Hate Speech

hate-speech-is-not-free-speechHate Speech

That’s something you hear a lot these days and unless you’re prepared to quickly dismantle that tactic, it can absorb a lot of time and emotional energy and the real issue gets buried.

Fact is, it’s brilliant tactic. In order to avoid being chastised, I’m going to assert the notion that I’m being victimized. The content of the criticism is subordinated to the supposedly sinister motivation behind it and just like that, I’m the victim and anyone who would be critical of me is a villain.

Whether it’s homosexuality, the transgender issue or any one of a number of other moral train wrecks – topics of discussion are circumvented by the deployment of tactics that are designed to shift the focus off of the accused and instead challenge the character of the one making the accusation.

“You can’t judge me” is another such tactic. The fact of the matter is, we’re supposed judge one another. The often misquoted passage in Scripture that says “Do not judge” contains more than three words. It’s Matthew 7:1-2 and the message is not to be silent, rather it’s not to be hypocritical.

Other verses like John 5:24,  Ephesians 5:11 and 2 Timothy 4:2 make it evident that we’re helping each other by highlighting those areas that constitute blind spots. “Judging” ourselves and those around us according to the Standard of Scripture helps us keep it between the lines and avoiding those things that would otherwise result in a big mess.

What we’re seeing in our culture, as far as wisdom and morality being dismissed as wicked and hateful, isn’t especially new. The Bible is loaded with instances where those who were being rebuked attempted to dismiss God’s Final Word as being an antiquated and heinous. On more than one occasion, Israel scoffed and sneered at those who spoke up on God’s behalf (Jer 17:15-16) and some tried to twist the word of the prophets into something evil.

But God doesn’t play that:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Is 5:20)

Should you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to speak up and someone tries to shut you down by accusing you of being “hateful” and “judgmental,” respond to them by saying:

How I ‘feel’ about what you’re doing is secondary to what God says. If you want to dismiss the Authority of Scripture, that’s your choice. But don’t try to shift the focus off of what you’re doing to what I’m supposedly thinking and miss what God is saying.

 

If they don’t believe in God or they want to question the Authority of Scripture, awesome! Now you’ve got a conversation. Before all you had was a tactic. At least this way, you’ve got them conceding the fact that the only Absolute they’re willing to acknowledge is the absolute of themselves. And regardless of how passionate or dogmatic they may be, that kind of self absorbed disposition doesn’t look or sound good and may lead to an opening where you can lead them to a place where they’re talking to God instead of ignoring Him.

 

How Do You Refute an Argument Based on Facts?

clarkeIt can catch you off balance when you hear something that you know to be wrong, yet because of the way it’s articulated in the context of facts and statistics, you’re not able to refute it directly. It’s a strategy that is often used by the media and in the context of debates where topics are subordinated to tactics.

How do you refute an argument based on facts?

With a platform based on Truth.

Loaded questions and agenda-driven campaigns can be difficult to navigate. It’s especially challenging when what’s being communicated is offensive to the point where you feel a certain amount of anger welling up inside you. Even if you’re able to respond with something effective, unless it’s stated in measured tones and in a manner that sounds confident and well thought out, it can pale in comparison to a well rehearsed collection of bullet points, however nonsensical they may be.

A good example is an interview with Sheriff David Clarke conducted by CNN’s Don Lemon. Don begins by saying the that message of the “Black Lives Matter” movement is one of peace and bringing the country together. He then asks Sheriff Clarke, “What’s your message?”

The question is brilliant because however Sheriff Clarke answers, if it’s distinct from the message of “Black Lives Matter,” the implication is that it’s something other than peace which is precisely what Lemon and his compatriots at CNN want to promote in that it gives credibility to the notion that our country is fundamentally flawed and needs to be recast in the image of something more liberal.

It’s more than racism. It’s same sex marriage, it’s the doctrine of entitlement, it’s the eradication of any notion of an Absolute save the absolute of yourself. It’s amoral, it’s godless and it’s twisted. And what makes it especially lethal is that it’s incessantly promoted with words such as “compassion” and “equality.” Should those tactics prove to be ineffective, then words like “fascist” and “neo-Nazi” are deployed in an effort to distort the message of Conservatives so that it appears cruel and irrational.

The interview between Lemon and Clarke was conducted in the aftermath of some demonstrations that happened earlier that month (July of 2016). Lemon’s question was particularly offensive to Sheriff Clarke given the fact that in Dallas, a “Black Lives Matter” protest deteriorated into a violent scene of carnage as 12 police officers where shot. Sheriff Clarke looked at Lemon with an expression on his face that revealed the disdain he had for Lemon’s apparent, if not obvious apathy, for the cops that were shot and his simultaneous support he had for a movement based on a distorted perspective on the facts.

What Sheriff Clarke demonstrates is the way in which you handle an argument based on facts. You dismantle it with a platform based on Truth.

When you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions and the accuracy of your answers is in direct proportion to the accuracy of your perspective. You see this in the context of social justice, in politics and you see this in matters of theology.

Know what you believe and why (1 Pet 3:15-16). And when you’re confronted with a compelling sounding piece of fiction that fans the flames of a godless perspective, be ready to dismantle their argument with something other than a strategically collection of facts. Rather, respond with the Truth – a comprehensive picture of the issue as it truly is that acknowledges the substance of their platform while at the same time reveals it as a flawed and incomplete disposition in light of the bigger picture.

While Sheriff Clarke didn’t respond to Lemon by simply saying “The Truth,” his rebuttal was just that. It was “The Truth.” By asking Lemon if he really believed the message of the “Black Lives Matter” platform is one of “peace” and going to ask if there was any outrage on their part as far as the deaths of the policemen that were killed during their riot – this reveals the inconsistency of their mantra.

You don’t evaluate a system according to the way its abused. Where there is corruption, you address it in the context of the individuals that are guilty, not the entire institution they represent. Furthermore, the indignation that supposedly serves as the philosophical foundation for the “Black Lives Matter” group is based on intentionally falsified accounts of what really happened in order to give their rhetoric credibility (cnsnews.com, thepoliticalinsider.com, muscularchristianityonline.com). That is the truth and while it may not sway those who are determined to cling to a lie because of the way it reinforces the view they have of themselves and the world around them, for the sake of those who are on the outside looking in, it’s a needed breath of fresh air to keep the smog of Progressive thinking and godless convictions contained and revealed for what it genuinely is.

How do you refute an argument based on facts?

With a platform based on Truth.

Well done, Sheriff Clarke…

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

leN1zJJxDear Hillary,

I wanted to write to encourage you to consider the possibility that you didn’t lose the election because you didn’t market yourself well enough. I believe that the media machine you had working on your behalf to ensure that both your message and your image were being communicated in the best possible way was more than intact. I would add that, given some of the scandals you were associated with and the criminal and even treasonous implications that go along with those actions, the fact that you endured as a viable candidate reinforces both the quality and influence of your public relations machinery.

The reason you lost is because your platform was rejected. Despite your best efforts to demonize Trump as a vulgar and unqualified candidate, his ideas, his perspective and his intentions were nevertheless heard and embraced as a much needed change in direction where American policy and legislation was concerned.
It’s intriguing to see how the former administration was able to promote a form of political activism in the guise of compassion and equality. Given his 20 years at the feet of one who championed Black Liberal Theology, his background as a racial activist and the theories that have been advanced as far as his resolve to destroy the America that he believes to be an imperialistic villain, it’s no wonder that we are now faced with an unsustainable amount of debt, a doctrine of entitlement that has never been more rampant, a reputation within the international community that is shameful and a lethal level or racial unrest that is in place because of political maneuvering more so than than it is popular opinion.

This is the agenda you sought to perpetuate but with added elements of socialism.

The answer was, “No.”

You don’t need to agonize over what you could have done differently, save abstain from the acts that are either presently being investigated or will be in the near future. I say that to encourage you because, again, it wasn’t your marketing, it was your mantra.

