavery was un-democratic mean that there were not moral issues in his mind as well?

Apparently, not in the revisionist's mind, for the declaration of Hofstadter persisted in asserting, "Always privately compassionate, in his public career and his legal practice he never made himself the advocate of unpopular reform movements."

This statement was backed by the assertion that it was only after the Kansas-Nebraska Act (that declared that the territories Kansas and Nebraska could make up their own minds on whether or not they wanted to adopt slavery) breathed life into the slavery issue that he began to attack it openly. Whether or not slavery would be extended to the territories during that period was a hot issue; one that Lincoln jumped right on, according to the liberal historian.

So at the age of 45 for the first time in his life, Lincoln denounced slavery in public. But again it was affirmed that his efforts were a broad political move to arrive at a platform that would appeal to a country divided over the issue. It would be something that would gain the attention of both the radical abolitionists, and then the "Negrophobes" in the North who detested the idea of living next to the blacks and competing with their labor potential.

Therefore when Lincoln said, "If free Negroes should be made things, how long, think you, before they will begin to make things out of poor white men," Lincoln was addressing an economic issue rather than a moral one.

"Lincoln took the slavery issue out of the realm of the moral and legal dispute and, by dramatizing it in terms of free labor's interest, gave it a universal appeal," said Hofstadter. "To please the abolitionists he kept saying that slavery was an evil thing; but for the benefit of all Northern white men he opposed its further extension."

He was supposedly no more than a politician looking for votes. Therefore, as he campaigned for a seat in the Senate, Douglas, his opponent, brought up to Lincoln the inconsistencies of his stance. Statements made during his campaigning had left Lincoln looking as a political chameleon.

Way up north in Chicago on July 10, 1858, Lincoln declared, "Let's discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."

Yet when in the deep South in Charleston on September 18, 1858, Lincoln apparently contradicted himself by proclaiming, "I will say, then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races: and I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters and jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. . .And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Let's not make mention of the fact that it was during his campaign against Douglas that Lincoln became universally known as an opponent to slavery as a result of his famous debates with Douglas over the issue. Let's not give credence to the fact that he lost that election, because his stance on slavery was apparently not the most popular position to take in his district. (It appears in that instance Lincoln's stance on slavery was not "politically correct at all.")

Let's not take into consideration that he was talking to a deeply divided country on the brink of revolution. It was a country so distraught with itself that during the 1860 Democratic national convention, delegates from the South walked out after a furious and bitter battle that saw Douglas nominated as their candidate. As they designated their own aspirant for President, John Breckinridge, Stephen of Georgia replied to the question of what he thought about it all, "Why, that men will be cutting one another's throats in a little while. In less that twelve months we shall be at war, and that the bloodiest in history."

Let's not consider that Lincoln was elected President after a campaign in which the Republican Party (so concerned about their candidate's views on slavery and the matter of succession) did not even allow Lincoln to speak publicly. Nonetheless, upon his successful election the Southern States began to systematically succeed from the Union as they testified, "The South will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln."

Let's not give proper acknowledgment to the fact that consistently through his brilliant political career, Lincoln made no bones about the fact that his primary agenda was to keep the Union together. The armchair historian continues to criticize the priority that put the Union first.

"Lincoln may have become involved in a gross inconsistency over slavery and the Negro," the self-proclaimed judge of history alleged, "but this was incidental to his main concern. Never much troubled about the Negro, he had always been most deeply interested in the fate of free republicanism . . ."

This resolve on Lincoln's part may have produced some early inconsistencies in his stance on the slavery issue, as he attempted to meld the two concepts of Union and slavery together into a unified whole that would leave the nation intact. The fact is, Lincoln understood, apparently in a way that the modernist doesn't, that the Civil War was the test of whether or not Democracy would endure in America. If any state were to be allowed to succeed, then the whole would fail and Democracy in America would ultimately be destroyed.

The intellectual may desire to devaluate and ridicule Lincoln's preference, but the fact is that without the nation intact, there would have been little value in freeing the slaves and granting them equal rights. If liberty itself has been eradicated through division, then who can be liberated? If the South were allowed to leave the Union, then how could Lincoln have freed the slaves? If the modernist was to be really honest with history, he would concede that Lincoln was right!