I doubt you’ll change your views. I wouldn’t expect you to, anyway, given your background with Saul Alinski and the legacy of your husband. There is one thing, however, that I think you could do that would resonate in a truly positive way as far as how all this will all look to those who study American history years from now.
Work to re-establish the dignity of your party. I’m not oblivious to the dark past of your party’s history. However it’s been airbrushed by contemporary academia, everything from Old Hickory to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to your current “foundation” – no one’s clueless about that. But the toxic tone of your party’s rhetoric as well as their behavior is unconscionable. If you feel like you have a viable point to make, encourage your constituents to honor the rule of law, acknowledge the absolutes that exist and let your voice be heard in the context of sensible dialogue rather than the fever pitch of violence, conspiracy theories and whatever nonsense is being concocted to offset the reality of Progressives not being in charge.

You lost the election, but you still have a platform – at least for now. Use it to serve your country rather than your party. If your party has a future, it will be because they chose to make their point in the context of humility and moral excellence rather than severed heads and mock assassination scenarios. You’re no longer a candidate, but you can still be an example and a force for good. I sincerely hope that you choose the latter.

Have a great day!

 

 

25 Questions

muscular_logoI’m voting for Donald Trump. I’m confident that the platform he’s running on (which has won him no points with either RINO’s or Progressives) is substantially inclined in the direction of America’s welfare. Hillary and the Democrat party constitute a legacy of extortion and entitlement. I’ve made an attempt to elaborate and defend those beliefs in another post, but what I’ve below is inspired by the quandary of a friend of mine.

He’s not certain about the way he should vote and he’s documented 25 questions which are well thought out.

My concern is this: The Republican base is divided in part due to a brilliant and comprehensive media campaign that has very successfully praised and defended their champion while simultaneously demonized, lampooned and criticized Donald Trump. As a result, one has to dig in order to hear his policies and separate the substantive from the sensational.

As a believer, my vote is clear. Not because I am blind to the man’s faults, but because I’m very aware of his plans.

25 questions. Here we go…

1. On what should I base my vote?

Truth. Not just facts and information, but Truth (see “The God Delusion | Part I“).

2. How does the Bible instruct me to relate to civil authority?

Submission (Mk 12:17; Rom 13:1-2) and prayer (1 Tm 2:2)

3. How did Jesus interact with civil authorities?

Respectfully and Wisely (Mk 12:17; Lk 13:31-32)

4. How did Paul interact with civil authorities?

Respectfully and Wisely (Acts 23:1-5)

5. As a Christian who is a “citizen of heaven” and also a citizen of the United States, how do I bring those two worlds together in an election (especially with this cycle’s candidates)?

Same way you do with every other sphere of life. You pursue the Truth in the midst of sin (Heb 12:1).

6. Which comes first in this election: my obedience to God (my faith) or my civic duty?

Obedience to God includes your civic duty (1 Pet 2:13-15). This is an excerpt from an article by J.R. Thompson entitled, “The Christian Citizen”

He obeys in order to remove hindrances from the way of the progress of Christianity among men. Scandals are avoided, prejudices are overcome, good will is conciliated; and the path is made clear for the progress of the gospel. Loyalty to the state and to the sovereign is loyalty to Christ, to God. 

7. Is performing my civic duty an expression of my obedience to God?

Absolutely. Especially in this election given the number of Supreme Court Justices that stand to be nominated. Billy Graham elaborates on this:

This election is about the Supreme Court and the justices that the next president will nominate. Evangelicals are going to have to decide which candidate they trust to nominate men and women to the court who will defend the constitution and support religious freedoms.

“My prayer is that Christians will not be deceived by the liberal media about what is at stake for future generations…”

8. U.S. citizens have the privilege of voting. Is it irresponsible not to vote?

It’s more than irresponsible. It’s a dereliction of duty. One could build a biblical case for it being disobedient in that by failing to vote you potentially advance the agenda of those who seek to undermine the church.

9. Biblically, it seems unfaithful for Christians to be motivated by fear. However, can we be motivated by “concern”?

You’re motivated by obedience, not fear (Ps 2:1; Is 41:10). Your obedience is informed by your concern. Your concern is focused on party platforms and which one will best promote a godly agenda for the nation.

10. Is it wrong for Christians to vote for anyone who is NOT a Christian? If not, is there a point at which it becomes wrong?

You vote for the platform that’s most consistent with Biblical Absolutes. The only time it becomes wrong is when you vote in a direction that promotes something that’s antagonistic to the Christian faith.

11. Since neither candidate represents Christian virtue, do I vote for neither?

You vote in a way that opposes the agenda that is most contrary to Biblical Absolutes. By voting for neither, you risk contributing to what amounts to a divided vote. The Democrats are united, it’s the Republican base that’s been very effectively split in part by a brilliant media campaign that seeks to distract from a very current act of treachery on the part of Hillary Clinton by asserting an eleven year old video tape.

12. In what ways could Clinton or Trump be part of God’s plan?

That’s up to God.

13. I have voted previously for candidates who clearly weren’t Christians. What makes this election any different?

The way in which the media has saturated public opinion with the best of Hillary and the worst of Trump and in so doing distracted from the policies that Trump seeks to implement. And this applies to both Democrats and RINO’s who are fearful of being held accountable by Trump’s no nonsense approach to current events.

14. Why is character such a big deal this time around?

Character is only an issue for Republicans and Conservatives. It’s a tactic for Democrats and Progressives.

15. Is it wrong to be utilitarian in my vote?

Whichever candidate represents a platform that best promotes Biblical Absolutes.

16. Do situational ethics apply here? Are they an admissible factor in making my decision?

Whichever candidate represents a platform that best promotes Biblical Absolutes.

17. How do we vote with wisdom?

Read. Seek full disclosure and not just sound bytes and, again, whichever candidate represents a platform that best promotes Biblical Absolutes.

18. Was vowing #nevertrump a mistake? Was it motivated by pride or principle?

Many evangelicals are insisting on a Moses when they’ve been given an Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:21). The tragedy is that they dismiss Artaxerxes because of his pagan appearance despite the fact that his policies promote the welfare of the church.

19. WWDD? What Would Donald Do if elected?

Lead in a way that’s consistent with America’s best interests. Supreme Court Justices, the repeal of Obamacare, a strong immigration policy and better trade agreements that ultimately promote America’s economy.

20. WWHD? What Would Hillary Do if elected?

Use her Executive power to continue prosecuting the agenda she and Bill have championed throughout their political career.

21. Should SCOTUS be my greatest concern?

According to Billy Graham, if it’s not your greatest concern, it’s certainly among the top 5.

22. What consideration do I give others in this country when I pull the lever?

Peaceful and quiet lives (1 Tim 2:2)

23. What consideration do I give future generations in this country (including my children and grandchildren) when I pull the lever?

Supreme Court Justices that defend the Constitution rather than edit it.

24. What consideration do I give other countries affected by the U.S. when I pull the lever?

Foreign policies that translate to integrity and strength for the sake of allies – including Israel.

25. If the GOP (the only political home I’ve known) no longer represents my theological or political positions, where does that leave me, practically speaking: homeless—or free?

Reclaim your party by forcing those who are RINOs to be held accountable.

Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

916c531bf27eb2717680ee1f70c6c196I’ve never been as intrigued with an election, nor so resolved to be better educated when it comes to current events than I am this election cycle.

During the last six weeks, I resolved to reach beyond debates and headlines and read some books in order to get up to speed in the context of a more comprehensive perspective. I’ve read the following:

  • “Stealing America” by Dinesh D’souza
  • “Great Again” by Donald Trump
  • “In Trump We Trust” by Ann Coulter
  • “Hillary’s America” by Dinesh D’souza

“Great Again” – in order to hear what Trump was bringing to the table in the absence of screaming protestors and antagonistic critics.

“In Trump We Trust” in order to get the perspective of someone who I knew to be like-minded when it comes to current events and to see how well Trump’s proposals address those concerns.

“Stealing America” and “Hillary’s America” to hear the platform of someone who Obama had imprisoned in part because of the film he made entitled “Obama 2016” where he reveals Obama to be an “anti-colonialist” based on his family background and his obvious regard for the legal extortion techniques pioneered by Saul Alinski. Anyone who has paid that kind of price for his convictions is worth a hearing and both books are very thought provoking.

The next president could possibly nominate up to 4 Supreme Court Justices. This is a position that is held for life. There are nine positions. Four of those are currently held by people who’ve been in those spots between 20 and 30 years. Some of them are approaching 80 years old. The president that is elected this coming November will establish as many as four justices that will be in power up to the time of your grandchildren.

You need to vote this November…!

The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump. Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether. The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.

The Democrat party represents a legacy of theft dressed up in compassion and equality. Hillary is an enhanced version of that paradigm that can trace it’s lineage back to Andrew Jackson. In addition, the substance of America has been substantially minimized with the administration of Barack Obama. Our national debt, our standing in the eyes of other other nations in terms of our foreign policy, the way in which he encourages racial division – these are all manifestations of a mindset that seeks to subtlety, yet strategically, decrease the influence and capacity of America as a nation. And when anyone who represents a conservative mindset begins to disagree or assert a different approach, the tenor of the culture led by Obama discredits them as enemies of progress.

Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice. This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason.

As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised. You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).

While it’s not necessarily unethical, it borders on sinister to see the way in which some of what Trump has said be quoted out of context and twisted into something outrageous by his opponents. It makes sense, however, when you take an inventory of the personalities conducting the violent protests and publishing the damaging smears and calculate what they stand to lose; either in the context of political clout or ill gotten gain should he be elected president.

But What About Trump?

But what about Trump?

Bigot? Typhoon? Hates Women, Warmonger? Hates Veterans?

These days, people hear with their eyes and think with their feelings. Headlines can be misleading and articles can be selective about what is said and what is not said thus leading the reader to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate (click here for an exposition on the difference between Facts, Information and Truth). That’s not to say that Trump makes it difficult for reporters to cast him as a problem child. He rarely holds back in what he thinks, which isn’t always healthy or appropriate.

But rarely does he not have a point. And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.

Combat Veterans

When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished. They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.

Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style. He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying. If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.

It’s been disappointing to see some prominent personalities come out and mirror the media in their assessment and statements pertaining to Trump. It’s as though there’s a script being circulated and whoever it is that’s willing to parrot the talking points that are documented, they’re broadcasted as much and as loudly as they can – as though they’re trying to drown out the practical and substantial dynamics this man brings to the table.

This brings up a good point.

I Voted for Cruz

I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. I voted for Cruz because I tend to gravitate to those who are the most vocal in terms of their faith. If I had to do it again, however, I don’t think I would’ve voted for Cruz and here’s why:

yanceyIn the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day. And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.

Philip Yancey, who’s a great writer, was featured on a video clip recently where he stated that he’s shocked and surprised that any evangelical could support Trump. He cites Trump’s failed marriages, his affairs, and the fact that he’s made a substantial amount of money with his casinos as reasons why you shouldn’t support him.

First of all, it’s not just casinos. His fortune is based on a number of income streams, his most obvious and substantial being commercial real estate. I was somewhat familiar with the Trunp name and brand, but it wasn’t until after I read “Great Again” that I became familiar with the number of buildings and properties he’s developed around the globe. He’s a very talented business man.

What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise. The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers. Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.

Think…

For the Record

When a liberal is confronted with a platform that is difficult to dispute, the crosshairs of their criticism is aimed at the person proclaiming that platform. In that way, attention is diverted from the issue being addressed and instead the topic is now whatever accusation they’ve just made. In the case of Donald Trump, his adversaries are both his political opponents and the arm of the Democrat party – the liberal media.

“You didn’t build that…” even when proponents of President Obama attempt to better justify his comments by quoting them in context, when you process his statement as part of the Progressive dynamic as a whole, the message is still the same: If you’re not rich, you are persecuted and the victim of a flawed system. If you are rich, you are guilty of extortion and an unethical exploitation of people not as fortunate as yourself.

The Solution: Give government the necessary amount of control it needs to force a level playing ground, regardless of an individual’s work ethic, their ability to risk and their creative talent.

The Result: Facism. Those who work are compelled to surrender the fruits of their labor, their convictions, and whatever right they have to themselves to a constituency that makes demands more than they make contributions. All the while, those in government profit from the control they now have and justify their financial position by insisting that they are promoting the best interests of society.

The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default. President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together. This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.

Born Into Privilege

Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.1 When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved. Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.2

Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur. That wasn’t the case in his early years, though. He personified what some would expect as far as being a “spoiled brat,”and a troublemaker. To cure that, his parents shipped him of to military school. Initially, he didn’t do well at all. But by the time he graduated, however, he was captain of his cadet class – a position that you had to be voted into by your peers.3

John McCain and the Military Vote

While Trump never served in the military, his respect and appreciate for the military is beyond question. Not simply because of his military academy experience, but also because of the way in which he has supported the military in situations such as the Veteran’s Day Parade in New York City in 1987 and in 1995 when donations were embarrassingly low and Trump stepped in with his own resources and gave the parade and the veterans it honored the dignity it deserved.

That by itself may not mean much to someone who’s focused on Trump’s comments about John McCain or his most recent comments about combat veterans suffering from PTSD as “not being able to handle it.” Fact is, even after Trump insulted McCain’s military service, polls showed that the military preferred Trump to McCain.4 And when you look at the comment made by Trump pertaining to PTSD in context, you see a much different picture than what Trump’s opponents attempt to present.

Take a look at the comment Trump made pertaining to McCain in the context of his conversation with Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa:

Luntz: Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a “dummy.” Is that appropriate in running for president?

Trump: You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt all the time, okay? [laughter] No, I know him too well, that’s the problem.

Let’s take John McCain. I’m in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel: It’s turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before – they’re pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, We can’t handle this, it’s gonna destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than – fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than anybody. And everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans, I will tell you.

John McCain goes, Oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had fifteen thousand crazies show up. “Crazies” – he called them all crazy. I said, They weren’t crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you would’ve seen these people – I know what crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren’t crazy.

So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said, Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him – I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. That’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Laughter]

But, Frank, let me get to it.

Luntz: He is a war hero, he’s a war hero.

Trump: He hit me. He’s not a war hero.

Luntz: Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp.

Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? I hate to tell you. He was a war hero because he was captured, okay And I believe – perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is: John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren’t crazy. And, very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said – nobody knows that – I said, He graduated last, or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.5

While Trump was out of line to minimize McCain’s courage and selflessness as a POW, he wasn’t wrong in state that McCain was out of line himself. One week later, polls showed that veterans and those currently serving in the military preferred Trump to McCain 53% to 41%. That’s because what the press wants to insinuate is distinct from what veterans heard and processed. Reason being is that what was actually said was different than what the press wants to promote.

The same thing applies to Trump’s comments about veterans suffering from PTSD. When you look at what was actually said versus what was quoted, you’re confronted with a much different scenario.

Bankruptcy

Trump’s business acumen is undeniable. By that I mean, it’s obvious from his accomplishments that he’s capable of some extraordinary things in terms of leading and envisioning a highly successful business venture. But those who want to distract from the multitude of highly successful income streams zealously highlight those instances when he’s declared bankruptcy.

Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt. Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded. But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair. The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.

Miscellaneous

Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe in 1996. Two years later, she was an accessory to murder and further smeared her reputation by threatening to kill the judge that presided over her case. This coupled with her having gained 50 pounds earned Trump the dubious title of a woman-hater when he referred to Machado as “Miss Piggy.” Certainly not one of his finest moments, but not altogether inappropriate given Machado’s obvious lack of character.

The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public. Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns? I didn’t. Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t think using those numbers doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.

Finally, the recently released recording of Trump saying some positively lewd things pertaining to women – if you’re not familiar with it, click here, but be forewarned, it’s explicit and vulgar.

First off, I think it’s significant that it’s 11 years old. Someone had to invest a fair amount of time to find this and the timing of it being made public – I doubt is coincidental. It’s even more suspicious when you consider some of the testimonies coming from several parties that state the tape was purposefully leaked by GOP elites who are uncomfortable with Trump. Should that prove to be credible, Paul Ryan, and those who think like him, may find himself in a very awkward position.

What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office, Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them, JFK’s multiple affairs and Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters. Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him. Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick and Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape. What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.

Here’s the bottom line: Moses was a killer, David was an adulterer and Abraham was a liar.  Paul was a Pharisee and Peter was a coward. Moral failings are not unique and fairly common, especially among those who fly solo in the face of temptation rather than align themselves with the Power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Even those who are fully equipped to overcome whatever potential compromise stands in their way are not always consistent in their resolve to give the keys to their Heavenly Father and they wind up as moral disasters.