How can you argue with the one who held our country together in a time when the future of democracy itself was on the line? Yet in his resolve to undermine the person of Lincoln, the modern historian refused to admit who Lincoln really was. And this denial was accomplished in spite of the fact that the benefit of Lincoln's work of restoring the Union and emancipating the slaves still lives with us today. It would seem to be prudent to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt based on his indisputable record of courage and determination during the Civil War. Give credit where credit is due.

Instead, the Hofstadter stated, "It is not easy to decide whether the true Lincoln is the one who spoke in Chicago or the one who spoke in Charleston. Possibly the man devoutly believed each of the utterances at the time he delivered it; possibly his mind too was a house divided against itself. (This was in reference to the famous House Divided speech Lincoln delivered at the Republican National convention on June 16, 1858 where he declared, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.') In any case it is easy to see in all, the behavior of a professional politician looking for votes."

 

Through His Own Paradigm

A person will always view events according to his own paradigm. You tend to ascertain occurrences within the light of your own self. The thing that is easiest to see is that the modernist is looking at the past through his own eyes. These are eyes that are corrupted by sin and rebellion.

So, the cerebral mass of arrogance extended his argument to demand that Lincoln attempted to wage war while maintaining the status quo; which was leaving slavery in the South intact. Being a man who according to Douglas was "preeminently a man of the atmosphere that surrounds him," Lincoln, in the estimation of Hofstadter, did not get on the anti-slavery bandwagon during the war until the Radical abolitionists gained strength. It was then that he made a "brilliant strategic retreat toward a policy of freedom. . . Plainly Lincoln was, as always, thinking primarily of the free white worker: the Negro was secondary." Why else would of he offered the idea of enticing the emancipated Negroes to consider colonizing New Granada in Central America; a land rich in coal mines, farm land, harbors, and other advantages?

Remember though, that the Civil War occurred during a time when the colonization of the first 13 states was not as distant as it is now. Colonization is how our country began, you might remember. I find it difficult to see how it is anything other than inconsistent to attach a negative connotation an idea that gave us our freedom to begin with.

In addition, America during the Civil war was still in the process of a Western expansion. Supplanting oneself into an unexplored environment was a concept that was not as foreign to the American mind as it is today. This is something that Lincoln had grown up in, as his father continued to pull up stakes into new territories during his childhood.

With that in mind, we don't have to go to the "informed" historian to understand why Lincoln suggested the plan. He explained it himself to the first committee of free Negroes whom he had invited to the White House on August 14, 1862, to convey the plan. "Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. . . Your race suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white people."

As it was, the blacks showed very little interest in the plan that, by the way, was suggested by Lincoln only as an opportunity -- and that exclusively by consent.

In spite of one's personal opinion regarding Lincoln's proposed solution to the slavery problem, it is undeniable that his observation on the condition of the black in America was exactly correct. Those in our society today, who would with the most enthusiasm condemn Lincoln for his suggestion of black colonization, are the ones who pronounce with the greatest adamancy that the black still doesn't have equality in America. And when they complain about it they are only mirroring Lincoln's words. Understanding Lincoln's reasons for his opinion is to have a cognizance that it was out of compassion rather than prejudice.

Though the new tutors of history resolve that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation only out of military necessity, and only after all his other policies had failed, Lincoln himself confided after endorsing it, "I never, in my life, felt more certain I was doing right, than I do signing this paper." Previously, all the official documents the President had signed only displayed the initial "A" to indicate his first name. Now he boldly wrote in full, "Abraham Lincoln" -- as if to certify that he had a personal interest in the plight of the black.

Oh yes, the liberal historian is correct when he tells you that this document in reality didn't free any slaves. It neglected to include the slaves in the Border States that had remained faithful to the Union cause, though they still practiced slavery - but only freeing the slaves in the South in which it had no apparent effect.

What they fail to mention though is that just three months prior, Lincoln had offered an earlier Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that actually directed its attention to freeing the slaves in the Border States through the process of buying them in order to subsequently free them. Likewise, he had already signed an act ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Regardless of the actual effect of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time it was signed, none can argue that it was a historic document: one that was a crucial steppingstone in the emancipation of the slaves: one that bore the full name of Abraham Lincoln.