Where does Trump fall in all of this? Is he wrong? Yes. What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact? Own it. Apologize. He has. Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.

What about the conscience of the person who’s mortified by what Trump said, yet still plans on supporting him in the election? Is it hypocrisy to endorse a man who has this kind of dynamic in his past?

No.

It would be hypocritical to contribute to a Democrat victory by either not voting for him or refusing to vote at all. It’s his platform that I’m supporting, not the actions and attitudes he displayed in 2005.

Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in. I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I”m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.

Connecting the Dots

Here’s the bottom line: Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle. Why? Is it because of what he says? To some extent. But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.

America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control. And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots.

Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would thing Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at. But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen. The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon

He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements. He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.”

While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.

I’m voting for Trump.

Parting Thoughts

  • When Obama leaves office, he will have accumulated more debt than every president before him combined.
  • Paul Ryan, the current Republican Speaker of the House, came out recently and stated that he would not support Donald Trump as president.

Those two dynamics taken together represent a need to interrupt politics as usual and assert a personality that is not dependent on a government check for their sustenance, nor is he resolved to lessen the substance of America, all the while claiming to do so in the name of equal opportunity and justice.

RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action. This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.6

Now you’ve got talking heads in the Republican party conveniently broadcast by the liberal media stating that they will not support Trump. At this point, as a whole, they’ve so worn out their welcome in the mind of the attentive voter that their endorsement doesn’t really matter. If anything, it reinforces the notion that they realize there’s a new sheriff in town who will hold them accountable and that makes them squirm.

As far as Barak Obama and the Democrat party is concerned, consider this:

Andrew Jackson established himself as a wealthy man through the art of extortion – specifically in the context of real estate. He positioned himself as the “Great Father” to Indians before either manipulating them or forcefully removing them from their land. This was happening while he was simultaneously deploying surveyors to assess the same land at which point he would buy it and then sell it at a tremendous profit.

Steve Inskeep, in his book, “Jacksonland” elaborates by saying:

Jackson managed national security affairs in a way that match his interest in land development…He shaped his real estate investments to compliment his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.7

Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement. The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.

The events leading up to the Civil War, in terms of the preservation of slavery, were championed by Democrats. Not just in the South, but even Northern Democrats were vehement in their belief that slavery was a good thing and even healthy for blacks. As stated in the Charleston Mercury during the Secession debate, the duty of the South was to, “…rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported…the rights of the South.”8

Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin. It’s not. It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party.

It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.

But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”9

The fact of the matter was, the Democrats needed the black vote. As the South became less agrarian, the Republican message of upward mobility resonated more so than racism. As more and more white people migrated over to the Republican side, the black vote grew more crucial.

It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed. So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into fascism.

Obamacare, free college education, EPA regulations, financial subsidies – these all represent stages of increasing government control. On the surface, it may appear like a logical solution to the challenges facing individuals, but there’s more to it than that. Obamacare represents control over the healthcare industry. Secondary education, the energy sector and the banking industry are all being retooled to make them more accessible, but the catch is that the government now has control, and this is the goal of the Progressive movement that characterizes the Democrat party.

FDR admired Mussolini. JFK had some good things to say about Hitler before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and compelled the USA to enter WWII. Prior to that, however, Fascism appealed to FDR for the way in which economic unrest could justify greater control over the private sector. The “New Deal” centralized power; put a new class of planners in charge of the productive wealth of the society, restricted the operation of the free market and used modern propaganda techniques to rally the masses in the name of collective solidarity.

In the aftermath of WWII, the terminology had to be made more subtle and approachable, but the aim remained the same. A new approach, a different vocabulary, but the same goal.

Saul Alinski represents the next phase of Progressivism in that he was able to enhance the technique represented by the mafioso phrase, “a deal you can’t refuse.” He found that by approaching an industry or an iconic company, simply by threatening to create a disturbance in the name of “injustice,” he could extort all kinds of favors and financial rewards.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, a promising young man became fascinated with the legacy of Saul Alinski and the way in which he could extract change and resources through extortion. While Alinski had passed away in 1972, his operation still thrived. He would have to move to Chicago, however. Later, this young man would write a book and say, “All the strands of my life came together and I really became a man when I moved to Chicago.”10 He would teach workshops and over time assume greater amounts of responsibility. He would actually be elected to the Senate and today he is leader of the free world.

While he’s often heralded as a champion of the working man and an advocate of civil rights, his actions and his words reveal otherwise. Still, the fact that he was successful in his shakedown operations was appealing, especially to young people in the sixties who saw the establishment as something that needed to be changed.

One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority. Alinski disagreed. Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School.

Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong. By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned. In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.

Conclusion

The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda. But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage. It’s twisted, but it’s real. And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.

I will vote for Donald Trump.

 

 

1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)

2. Ibid, p99

3. Ibid, p129

4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40

5. Ibid, p109

6. Ibid, 171

7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104

8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69

9. Ibid, p139

10. Ibid, p163

11. Ibid, p171

The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT

1362086416_small-dawkins_the-god-delusionThere are three kinds of “data.”

“Facts”

“Facts” are accurate statements. Think of them as headlines. For example:

  • Headline #1: Jesus Rises From the Grave
  • Headline #2: Pharisees Accuse Christ Followers of Stealing Corpse of Christ

Both of these statements are accurate. While we know Christ did, in fact, rise, the Pharisees also paid the guards that were guarding the tomb a large sum of money to back up the story that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt 28:11-15). What’s significant is that for someone who’s just glossing over the headlines, the verbiage, albeit very brief, can still shape conclusions for those who don’t take the time to consider the full account. That leads us to the second category:

Information

“Information” is the “facts” in the context of a limited perspective.

A journalist could build a compelling yet misleading article by strategically citing the chief priests, the guards who had been bribed and any one of a number of like minded people.

Can you see the article in your mind’s eye (click here to read “Experts Doubt the Resurrection of Christ” to see an example)?

By steering clear of any testimony that differs from the accounts of the judiciously selected individuals compiled by the hypothetical journalist, you’ve got an article that’s legitimately accurate (facts) and informative (limited perspective). But because the perspective of the article is limited, while there’s nothing directly stated, there is nevertheless an implication that says Christ is dead and unless the reader is inspired to seek out a more comprehensive perspective, assuming he’s even aware that one is available, he’s waking around sporting a very cynical outlook on the first Easter morning.

Information. Limited perspective.

Finally, the last category of “data” is…

Truth

Truth is an accurate statement that’s been elaborated on in the context of a full perspective. This is the well you want to be drawing your conclusions from. Here is where the right questions are being asked and full disclosure is the norm. In the absence of “truth,” you risk formulating convictions that are fundamentally flawed. This is why you want to ensure that you’re aggressively and intentionally seeking out the “truth,” and not just the “facts.” You don’t even want to be content with “additional information.”

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Treaty of Tripoli

If you’re familiar with the words of the “Marines Hymn,” then you’re familiar with the phrase, “…the shores of Tripoli.” That phrase refers to the “War with the Barbary Pirates” where Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon lead an exceptionally daring assault as part of the Battle of Dema. Prior to that war President John Adams issued a statement in an effort to assure the radical Muslims that comprised the Barbary Pirates that our country should not be perceived by them as a religious target in that we were not a Christian theocracy. He said:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Most of those who try to take Adams words to mean that he was declaring that the United States was not based on Christian principles are required to leave out some context that is both obvious and crucial. But that is nevertheless the methodology that is often used by the person who has something to hide more so than they have something to say.

Thomas Essel, despite being among those who seemingly do not see God as central to our nation’s founding, wrote a great piece in 2016 entitled, “Secularists, Please Stop Quoting the Treaty of Tripoli” that elaborates on how citing that statement is irresponsible both academically and practically.

Consider this quote from John Adams:

“This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!”

On the surface, you have, what appears to be, a very valid piece of evidence that says our nation’s second President and a founding father was an atheist. Or, at least, a very cynical individual when it came to religion.