The famous document concluded, "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God." And has the liberal historian afforded Lincoln the "considerate judgment" he solicited? I think the answer is evident.

No doubt each individual evaluates others in the light of his own prejudices and pre-suppositions. The posture of the progressive teachers towards Western and American history comes from a desire to live their lives as they see fit without accountability to absolute ordinances established by God. They want to divorce themselves from Christianity, and the only way to do it is to alienate themselves from the truth history as generated by the Christian faith.

Adhering to moral standards is something they wish to avoid. Can they be trusted to make ethical judgments on history?

You can either take a man for his word, or you can't. When the intellectual reads the accounts and testimonies of those who lived with Lincoln, they cannot find evidence to suggest that his contemporaries felt that Lincoln was a man who said one thing and believed another. They resound in concurrence that Lincoln was a man of character and integrity.

The bulk of the evidence asserts that Lincoln's word could be trusted: it pronounces that Lincoln was a man of impeccable moral stature in his life. Honesty is a virtue that he held to be of the utmost value, and everyone who knew him attested of his adhesion to that principle.

Lincoln himself attested that he signed his name to that historic document for reasons far more profound than just "military necessity." He asserted the abolishment of slavery was Constitutional and just, a theme that he pronounced more than once during his political career.

The contemporary historian on the other hand, would want you to believe his motives were no more than those of a self-serving politician who freed the slaves only for the benefit of the whites. Who do you believe?

Those of us, who have embraced God's word in our lives as the only truth of God, are familiar with arguments that attempt to undermine the virtue of another person. Liberal theologians use the liberal line of reasoning utilized by the modern historian to frustrate the integrity of the Word by "bringing up" supposed discrepancies they contend cannot be explained in any manner other than realizing that the Bible is filled with mistakes -- because in their mind it was penned by mortal men. In the same manner as Satan as he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, they elicit half-truths, pulled out of context, to deceive the uninformed.

And this is how they deal with anyone who has been sent to them with a message they don't want to hear (particularly when the theme of the memorandum condemns the way they live their life). They attack the messenger himself rather than listening to message. They bring question to the messenger's credibility, hoping that if they can deface the person they can rid themselves of the guilt. But the message of Lincoln rings out clearly in the works that he performed. They were accomplishments that had their base in the sovereign God who created all things.

 

A Heartbreaking Ending?

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln actually started the Civil War? At least that's how the story goes according to the contemporary historians. It seems that when the Confederates made the first move by attacking fort Sumter it was because they were forced into the position by Lincoln.

The fort, occupied by Union troops, was placed at the mouth of Charleston harbor, deep in Southern territory. For the South to allow the continued Union occupation of the fortress was certainly incompatible with the notion of secession. On the other hand, to evacuate the position would be a concession on the part of Lincoln who believed the secession was illegal to begin with. The two sides were at a stalemate, except for the fact that the Union fort was running out of supplies.

So, Lincoln came up with a bold strategy that would put the ball in the Confederate court. If Lincoln could create a situation that would force the South to strike first, he could justify to the Northern people the use of force. With this in mind, so the story goes, Lincoln sent a humanitarian relief expedition to the fort. It looked innocent enough but presented a tremendous threat to the South. The South had to use force to stop the effort, for if indefinite occupation by Union forces was acknowledged by their silence it would, according to Hofstadter, "weaken the Confederate cause at home and sap its prestige abroad, where diplomatic recognition was so precious."

So let's devaluate the man since he was a good chess player! The fact that Lincoln was so cautious in the way he handled the situation at Fort Sumter illustrates how politically "incorrect" Lincoln's stance was. The idea of Civil War was an unpopular cause in the North. They needed a reason to fight.

It was not easy to convince people that they needed to go to war for the preservation of democracy. It would have been even more difficult to rally them to free the slaves. How does this fit in with the declaration that Lincoln did not associate with unpopular causes?

The South seceded from the Union upon hearing that this one who had spoken out against slavery was elected. Lincoln's life was in constant danger of assassination from the moment he took office. If his objective was popularity, he certainly wasn't very good at attaining it!

The words coming from Lincoln that confess, "I claim not to have controlled events but plainly that events have controlled me," when understood in the context of the turmoil and hatred of the time that threatened to terminate America's government, sound like the words of a man who did the best that he could do in the calamitous situation he was handed.

Professor Charles W. Ramsdell nonetheless, has suggested that as he began to see the cost of lives of the venture (618,000 lives were lost in the Civil War on both sides), Lincoln was filled with guilt as a result of his own part in whipping up the crisis. Therefore, it was in desperation that he issued pardons and desired to extend his hand in charity and benevolence to the conquered South. It was remorse over his iniquity that weighed so heavy on him as President, causing his face to show the age of a hundred years after just four years in the Executive office. So Lincoln said to Noah Brooks upon the suggestion that he rest, "I suppose it is good for the body. But the tired part of me is out of reach."

And so the academic thinker concluded, "For a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis is a grim and agonizing thing. Instead of glory, he once said, he had found only 'ashes and blood.'. . . He had his ambitions and fulfilled them, and met heartache in his triumph."

This is a pretty sad ending to the story of a man who has historically been viewed as the most dynamic hero of our nation. For those of us who stand for righteousness, the devaluation of our nation's founders appears to be the foremost affront on our contention that our nation should return to obedience to the precepts of the Bible.

How does it make you feel? Do you want to stand up and say, "Oh yea!" Would you like to beat someone over the head, or what ever it would take to silence those who seek to draw our culture into immorality and the oblivion that can only result from it?

The non-truths that pervade in our educational system today are the genesis of attitudes such as these towards our forefathers. It is time that we as believers speak out the truth in the midst of this gross distortion.

However, this cannot be accomplished until we discover the truth itself. What is the reality of our Christian heritage? Is our Christian background no more than a myth? Is it in actuality the God of the Bible who has provided the glue that has held America together? Or was our country really founded upon the same paganism that predominates in our society today?

C. S. Lewis commented in Mere Christianity, ". . . I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on."

Enough of the modern folk lore myths proposed by the intellectuals! Let's go back in time to discover the true story of the man Abraham Lincoln, and his lifelong search for the Lord. You see, the answers to these questions are not to be found in the liberal's pen, but in a modest one-room log cabin perched deep in the frontier of our 19th century western expansion.

 

About the Author

Click Here to purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!

Back212.gif (3571 bytes)FORWARD212.gif (3319 bytes)

Blog Index

 

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...

   Empart logo_header.jpg (23053 bytes)

WIGTUNE HOME

 

About the Author

 

Don Wigton is a graduate of the prestigious music department at CSULB where he studied under Frank Pooler, lyricist of Merry Christmas Darling, and sang in Pooler’s world renown University Choir alongside Karen and Richard Carpenter. During this time Don was also the lead composer of the band, Clovis Putney, that won the celebrated Hollywood Battle of the Bands. After giving his life to God, Don began attending Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa to study under some of the most prominent early Maranatha! musicians. Subsequently he toured the Western United States with Jedidiah in association with Myrrh Records.

Eventually Don served as a pastor at Calvary Chapel Bakersfield to witness thousands of salvations through that ministry. As the music/concert director, Don worked for seven years with most major Christian artist of that time while producing evangelical concerts attended by thousands of young people seeking after God. Don’s Calvary Chapel Praise Choir released the album Let All Who Hath Breath Praise the Lord on the Maranatha! label.

The next years of Don’s life were spent as the praise leader of First Baptist Church in Bakersfield during a time of unprecedented church renewal. Don teamed with the leadership to successfully meld the old with the new through a period of tremendous church growth. During this exciting time, Don’s praise team, Selah, produced the CD Stop and Think About It.

Today Don is the leading force behind Wigtune Company. This webbased project located at www.praisesong.net has provided several million downloads of Don’s music and hymn arrangements to tens of thousands of Christian organizations throughout the world. More music can be found at Don's Southern Cross Band website at www.socrossband.com.

The book Holy Wars represents Don’s most recent effort to bless the church with biblical instruction and direction in praise and worship. This heartfelt volume is an offering not only to God’s people, but also to God Himself.

 

Connect With Don Online

Facebook - Southern Cross Band

Facebook - Wigtune Company

Wigtune Blog

Smashwords

 

down arrow Check out this powerful Southern Cross song! down arrow

 

Empart - Click here to find out about the price that is being paid by those in Northern India and Nepal who have dedicated their lives to worship the Lord. Find out how you can be involved!An Incredible revival is occuring in Northern India and Nepal. CLICK HERE to find out more!