John Adams did say it. It’s part of a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson. When you consider the statement in its proper context, you arrive at a much different conclusion:

“Twenty times in the course of my late readings, I have been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!’ But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as [Adams’ former pastor Lemuel] Bryant or [his former teacher Joseph] Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company — I mean hell.”

In other words, Adams is exasperated when he ponders the way in which organized religion has resulted in so much tension. He says, tongue in cheek, that the world would be better without any “religion” in it. But then he’s very quick to say that the world would be, literally, hell on earth.

Hardly the musings of a man who views religion with a contemptuous sneer. Yet, this is the way in which atheists and progressives sometimes frame their “facts” and “information” when it comes to the religious disposition of America’s founding fathers (see also “The Treaty of Tripoli” on sidebar).

Richard Dawkins categorizes John Adams as a cynical deist, to the point of him being used by Dawkins as evidence of a collective disdain for religion shared by virtually all the founding fathers. He quotes Adams as saying:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”1

But he fails to reference another statement made by Adams:

The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity, let the Blackguard [Thomas] Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man.2

Facts. Information. Truth.

You want to know the truth, you want to be aware of the facts, but more than anything else, you want to understand the truth.

A Toddler and a 285 lb Bench Press

As a quick aside, don’t allow yourself to think that being obedient to God’s commands is a laborious drudgery. It’s not.

When you’ve got the Holy Spirit living in and through you, you’re not flying solo when you’re confronted with a temptation to make compromises (1 Cor 10:13). When the lights aren’t on (aka, the Holy Spirit is not living in you), you’re approaching temptation the same way a toddler approaches a 285 pound bench press. It’s not going to end well.

But when it’s God’s Strength and His Truth that is allowed to animate your actions and your outlook, you now have more than you need to successfully negotiate the challenge that lies before you. Bear in mind, it’s a choice. You can run the red light and plow head on into traffic if you want and God grants you the freedom to make those decisions (Josh 24:2, 15; Rom 8:12-13). As someone who doesn’t have a relationship with Christ, you don’t have the Spirit of God living in you (Rom 8:9), you’re on your own and you’re that overwhelmed toddler. But when it’s God’s Spirit being deployed in the context of those situations, it’s one victory after another.

The Book of Proverbs

Scripture admonishes us to do as much. Proverbs 4:7 says:

Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. (Prove 4:7)

And wisdom begins with a reverence for God. That’s the top button.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)

Understand that wisdom, from a biblical standpoint, is more than just knowledge. It’s the “ability to judge correctly and to follow the best course of action, based on knowledge and understanding.”3 While this “ability” is based in part on one’s discipline in the context of academic pursuits, it derives it’s true accuracy and application from an intentional pursuit of God’s Power and Perspective. In short, it’s a Divine Perspective properly applied (1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:29; Jas 1:5-8.

Here, then, is where you see the real distinction between having access to the directions and actually following the directions –  the difference between Facts, Information and Truth.  Anytime you buy something that requires some assembly, you can gloss over the instructions, believing that your intuition can more than make up for a careful study of the manufacturer’s counsel. More often than not, however, those instructions prove invaluable in being able to put your new resource together correctly. And however prudent it may be to follow the instructions in the assembly of your nephew’s new swing set, it’s absolutely crucial that you follow God’s Instructions when it comes to the whole of life (Jn 14:21; Rom 8:11).

And when you’re listening to people like Richard Dawkins, or people who think like him, use the same technique. Recognize the difference between Facts, Information and Truth. Don’t let a carefully crafted platform based on an intentionally watered down perspective replace the full perspective and the truly accurate convictions that flow from that approach.

 

 

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p65
2. John Adams, The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), 3:233-34
3. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, Nashville, TN

 

Disruption in Class

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-8-59-28-amI used this particular video clip this past Sunday morning as part of the 8th grade boys Sunday School class that I teach. The topic was how social media isn’t always a good thing in the way it sometimes affects our outlook on ourselves depending on the number of “likes” we get etc. The bottom line is that we use God’s Perspective (Eph 2:10) rather than a paradigm that changes from hour to hour.

This clip struck me as a good way to illustrate some of the other things about social media that aren’t always healthy, but the outcome of our discussion was a little different than I had planned.

From the start, this clip bothered me because I saw belligerence and rebellion more than anything else. This morning as I played the clip, I faced the phone towards the class so I wasn’t able to see the video, all I could do was hear the young man’s comments. In the absence of the “visual,” and without the distraction of a kid disrupting a class and challenging the authority of the teacher in front of everyone, I heard a platform that was actually very worded and loaded with substance.

Teachers are making a huge blunder by getting in front of their class and implying that they resonate only as a “paycheck.” They make matters even worse by acting out their attitude by simply disseminating content rather than truly teaching. Furthermore, a good teacher is genuinely gifted (Ex 35:34) and they’re going to do more than just enhance a student’s knowledge of a particular subject, they’re going to have a positive impact on that student’s life and character. A poor teacher will often have the exact opposit effect. That’s what that young man was getting at and he was right. And every one of the 8th graders that I teach was in agreement with what he was saying.

But when I pressed my guys for whether or not the young man in the video was right for calling out the teacher in front of everyone and being disrespectful, they all agreed that he was way south of where he needed to be. That didn’t surprise me. But what did surprise me was just how on the money this kid was in what he was saying. Apart from his manner, he had a lot of good things to say. He was correct in what a teacher’s responsibility is, but…

His platform was irretrievably compromised the moment he assaulted the “authority” of the teacher (Rom 13:1-5). In that moment, he wasn’t addressing the actions of that particular teacher, he was attacking the institution and the office of “teacher.” You never evaluate a system according to the way it’s abused and should you find fault in a person’s executution of his duties, you target the performance and not the position.

Some want to herald the kid in the video as a noble act – likening his outburst to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple. But that comparison falls short on several levels. First of all, Jesus was the Authority in the Temple. Not the Pharisees, not the Law – Him and only Him. So, He was uniquely qualified to recognized the con that was going on (selling sacrificial animals for a profit [Matt 21:13]) and putting an end to it (Jn 2:17). The kid may have had a point, but he didn’t have the authority to usurp and discredit the position of the teacher. His platform was lost the moment he disrupted the class. Not because of what he said, but because of what he did.

When our forefathers chose to challenge and cast off the authority of King George, they appealed to the authority of Scripture, they didn’t ignore it. The stance of the colonies was that governments and institutions are established by the consent of the governed, beneath the umbrella of Divine Absolutes, for the purpose of protecting and promoting what Jefferson referred to as “inalienable human rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The grievances documented in the Declaration amounted to more than just legislative frustrations. Taken together, they represented a collection of “usurpations.” (pronounced “YOU-zer-pay-shun”). That term refers to a violation of rights. And not just rights in the context of personal preferences or opinions. It’s not that you simply feel wronged or you feel you feel like the teacher isn’t rising to the calling of her office. It falls under the same category as what’s articulated in Acts 5:29 when Peter, addressing the Sanhedrin, who was demanding that the apostles cease their preaching the fact that Christ had risen from the grave, states that they are obligated to obey God rather than men. This is the Authority that makes the Declaration of Independence valid. It wasn’t merely the performance of King George, it was the premise upon which he approached the throne. According to the Divine Right of Kings, God did not create men equal, thus the colonies had no rights and therefore no voice in the way they were governed or in the definition of true justice. This is what justified the colonial delegates to pledge their lives and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty. It wasn’t a mere complaint, it was a refutation of the notion that a king’s authority was superior to God’s.

This kid calling into question the authority of his teacher is not a “cleansing of the temple” nor is it an honorable stand against tyranny. He’s not stirring the pot, nor is he raising awareness. He’s burying his point beneath a thick layer of beligerence that condemns the very institution he’s simultaneously appealing to for change.

Even if he were to quote a verse out of context or attempt to align himself with the actions and the approach taken by our forefathers in their quest for liberty, his stance fails the first test of legitimacy in that, because of his actions, those who are hearing him process his platform as a condemnation of an entire institution rather than a critique of a particular individual. Hence, they are obligated to address his lack of respect for a position that rightfully demands and deserves respect if, for no other reason, other than the way it promotes the general common welfare. In short, what might’ve been heard as a legitimate point is lost due to what is seen as a legitimate offense.

The same “failure” applies to the actions of Colin Kaepernick. He’s convinced that what has been circulated in the headlines constitutes a comprehensive analysis of the actions of several police officers. Based on that information, he’s resolved that a gross injustice has been played out in the context of several black individuals being killed by policemen acting out their racial prejudices. Even if his assumptions were accurate, he’s still guilty of burying his objective beneath a mound of disgrace and disrespect that reveals him more as an arrogant fool than a noble martyr (see the section entitled “Riots in the Streets” that’s a part of the article “Racism: Absolutely Not!“).

While certain Americans may be guilty of carrying out and / or condoning certain injustices, it’s not America as an ideal or as a nation that is to blame. The only reason Colin can demonstrate like he does is because of the very paradigm he spits on by not standing for the National Anthem. Yes, it is his right, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. Yes, that young man may have had a point (it’s strange that the person videoing the kid’s comments knew to have the camera rolling just as things got started, isn’t it?), but publicly challenging the teacher’s authority and thus indicting every teacher who has ever stood in front of a class, qualifies him as a problem and not as a remedy. Colin may have an issue with several officers, perhaps even several precincts. He doesn’t have a problem with America, and yet, because of his actions, that is the ideal he condemns and that is the reason he is being shunned by those who appreciate what our flag – and what our anthem – represents.

 

Islam, Syrian Refugees and How to Love Your Enemy

rtx1p7mw“Pure Christianity” is never exercised in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10; Jas 1:5). Dressing up whatever policy or conviction you in the guise of “compassion” or “Christian charity” –  if it doesn’t pass the litmus test of  a comprehensive perspective on Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17)  – you’re simply attempting to give your flawed opinions the look of a Biblically based disposition, the result being neither healthy nor wise.

The question on the table is “Does denying Syrian refugees into the US run contrary to the commandment to love your enemies and to be loving and charitable to all people?”

90% of Syria

90% of Syria is Muslim. When you scan the headlines, you find differing stories as to whether or not you can accept these people as legitimate refugees or you need to at least consider the fact that they pose a potential threat given their creed as well as the history of the way terrorists have infiltrated those areas they define as targets. Given the question marks surrounding the true nature and agenda of these people, a vetting process has been established, but, according to some, it’s been diluted to the point of becoming almost non-existent in order to accommodate President Obama’s commitment to welcome 10,000 refugees by September of 2016. Many believe that this is a logical response to a problem that doesn’t really exist, others see it as an irresponsible mindset that could case the country harm.

There are several “bullet points” that emerge in the context of this debate, and while some appear both credible and compelling, there’s a warning represented by the aforementioned statistics thast need to be acknowledged in order to arrive at a conclusion that is taking into consideration all of the facts.

  • Do Muslims represent a real threat?
  • Are the Syrian refugees devoid of any possible terrorist element?
  • What is the appropriate Christian response?

Are Muslims a Threat?

The struggle that’s going on in Syria right now is being described as one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. What began as an uprising fueled by economic and political unrest has become a struggle that’s drawn according to sectarian lines. In other words, it’s become a religious battle between the Suni’s and the Shiite’s.

The struggle between Suni’s and Shiites goes back to the beginning of Islam as far as who is the true successor to Mohammed. But there are nevertheless some common denominators between the two factions, one being their mutual hatred and resolve to destroy the United States.

Some will argue that this is not the tenor of most Muslims and is therefore illogical and unfair to be hesitant when labeling Muslims in general as being a threat to national security. But here’s the problem:

The moment you put that uniform on – the moment you align yourself with Islamic teachings – you are subscribing to a creed that includes a divine endorsement for murder in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims are radical, but the more orthodox your interpretation of the Quran, the more militant you become. Furthermore, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

moderate_muslimsThe Problem of Abrogation

While the Bill of Rights gives everyone the opportunity to practice their religion without any kind of governmental limitation, the Supreme Court in 1878 appropriately ruled that the practice of one’s religion does not serve as a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words, should your religion be used as a way to justify murder, then your religious beliefs no longer fall beneath the umbrella of the First Amendment. Because of the way in which our nation’s 200 year history has been consistently punctuated with acts of terror prosecuted by individuals who claim a commitment to Allah as being their inspiration, being a Muslim, by default, puts you in a position where your voluntary ties to these acts defines you as a potential threat to the general welfare and not as a mere religious pilgrim.

That may sound harsh and even inaccurate, given the way many Muslims appear to be kind and more than gracious,  and they may very well be. But it’s imperative to realize that those who are “moderate” are viewed by their more orthodox counterparts as “Uncle Tom’s” and not followers of the true faith.  And it’s also important to realize that the Qur’an insists on the destruction of the infidel. It’s not a question of how you interpret the Qur’an, rather it’s your personal disposition as to which passages you embrace and which ones you do not. The contention is that the most recent revelations of Mohamad are the ones that you obey. Should any of those contradict what had been documented in the past, you are to ignore anything that was previously stated and instead obey the newest admonishments.

This anomaly is called “abrogation.” It’s most threatening manifestation is in the context of jihad:

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad’s life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations. 1

This is why any Muslim who is “peaceful” is nevertheless conflicted in that they are hard pressed to condemn their more militant counterparts. After all, the terrorists are simply obeying what is in the Quran. For example:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. (“Radical vs Moderate Islam: A Muslim View“)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

What About Christianity?

Some will argue that Christianity has fueled may of the conflicts that have plagued the human existence, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t being categorized as a threat. “Why not?” they ask.

First and foremost, just because you carry a Bible doesn’t make you a believer any more than brandishing a cross on your shield qualifies you as a Christian soldier. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as a truly “righteous” cause that merits the use of force. But there’s a difference between what’s right from a Biblical standpoint and what’s merely profitable.

The Crusades are often viewed as a Christian enterprise that illustrates how people who are supposedly Christ followers can be just as violent as their Islamic counterparts thus giving the impression there is no distinction between one “religious” group over another.

But the Crusades were not fought for sake of advancing the gospel as much as it was for the sake of protecting the interests of Alexis I, the emperor of Constantinople and promoting the influence of Pope Urban II. The Jews surrendered their home to the Muslims in 638. It wasn’t until 1096 that the first Crusade was initiated. If it was a purely Christian impetus that inspired the Crusades, why did it take over 400 years for any kind of military campaign to be launched? Fact is, the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their territory to include Constantinople. Only then did Alexis I reach out to the Pope who was only too happy to seize the opportunity to extend his authority into what was previously an exclusively Greek Orthodox dynamic. Bottom line: The Crusades were about wealth and power and not the cause of Christ.

That’s not to say that providing aid to Alexis the First would’ve been an inappropriate gesture. But to offer forgiveness of one’s sin in exchange for taking up arms against the Turks…

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (portion of Pope Urban II’s speech at Council of Clermont, 1095)

…is not even remotely biblical let alone a “holy” war.

And as far as the kind of violence the you do see in Scripture, there’s a fundamental difference there as well.

War in the Bible versus Jihad

Dr. Emir Caner grew up as a Muslim and later, along with his brother, converted to Christianity. Part of what makes his story so compelling is that his father was a devout Muslim. According to the Hadith, you are to be put to death if you renounce your faith in Allah. Rather than following the Qur’an to the letter, their father chose instead to disown them and they never saw their father again until he was on their deathbed. He’s currently president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia.

He explains the difference between war from a biblical standpoint and the way it’s promoted in the Qur’an:

…war, in Christian thought has the express purpose of securing peace (see Timothy 2:2) and removing those who oppress and act wickedly (see Romans 13:1-7). But war in Islam is different both in its scope and purpose. The latter half of sura 9:5 commands, “But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees,

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).2

God and Allah

And it’s not just the difference in what prompts war. It comes down to the fundamental difference between God and Allah. Dr. Emir Caner is joined by his brother in the book, “Unveiling Islam.” Together they explain that:

The greatest difference between Jesus Christ as God and Savior and Muhammad as prophet of Allah, comes at this point. Jesus Christ shed His own blood on the cross so that people could come go to God. Muhammad shed other people’s blood so that his constituents could have political power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Further, since Muhammad is held to be the “excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day” (sura 33:21), we need to look no righter for explanation of violent acts with Islam than at the character of its founder. Was Muhammad a man of peace who shed other people’s blood only as a last resort? When he killed others, were his acts part of war or for personal vengeance? The answers to such questions tarnish the ethical integrity of the Islamic worldview.3

Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world. Allah is to be worshiped, period. Any who will not do so must be defeated, silenced, or expelled. The theme is conquest, not conversion, of the unbelieving world. Allah has called the Muslim to make the name of Allah alone to be worshiped. 4

At the end of the day, Christianity and Islam represent two vastly different paradigms, both in the natures of God and Allah as well as in the way they are to be championed and proliferated. A very short and succinct way of expressing the differences would be to simply reflect on how Allah invites his followers to die for him, whereas God says, “No, I’ll die for you.”