More Wigtune Blogs

 

Kingdom_of_ Babylon_thumnail_small.jpg (54838 bytes)

The Breath of Babylon_thumbnail.jpg (56275 bytes)

The Mind of Babylon_thumbnail.jpg (53483 bytes)

The Children of Babylon_thumbnail.jpg (58992 bytes)

Holy_Wars_thumnail.jpg (57681 bytes)

 


 

A House Divided_small.jpg (78509 bytes)

This first of five books looks into a pivotal moment in American history that changed the world forever. It was a time when the United States was on the brink of destruction. It was and era when an American prophet and patriot stood up to eco the words of Christ: "A house divided cannot stand." Today we live in a similar era today where America is torn asunder between truth and error. And the wrong decision will bring dire consequences!

Click Here to purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!

  

WIGTUNE HOME

 

The gospel band Southern Cross features worship, praise chorus and ministry songs in contemporary rock, country rock and even classic genres. Click here to go to their page to listen to our mp3 music and find out how to have them come to your area!

All For Freedom!

Thanks to the men and women who give their all for our freedom.

 

Father's Eyes

A nation in apostacy

 

Uh Uh Uh

There are many lying voices out in the world calling us to sin and despair.

 

You Broke My Heart

Jesus said "Let your yes be yes and your no's be no's." When we break our word people get hurt.

 

 

Wigtune Company

An offering of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs for the worship edification of the Body of Christ.
Colossians 3:15-17

Praise and Worship Songs to bless God. . .

Free Praise Music, Charts Song and Hymn Stories  

Top Ten Praise MP3s

Contemporary Worship and Praise Music Archive

Latest  Contemporary Praise and Worship Music Releases

Traditional Hymn Music

Christmas Praise Music

Easter Worship Music

Patriotic Praise Hymns (American)

Instrumental Worship Music

Praise Music For Worship Devotions

Contemporary Christian Ministry Songs

Free On-Line Praise and Worship Studybook  

Listen to Wigtune Worshim Music on live Internet radio

Wigtune Contemporary Worship, Praise and Hymn CD's

Karaoke (Accompanyment Tracks for your favorite Wigtunes)

Testimonials

Vision Statement

Wigtune Story 

Copyright Restrictions

Contact Us

Spread the Word!

Bible Study Helps, a Multitude of Christian Links and Other Goodies

Where's Wiggy? - List and Links to Christian Organizations

Statement of Faith

Special Report: Christianity in Russia - Has Anything Changed?

 

Holy_Wars_cover_small.jpg (51492 bytes)Holy Wars. . .a powerful and dynamic "must have" for every Christian who is seeking to worship God in the midst of the tempest of our modern world.

CLICK HERE or call Author House @ 888.280.7715 to purchase a hard or soft cover copy of Don Wigton's book "Holy Wars" upon which this blog is based.

Click Here to purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!

 

 

 

   Empart logo_header.jpg (23053 bytes)

HOME

Wigtune Company: Praise music and worship study resource.  Free Christian praise songs and hymns, chord charts for the contemporary chorus and traditonal hymn and gospel music, plus and on-line worship Bible study.

Click here for the Wigtune worship, praise and hymns Facebook page.

Millions of
Wigtune MP3
Downloads!

 

Pastors, worship music ministers, small group leaders, praise bands and members of over
3337 ministries from 94 countries world-wide including all 50 states in the United States
are now using Wigtune praise and worship resources.

We pray that these materials have provided all of you with untold blessings!

"I might not be a religious man myself but I know good music when I hear it, and this is very good! . . . I don’t think that I have ever given such high ratings to so many songs before. But the fact is that they are well deserved because the music is amazing. Simply wonderful religious ballads and they really get to your heart. . .everytime."
Fredrik Cole: Trax In Space

 

 

Winsome International was founded by Dr. John Lavender of First Baptist Church, Bakersfield. Don Wigton of Wigtune Company was the worship and praise leader there during a great growth expansion. Click here to hear the teaching that inspired so many.

 

 

 

Musicl 1.gif (414 bytes)

  

Wigtune Company offers free mp3 Jesus based praise music and song along with traditional Christian hymns performed in a contemporary fashion in order to encourage the body of Christ to blend the old with the new in a scriptural fashion.  An on-line Bible study is offered that goes into the biblical and historical foundation of worship for music ministries, the music minister, praise leader, pastor and serious Bible student.  The study is presented in outline form with relevant scripture references and questions.  Download this helpful work for free! was formed as a service to the body of Christ to encourage scriptural worship. To accomplish this goal Wigtune Company offers free contemporary Christian praise and worship music, contemporary Christian rock and hymn mp3 and chart material along with a free on-line worship study book for personal devotions, Bible study groups, Sunday schools, pastors, music ministers and ministry training.  In order to bridge the gap between the old and the new the worship study book gives solid theological and historical support to the use of traditional Christian hymn-singing in conjunction with praise chorus singing.

Click on one of the links below for praise and worship, praise tabs, worship chords, praise chorus mp3, hymn stories, pro tools studio, worship leader materials to enter into the area of the Wigtune site that interests you !

Wigtune Company believes that the current contention among Christian generations over church music is unnesessary.  One does not have to chose between the classic traditional hymn and the contemporary praise chorus and song.  Solomon declared that there is a place for everything under the sun. The worship musical material and the worship Bible study book offered at the Wigtune website support this theme. Vision Statement    Don and Vanessa Wigton share the vision of Wigtune Company.  Going to this page will inform the WEB surfer the circumstances that lead to the Wigtune offering of praise song and hymn along with the worship Bible study book that lends theology and history based support to the use of traditional Christian hymn singing in conjunction with praise chorus singing.   Wigtune Story    The Wigtune Company free on-line worship Bible study book is a manual for the use of the pastor, teacher, music minister, Bible study group, sunday school and any situation where a theological and historical lesson regarding worship is desired.  The Bible study is presented in outline form with questions that require thoughtful answers to the biblical and history based information that is presented.   Free On-Line Worship Studybook   

Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use.  Free Praise and Worship Music Mp3s and Charts   Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use.

Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use. Wiggy's Top Ten Praise MP3s Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use.

Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use. Radio: Listen to Wigtune Worship Music on Live Internet Radio

Wigtune Company offers free mp3 praise music in the form of tradtional Christian hymn performed in a contemporary manner and modern praise song and choruses mp3s.  Chord charts to many of these song mp3's are available for non-commercial ministry use.    Wigtune Praise Worship and Hymn CD's

 What are they saying about Wigtune praise and worship contemporary and hymn music   Testimonials: What they are saying about Wigtune Music

Please help Wigtune Company by observing the copyright restrictions listed on this page.  The praise and worship materials (praise songs and hymns) have been offered up for free with love!  Copyright Restrictions    

What do you think of Wigtune's offering of praise music and worship study materials?  Let us know by e-mailing us?   Contact Us    If you have been blessed by the free praise music (praise choruses and traditional hymns) and the worship study book, don't keep it to yourself.  Click here to see how you can spread the word!   Spread the Word!

Bullet1.gif (1151 bytes)  Bible Study Helps, a Multitude of Christian Links and Other Goodies

Click here to find out what organization are utilizing Wigtune contemporary Christian and traditional praise and worship music, chord charts, and online worship Bible study.  Where's Wiggy? - List and Links to Christian Organizations

  Click here to view the Wigtune statement of faith based upon orthodox Christian beliefs.  It is upon this profession that proclaims the doctrines of historical Christianity that the Wigtune praise and worship music and Bible study have been formulated.  Statement of Faith

Click here to view the Wigtune statement of faith based upon orthodox Christian beliefs.  It is upon this profession that proclaims the doctrines of historical Christianity that the Wigtune praise and worship music and Bible study have been formulated.   Special Report: Christianity in Russia - Has Anything Changed?

 The Wigtune Home Page: Free mp3 praise music and hymns sung in a contemporary fashion.  On-line worship study book for Bible students, music ministers, song leaders and pastors is also available!

This WEB page created by

Wigtune Company Praise and Worship Music Resource Center

Last updated on 01/01/13 This worship site for Christians was created in Front Page

 

Copyright © 1999 Don Wigton. All rights reserved.