But what about the way in which you are to treat your enemy from a Christian standpoint? Does Christian charity not demand that we as a nation welcome anyone within our borders, regardless of their intent?

Senior Intelligence Community officials assess the greatest international terrorist threats currently facing the United States come from violent extremists inspired by al-Qa‘ida, including its allies and affiliates, who are committed to conducting attacks inside the United States and abroad.

Loving Your Enemy versus Enabling Them

Here’s the thing: There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them.

In 2 Kings 6, the Arameans were at war with Israel and had surrounded the city of Dothan in an effort to capture the prophet Elisha. Elisha prayed that God would strike the army with blindness and God honored Elisha’s request. Elisha then led the army into Samaria, at which point the eyes of the Aramean army were opened. Rather than destroying them, Israel fed them and sent them away. Afterwhich the king of Aram ceased to war with Israel.

But that peace didn’t last. In the very next chapter, the nation of Aram is once again attacking Israel.

The point is, chapter six illustrates how a Christian is to deal with their enemy – with compassion. That isn’t to say that there are no casualties in the kind of warfare prosecuted by believers (2 Kings 18:8). The Arameans were no strangers to Israel. You see them throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, in 2 Samuel 8, King David killed 22,000 of them in a battle where they had tried to defeat Israel by fighting alongside the Zobahites. But war in general is fought either as a last resort to subordinate a wicked ideology and ensure a lasting peace, or it is engaged for the sake of promoting a wicked ideology and advancing a quest for power.

War is never choreographed nor is it scripted. By the time the situation has deteriorated to that point, horrific scenes are commonplace and those who survive that value life will carry with them scars and psychological wounds that they will bear for the rest of their lives. Individuals such as Hitler, however, had no problem sleeping at night because the presence of a breathing Jew –  or any who would offer them sanctuary-  was nothing more than an obstacle to overcome. A Hebrew was not a soul that Christ had died for. They were a social poison that was therefore unworthy of the dignity that every human being would otherwise rate when viewed through the lens of a Christian paradigm. Death and suffering were merely processes by which the Nazi archetype would be established.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Dt 20:10-15 [see also Lev 19:33])

That’s the distinction between war waged as a form of conquest and war waged in the name of justice. In both situations you have an enemy, but in the context of conquest, you have a nameless entity that needs to be eliminated. When the cause is just, on the other hand, the enemy is a human opponent that merits the consideration due a person that God valued enough to redeem. But that doesn’t mean you hesitate to do whatever is required to subdue them should they attack (Num 21:1-3). Nor does it mean that you allow them to keep a sword in their hands as long as they remain a threat (see sidebar [Dt 20:10-11]).

When Israel went to war with neighboring nations, they were instructed to first make an offer of peace. It would be in the context of that offer that Israel’s enemy could demonstrate that they were no longer an enemy, but merely a foreigner that was now entitled to the same rights and privileges of an Israelite. Take for example Uriah the Hittite. The Hittites were among those that Israel fought as part of the conquest of the Promised Land (Dt 20:17). Yet, Uriah is listed among David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 23:39). Uriah literally means, “My light is the Lord.” So, here’s an example of someone who’s lineage included a people group that had at one point been at war with Israel, but had since adopted the Israelite faith and proven his worth and integrity to the point where he was now serving in a prestigious, military position.

While we don’t have video footage of the feast the Jews held for their enemies, no doubt the mood of the Arameans was that of a conquered opponent. The reason the gesture resonated the way that it did was because it was deployed from a position of strength.

It’s one thing to impress your enemy with a noble surrender, but when you have the higher ground, the impression you’re making by being compassionate can be even more powerful.

It’s Not a Courtroom, it’s Combat

In warfare, your enemy is not a mere criminal in that their agenda is not that of a common thief or a murderer. Rather, it’s the demise of the ideals that serve as the philosophical foundation upon which your nation is based. That is their target. When contending with an enemy soldier, it’s not a criminal attack that you’re trying, it’s a military attack that you’re combating. Hence, any kindness must be executed in a manner that prevents them for shaking hands with one hand and delivering a lethal blow with the other. It’s only when your foe is having to admit defeat or, at the very least, the very real likelihood of being overwhelmed, that your hospitality compels them to reevaluate their hatred for you and the value system you represent.

It should be noted as well that any pagan foreigner who chose to live among the Israelites was expected to obey the same laws that had been prescribed for the Jews (Num 15:16). The worship of Jehovah was not dictated (Ex 12:48) and the Israelites were commanded not to oppress or mistreat any foreigner (Ex 23:9). But as far as moral and criminal statutes – those laws were expected to be upheld.

In some instances, that might seem like a violation of one’s civil liberties – especially from today’s point of view. But you have to realize that it was the foreigner’s reverence for their pagan deities that served as the basis for their determination to destroy Israel. Committing to a new moral / legal code was not an infringement of their rights as much as it was a necessary pledge of allegiance to the general welfare of the Hebrew nation as opposed to its demise.

In Conclusion

Using Scripture as a template for the way in which the US is to approach the admission of 10,000 Muslims into our cities has to go beyond a hippie-like dismissal of evil based on a solitary Bible verse. Rather, it must be a comprehensive perspective of the Bible which includes the reason you are to love your enemies and the manner in which you are to make that love apparent.

Those who sneer at military action or condemn the use of deadly force forget that the opponent whose sole objective is power process their offer of peace as them simply removing themselves from the battlefield and exchanging the indignity of violence for the certainty of being destroyed. Pacifism is not an application of of the Bible, it’s a distortion of it. Socialism is not a system illustrated by the life of Christ, it’s a humanistic attempt to solve the problem of greed. Loving your enemy is not about making yourself vulnerable to attack as much as it’s a victor’s kindness extended to their foe as an encouragement to change.

Unless it can be determined conclusively that a Syrian refugee is not inclined to embrace those portions of the Qur’an that condemn the infidel to death, you are welcoming into your neighborhood a potential threat. Offering aid and assistance is one thing, handing over the keys to your home is another. That’s not being disobedient to the Word of God, that’s an application of the wisdom contained within it.

 

 

 

1. “Middle East Forum”, “Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam”, David Bukay, 2007, http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam, accessed June 20, 2016)

2. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19

3. “Unveiling Islam”, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002, 2009, p20

4. Ibid, p90

American Concrete

concrete

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

  • The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
  • The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1 Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

  • the context of that comment
  • the character of the person speaking
  • the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Seven day clock 670

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

Jefferson’s Audience

In addition to considering the background of Thomas Jefferson and his philosophical starting point when it came to the issue of religious liberty, one also needs to look at the society that Jefferson was addressing in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in addition to proclaiming America’s resolve to separate itself from the authority of the crown, it also created a mandate for all states to create their own constitution. While many of the early settlers had left Old World in order to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, not everyone was dissatisfied with the Anglican Church. As a result, while the fabric of America’s religious culture was predominantly Protestant, it was nevertheless interwoven with a number of different denominations. The Church of England was predominant in Virginia, in New England you had a blend of Congregationalists (an evolution of the original Puritans), Presbyterians and Quakers with a small percentage of other denominations scattered throughout the Northeast.

It’s imperative to realize that between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of the population attended churches which were being built at a headlong pace. When Thomas Jefferson became Vice President in 1797, the Second Great Awakening began and an abundance of revival meetings occurred throughout the country in a sustained pattern that would continue to the Civil War. So common was this anomaly that it was referred to as “the great absorbing theme of American life.”4 And part of what made the evangelical movement so potent was the way in which it was perceived as the best way in which to promote and preserve republican government.

Nineteenth century evangelical literature abounds with statements that could have been inspired by the religion section of Washington’s Farewell Address or copied from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: “the religion of the Gospel is the rock on which civil liberty rests”; “civil liberty has ever been in proportion to the prevalence of pure Christianity”; “genuine Religion with all its moral influences, and all its awful sanctions, is the chief, if not the only security we can have, for the preservation of our free institutions”; “the doctrines of Protestant Christianity are the sure, nay, the only bulwark of civil freedom”; “Christianity is the conservator of all that is dear in civil liberty and humoses_1man happiness.”5

But while the message of preachers was being embraced as something that promoted the nation’s approach to liberty as well as the key to one’s eternal salvation, it didn’t resolve the tension that existed in many states, as far as the way certain state constitutions made religion – specifically the patronization of a specific denomination – compulsory. In 1724, in the state of Connecticut, if you were a member of the Anglican church, you were required by law to pay a percentage of your income to the local Congregationalist church under penalty of imprisonment or seizure of goods.6 Up until 1818, the Congregational church was the established church of Connecticut which translated to a number of legislative tactics deployed for the expressed purpose of discouraging and harassing members of any “dissenting” denomination.7 In the year 1801, the Baptist churches that comprised the Danbury Baptist Association resolved to approach the newly elected President for the sake of soliciting from him a statement that would reinforce and further promote the idea of disestablishment – the elimination of government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities.8

Jefferson’s reply would be reprinted in publications across the nation.9 The effect of Jefferson’s letter is subjective in that it would be several years before Connecticut’s religious tone would be altered to the point where its constitution would be stripped of any legislative power to promote one denomination over another. Other states would follow suit over time, but the bottom lines is that in the early years of the nineteenth century, “religious freedom” wasn’t so much about discouraging public religious expressions as much as it was about eliminating that dynamic where you were legally obligated to attend and support a specific church.

It’s wise to pause for a moment and ponder the mindset of those who were reading Jefferson’s letter in 1802. While our currency today states that we trust in God, statistics reveal a collective disposition that is largely cynical of traditional Christianity.10 In a 2013 article written by Steve McSwain entitled “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore,” he cites some compelling stats that proclaim upwards of 80% of Americans are finding “more fulfilling things to do on the weekend” besides going to church.11 That’s not to say that some of these same people aren’t listed on the membership role of a local fellowship, but their commitment to God is casual at best. This is an important dynamic to consider in that, to a nineteenth century citizen of the US, given the religious tenor of the nation as a whole, removing any and all references to Christ from the public arena was not something to be desired let alone considered. Christianity was regarded as both the foundation as well as the fuel for a moral society which, in turn, promoted a healthy republic. Jefferson demonstrated that himself in his personal life as well as his public policies.12 “The Christian religion,” he wrote in 1801, when “brought to the original and simplicity of its benevolent institutor (Jesus Christ), is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.”13 This is not the sentiment of a man determined to remove faith based gestures from the public arena. And while it wasn’t in Jefferson’s mind to eliminate the concrete of Christianity from America’s foundation, neither was it the ambition of the people he governed or the people who governed alongside him.

Jefferson’s Peers

To state that Jefferson’s was not the only signature on the Declaration of Independence nor was he the only voice that shaped our Constitution (Jefferson was in France when our Constitution was written, but he was nevertheless influential through his correspondence) is to rehearse the obvious. Yet, when you consider the weight given to a single phrase made in a letter that, while politically strategic, had no legislative power, it’s difficult not to feel as though Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists is the only piece of evidence being admitted into the courtroom.

When you consider the other personalities and their respective statements along with their voting record, the resulting dynamic isn’t so much something that isolates Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Association as unique as much as it brings into focus what he truly intended.

The First Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were the legislative bodies that crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution respectively. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. With no more than five exceptions, the members of the Constitutional Convention were all orthodox members of an established Christian denomination.14  The signatures on the Declaration of Independence boasts a similar enumeration of men who vocally volunteered their commitment to Christ with little hesitation.

Following the death of Richard Henry Lee (President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence), his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from patriots (e.g., roosevelt_msgGeorge Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc.), were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:

“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation.”15

The reason the American experiment succeeded is because it was based on the Absolutes in Scripture that pertained to the way in which man was created to think and live as a free enterprise. Political theory and personal preferences can be debated to the point where legislative conclusions are determined more so by charisma and compelling rhetoric than the substance of the truths being considered. Our Founding Fathers knew that and for that reason chose to bring their collective pursuit of liberty beneath the umbrella of Biblical Truth. Within their ranks you had different degrees of orthodoxy as well as a variety of individual perspectives on issues such as slavery and those that were fit for positions of political leadership. But they all believed that man was “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights” and it was that consensus that allowed them the opportunity to come together as a unified legislative body and proclaim the freedom of those they represented to King George and to the world.

In Conclusion

Pop Quiz…

Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?

Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16woodrow_wilson_msg

Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?

Answer: Leviticus 25:10

Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson17

Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill?

Answer: Moses18

Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?

Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])

Question #6: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” a) Billy Graham b) George Washington c) George W. Bush d) Charles Spurgeon

Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)

fdrQuestion #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?

Answer: The third verse of our national anthem19:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”

The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.

"The Light of Truth" painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust.

The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.

The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II. Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting.

The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually.

If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur. Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.

Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.

1. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p92
2. “John F. Kennedy: Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Peace Winners of the Western Hemisphere”, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8623, accessed November 2, 2015
3. “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”, John Meacham, Random House, New York, NY, 2012, p471
4. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p99
5. Ibid, p109
6. “Connecticut in Transition, 1775-1818”, Richard Joseph Purcell, American Historical Association, 1918, p47
7. Among the laws that the Congregational Church used to make life difficult for dissenters was a “certificate law,” that compelled you to verify your church attendance and the regularity of your tithe via a certificate. Obtaining this certificate could be challenging in that, at one point during the life of this law, the certificate had to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace. Since many of the the civil officers in place were Congregationalists, getting their signature was not accomplished without having to endure a significant amount of harassment and discouragement. For more reading on this subject, refer to “The Connecticut State Constitution”, Wesley W. Horton, Oxford University Press, 2012, p10
8. In an October 7, 1801, letter to then-president Jefferson, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists expressed concerns that the Congregationalist-dominated establishment / government in Connecticut might successfully stifle dissenting sects – theirs in particular. The letter carried the Danbury Baptists’ plea for Jefferson’s assistance, or at least the lending of Jefferson’s presidential stature, to thwart establishment-driven, government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities. “Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History”, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana, 2008, p176
9. “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State”, New York University Press, NY, 2002, p47 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=aSg20UE2DHgC&pg=GBS.PT42.w.1.0.45.0.1, accessed Nov 17, 2015)
10. Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. “Gallup”, “Three in Four Still See the Bible as the Word of God”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx, accessed November 7, 2015
11. “Huffington Post”, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore”, Steve McSwain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html, accessed November 7, 2015
12. Jefferson regularly attended church services in the hall of the House of Representatives. In addition, he allowed church services to be held in several federal buildings throughout the capitol on Sundays. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states “It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.” “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p91
13. Ibid, p84
14. “Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution”, M.E. Bradford, 1994, University Press of Kansas, p xvi (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/dp/0700606572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449433424&sr=1-1#reader_0700606572) see also http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm)
15. “Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution & Religion”, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, Aldedo, TX, 2010, 152
16. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p53
17. Ibid, p91
18. “One Nation Under God”, Eugene F. Hemrick, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 2001, p49
19. “A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics”, Thomas L. Kranawitter, David C. Palm, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford, UK, 2006, p39

Sanctified Violence

Alvin_Cullum_York_large

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided.

Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded. As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end.

Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy. Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal? Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence.

Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations.

This essay seeks to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right.

But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction.

For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites.

In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as:

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword.

The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you.

You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind.

In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack. Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be.

Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words.

First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35).

As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures.

The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow.

Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared. While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished.

You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld.

If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment.

God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace.

A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.”

It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.”

Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified.

For further reading, refer to the links below: