It’s Not About Injustice

scalesI) Intro

The pro-homosexual platform often cites “injustice” as the moniker that best describes their plight. But it’s not a question of justice, rather it’s a matter of redefining that which is considered moral.

II) A Lot of Work

The Homosexual Agenda had a gargantuan task in front of them in that they had to re-educate the world and get it to a place where it saw homosexuality as normal, common and even noble in that it went against the grain of what supposedly less enlightened people regarded as decadent. However improbable that may have appeared to some in the late eighties, homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were determined and contributed to a strategy documented in two publications: “The Overhauling of Straight America” in 1987 and “After the Ball” in 1989. 1

In these books, a six point agenda is laid out that reads as follows:

  1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible
  2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers
  3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause
  4. Make gays look good
  5. Make the victimizers look bad
  6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause)

It worked. When you look at the present polls and review how the number of people who feel uncomfortable with the issue of homosexuality has dropped dramatically over the last few decades, it’s obvious that the Homosexual Agenda has been incredibly successful.2

But while the campaign may have changed the perception of the masses, it has not altered the fundamental issue that reveals the Homosexual Agenda for what it truly is: It’s not a quest for understanding and equality, rather it’s a demand that a retooling of what constitutes moral Absolutes be endorsed and even embraced.

According to Scripture, Homosexuality is wrong. It always has been and always will be (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-28; 1 Tim 1:10) . That’s not a cue to be cruel and abusive towards those who insist on exchanging the Truth for a lie, but it is a reminder that the dialogue is ultimately about endorsing pervsion and not supporting entitlement. Read more

You’re Missing the Point

maddowA recently posted video from the Rachel Maddow show featured some comments made by Rachel pertaining to a recent speech made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I documented some thoughts on my Facebook page and a friend of mine responded with some opinions of his own.

His response challenged me on several levels and I determined to respond with what I believed to be a sound rebuttal.

These kind of exchanges are exasperating on one hand, in that you wind up spending a lot of time researching and documenting things. But it’s a healthy exercise as well in that it compels you to articulate not just what you believe, but why you believe it.

So, this first part is my initial post. After than you can read the exchange between myself and my friend…

Buckle up!


I remember talking with a young lady who was Israeli and currently living in Nashville. I asked her if she had served in the Israeli army and she looked at me for a moment as though I was kidding. She replied “Of course.”

The climate in Israel has always been one of “alert.” Rachel Maddow has probably never slept in a war zone, much less served in the military. I’m not saying you have to be a combat veteran in order to be critical, but when your commentary borders on condescending and sarcastic, your resume and your background better include something that gives some serious credence to your rhetoric. Otherwise, any attempt to add to the conversation is squandered due to an unconscionable lack of perspective and respect.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a former Special Services soldier who was wounded in combat and lost a brother who was killed in action. When Mr Netanyahu speaks, he doesn’t pontificate, he articulates what he believes based on what he’s experienced and what he knows. It’s not something to sneer at simply because he offends your political sensibilities.

Regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on politically, when someone of substance speaks, you make a point of being mature enough and respectful enough to appreciate that while some who stand behind a podium formulated their convictions in a way that involved no personal risk or sacrifce, there are others who have literally bled for what they believe. That’s not “over the top,” that’s not a political spin – that’s just being an adult.

Frankly, the words that come from the left often lean more towards being volatile then they do substantial and it’s tragic. There are times when there’s a point to be made, but it gets lost in the ocean of fickel disprespect that some within their ranks wants to define as enlightened thinking.

Have a great day, Rachel…


Here’s the response to my post and my rebuttal…

Rob: Well written BG…so very interesting learning other people’s perspective on things…your comments touch on a few different Israeli issues…for one I don’t think the veteran you met would ever presume, because she served, that she would be an authority on anything except an M-16…a soldier does not a diplomat make…

Bruce: Perhaps not, but given his having studied Political Science at Harvard University, his four years as the Israeli Ambassador to the UN and his general experience in Israeli politics, I think he’s more than qualified. But you’re missing the point…

Rob: Israel is on “alert” because they invaded and conquered a territory in dispute and with the unconditional support of the US have been fighting ever since (and that’s why some Arabs hate us).

Bruce: The “territory in dispute” is an interesting perspective. The history of the Jewish people being persecuted and relocated goes back to the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC. Things reached a zenith in 634 AD when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem and built their “Dome of the Rock” on the site where the Temple that Solomon built once stood. For centuries, Jews have watched their homeland be conquered and redistributed, all the while having to endure the persecution that seemed to follow them wherever they attempted to flee.

At the conclusion of WWI, England, who was now in charge of what used to be the Ottoman Empire, provided a legislative accommodation for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. While some might see that as forcing a compromise on the Palestinians, it really isn’t when you consider that the Jews were being given back something that had been taken from them centuries ago, number one. And number two, the Palestinians at that point were in no position to balk having taken up arms against England and been defeated.

In 1939, Arabs, agitated by the insurgency of Jewish immigrants and British rule revolted. In November of 1947, in the aftermath of a UN resolution giving Israel a status of statehood, irritated Arabs once again attacked – a conflict that would evolve into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. At every turn, in every century, Israel has been attacked and persecuted. He’s not a Hawk, Rob, he simply recognizes that you don’t reason with terrorists. At no time have the Palestinians ever honored their agreement with Israel. Since England’s decision to set aside territory for displaced Hebrews in the aftermath of WWI, Arabs have always responded violently. Even going back to the Six Day War in 1967 where Israel was accused of initiating hostilities. They attacked preemptively in response to Egypt setting up weapons on their border – a move that signaled an Egyptian attack was forthcoming (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/six_day_war_1967.htm). Their resulting victory gave them control over the West Bank, which has been in “dispute” since then. But the “dispute” is coming from a people group that has no respect for the law and a religiously based resolve to destroy Israel. They have no point, they have no right to do what they’ve done for centuries. Even with the Gaza Strip, you have the same kind of situation where an Islamic entity refuses to acknowledge Israel. Never mind Israel’s legal right to the land, never mind the fact that the Hamas’ tunnels into Israel were one of the reasons Israel took military action (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html?_r=0) – the bottom line is you have a persecuted nation, surrounded by terrorists who have no regard for any law or resolution save those they author themselves.

But you’re missing the point…

Rob: I liken it to a Seneca Indian knocking on my door tonight and forcing me to leave my home because a few hundred years ago my government made a treaty with them for that land…could they expect some “kick-back” on that?

Bruce: Your “Seneca Indian” illustration falls short on multiple levels. It wasn’t a few hundred years ago, it was 1917. The Jews didn’t initiate or force the Balfour Declaration, it was administered by Britain. And Israel doesn’t want “kick-back” as much as they want to continue breathing.

Rob: You talk of respect…I voted McCain, but since have endeavored to consume as much information on issues as possible for a layperson…I listen to the individuals themselves and not the commentary that often follows and I will vote and comment accordingly. From the moment Rep Joe Wilson call the President of the United States a “liar” from the floor of Congress, the republicans have changed “RESPECT”.

Bruce:I don’t agree with Representative Wilson’s outburst on the floor of Congress. You respect the office, even if you don’t respect the man. But however President Obama wants to insist that his reforms will not accommodate illegal immigrants being given healthcare, it is happening nevertheless due to a very loose verification process (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obamacare-healthcare-Affordable-Care-Act-illegal-immigrants/2014/09/23/id/596383/). And while those who are securing coverage are doing so illicitly, the administration is moving at a very casual pace to correct let alone admit a problem, given the fact that taxpayer dollars are at stake. Wilson may have been out of line, but he does have a point when illegals are securing coverage.

On another note, Obamacare was supposedly never going to cover abortions. Isn’t it strange that some Democrats are fussing over a recent piece of legislation that passed last month that prohibits federal funding of abortions (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/7). Written in 2014, it passed last month after a memo from the White House threatened to veto it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/republicans-tax-abortion_n_6523714.html?1421942308). You reference “new lows” in journalism. I think it’s kind of intriguing that the article that talks about the recent bill being approved by the Senate is entitled “Republicans Include Tax Hike in Latest Abortion Bill.” No mention of how abortion wasn’t supposed to be covered to begin with…

Still, you’re missing the point…

Rob: The racism that has surfaced in this country is frightening. FOX NEWS and other conservative media have set new lows in journalism. Fanatic militia men are coming out of the “woodwork”. You, as a man of peace, should realize that Bibi is a HAWK, Rachel points out that no matter the situation, Mr. Netanyahu solution is WAR.

Bruce: Peace has a chance only if the parties involved desire it. The PLO, Al-Qaeda, ISIS – their idea of peace is predicated on the destruction of Israel and all those who align themselves with her. Read the Fatwa published in 1998 (http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations), consider the actions of ISIS and Hamas. These people aren’t interested in negotiations and while you and I can discuss it on Facebook, Israel has to contend with the close proximity of their tunnels, their weapons, their suicide bombers, the beheadings, the burnings and everything else that is condoned and encouraged by their creed.

Rob: Mr. Obama also agrees that Iran should not have nukes, but Bibi goes on to explain Iran should not get nukes, umm ok thanks we got that far too…I do understand Israel’s strategic position, but I also believe if the multiple nations involved in this crisis detect even the smallest of nuclear weapons, it will be destroyed at all costs. With that said OUR PRESIDENT wants to “give peace a chance”, he’s not an idiot and he’s not alone in the process. As for respect, you and I were both taught in the military: “you salute and respect the uniform, if not the man (person)”. With the outrageous, ignorant onslaught this President has endured, without a word from “respectable” conservatives, it is highly hypocritical to accuse democrats of the same…start in your own back yard letting your representatives know you don’t approve of the type of politics that have been going on in this country for quite some time……Furthermore, tell me how this is different, hypothetically, from the PM of France speaking in front of Congress weeks before the Iraq invasion against such an action. How would have you reacted to that? Mr Obama was duly elected by a majority of the populous as our commander in chief…This was so OBVIOUSLY, TRANSPARENTLY an attempt by Netanyahu to undermine a peace process that will cost many people their lives and a political atrocity by the Republican that will come back and bite them in the ass.

Bruce: The French President does not equate to Netanyahu even remotely and that segues into my final statement – you’re missing the point.

Rob: Thankfully OUR president is enlightened enough to put this in perspective considering the Earth shattering ramifications of this issue…guess that’s why he got the Noble Peace Prize…is that something you should respect? I wonder what Jesus would do?

Bruce: As a quick aside, four presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Theordore Roosevelt for having brokered the peace agreement between Japan and Russia. Woodrow Wilson for his role in establishing the League of Nations. Jimmy Carter for his promotion of peace illustrated in the way he facilitated the agreement between Egpyt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Begin. Barak Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Yet, with less than a year in office, he had no notable foreign policy achievements under his belt, nor any other significant accomplishment to warrant the award.

You’re missing the point, Rob. Netanyahu isn’t “politics.” When he talks of terrorism and the threat of nuclear destruction, he does so representing a people who have lived with war and persecution for centuries. He speaks from experience having not just studied war, but fought on the front lines. Israel’s platform is just while the Islamic mindset responsible for a sensible disposition towards nuclear weapons etc. is founded on terror. He is not “pontificating,” he is articulating a platform that is rooted in experience and any law making body interested in making informed decisions does well to listen to someone like Netanyahu in that he’s more than an observer / critic, he’s a participant and a victim. He’s a legitimate voice and anyone who dismisses him as a political mouthpiece has forgotten that it’s not a party based agenda that’s being discussed, it’s a personal testimony.

BTW: Kudos to your Democratic party members who skipped Netanyahu’s speech by accepting an invitation from the White House to a trade meeting that made it virtually impossible to attend Bibi’s speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/white-house-and-netanyahu-aipac-conference.html).

Oh, and as far as what Jesus would do? Know the times (1 Chron 12:32), Seek Counsel (Prov 20:18; Jas 1:5) and be prepared (Lk 22:36).

You’re killing me, Rob! I get drawn into these things and now I’m late! Rock on, brother…

Christianity vs Islam: A Facebook Conversation

muslim_christianRecently a buddy of mine was comparing the Bible to the Koran in the context of commenting on some of the atrocities being committed by Isalmic terrorists. A couple of specific quotes fired me up and I wrote the following.

Bear in mind, he and I sit on different sides of the aisle when it comes to Christianity in general, but there are people who sit in a pew every Sunday who can’t tell you what they believe and why. It’s their casual regard for their creed and their lack of basic knowledge when it comes to Scripture that can lead to a less than informed perspective when it comes to processing Islam, especially the way some will assert that the same kind of terrorist actions have been commited under the heading of Christ. When you take the time to pop the hood on what’s being said, while it may not be a call to arms, it is certainly an admonishment to be wise.

Bring it!


If you’re going to going to compare my creed and my King to Mohammed and Islam, let me help you out with a couple of specifics that you need to be aware of.

First off, you mention how the Bible says to “stone your daughter and other barbaric acts too numerous to mention.” The passage you’re referring to is Deuteronomy 22:13-30. Jewish Law can be broken down into three sections: Judicial, Ceremonial and Moral. The passage you’re referring to is categorized under the “Judicial” heading. Adultery – having sex with someone other than your spouse – was a capital offense (Lev 20:10). In this instance you’ve got a young woman who’s engaged, and while the ceremony has yet to happen, she’s considered betrothed in light of her having accepted her fiancé’s proposal. Knowing the penalty and being fully aware of the shame she brings on herself, her family her husband to be and her God, she decides to accept and inflict all of that in exchange for a moment of pleasure. That’s not mere promiscuity, that’s a pathologically twisted and selfish perspective.

You’re right in saying the New Testament changed things in that the Ceremonial and Judicial Law were no longer binding and situations like what’s referred to above were not punished in the same way (see Jn 8:1-11). That doesn’t mean that daughter above was any less wrong. God puts up varying levels of boundaries in proportion to the damage that can be done should you cross that line. Lying and stealing required some kind of recompense (Lev 6:1-5; Dt 19:19). Adultery and Murder were handled differently in that you were put to death (Num 35:16). That’s not barbaric, that’s wisdom given the way those actions can ruin lives and it’s the severity of the punishment that we can look at now, not so much as a guide for how to administer justice as much as it’s an alert to the kind of behavior you want to stay clear of.

As far as the “Lords and Kings that murdered all non-believers in the name of the Pope and Jesus” consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But 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 influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3 This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of European soldiers.

In short, the “Kings and Lords” you refer to weren’t believers championing the gospel as much as they were leveraging the “look and feel” of the gospel in order to achieve their own ends.

As far as Islam being a “peaceful” religion, Bush wasn’t wrong when he said that the “face of terror is not the true faith of Islam” in that many Muslims will focus on passages in the Koran such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

The problem however, is that later passages were written that some interpret to be nullifications of the previous texts. Verses like:

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)

That’s the plight of Muslims in that while they can legitimately claim to be peaceful, the fact is they’re hard pressed to condemn those who are not because the militants will respond that they are merely being obedient to other sections of the Koran.

The fact is, Islam and Christianity are NOT the same. My God doesn’t expect people to get their act together before He’s willing to consider them. He sent His Son to bridge that gap while Allah simply expects you to pray and be pious. Unless you really want to win his favor – at that point you need to engage in the lesser jihad which is killing in the name of Allah. Should you have any question about that, feel free to peruse the Fawah authored by five Islamic caliphates on February 23, 1998 which includes the following statement:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

If you’re interested in reading the whole thing, head out to http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Bottom line: Mohammad’s last wife was six years old and the union was consummated when she was ten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha). Much of Islam’s growth has been promoted under the heading of “die for Allah” whereas my Savior lived a sinless life and died for me. However butchers and so called saints have abused Scripture in order to substantiate their actions, it was an abuse of Scripture, not an application of it.

Is this a call to arms? Not necessarily, but it is certainly an admonishment to be wise. George W. Bush did well to emphasize the peaceful tenets of Islam ,but at its core is a doctrine of terror and that needs to recognized for what it is.

James Madison – Changing Your Mind Wisely

Muscular ChristianityPrior the war of 1812, President James Madison had instituted some policies that weren’t especially popular, but nevertheless appropriate.

Britain had yet to respect the new nation as anything other than a collection of former colonies that needed to be disciplined. Napoleon’s war machine required Britain to respond with a Royal Navy that was nothing less than combat ready. So, in order to keep her ships adequately staffed, England often boarded American vessels and forced US sailors to serve in the British Navy.

The practice of impressment was more than exasperating and Madison’s administration instituted embargoes against England in order to try and discourage her from doing so. While the effect of the embargoes was questionable in terms of Britain’s disposition, it was both obvious and dramatic in the minds of those in New England.

Those in the northern part of the new nation depended upon a healthy amount of trade between themselves and England. Madison’s embargoes, however needful in order to respond to Britain’s actions without going to war, were nevertheless condemned as evidence of shortsightedness and bad leadership on the part of the Oval Office.

Madison had to maintain a firm resolve in order to perpetuate the economic pain he hoped to inflict upon England. But the scene in Europe would change. Whereas the embargoes were a logical strategy given England’s inability to trade with very few nations in light of Napoleon’s rule over much of the continent, once Napoleon was defeated, England now had access to any one of a number of opportunities. Read more

The Right to be Wrong

civil_warThe total population of the United States was reduced by 2% as a result of the casualties inflicted by the Civil War.1 It wasn’t fought over economic disputes. Financial disagreements are quickly revealed as trivial once the horrors of war park themselves in your front yard. And while it’s not inaccurate to say that the war was fought over slavery, there’s more to it than that. The bottom line is that the Civil War was fought over the way a human being was to be defined.

There were four political parties that came to the table during the Presidential election in 1860: The Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats, the Republican Party and the Constitutional Union Party.2 Each of these parties was defined by their stance on slavery. The reason the Republican Party chose newcomer Abraham Lincoln as their champion is because of the way he was able to identify the core issue at the heart of the slavery debate.

Many were distracted by the South’s justification of slavery by categorizing as a matter of “state’s rights.” Lincoln handily dismantled that argument. At one point he said: “…the doctrine of self-government is right – absolutely and eternally right,” but argued that “it has no just application” to slavery. “When the white man governs himself,’ he asserted, “that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government – that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”3

And the thing is, the South did not simply want to be left alone. As new territories were being added to the Union, the South was insistent that these new states were to be added as slave states. And when South Carolina announced its decision to secede, it simultaneously confiscated all Federal property and infrastructure and claimed it as its own. 4 This was not autonomy that was being desired, it was an attempt to gain authority over that which defined the nature of a human being as well as any resource that could aid them in their bid for control. That is what caused the North and South to war against one another.

What makes this topic important is that you will often hear deviations from Truth asserted in the context of a right to be left alone or a right to be happy. On the surface, it appears correct. But if the issue in question is predicated on something that is morally wrong, then it’s no longer a question of rights. The South did not have the “right” to enslave an entire race, nor did it have the “right” to confiscate property that was not their own. They did have the right to govern themselves, but not to the extent that it violated the rights of others.

Today we debate over things like same sex marriage and any one of a number of entitlements from health insurance to employment.  The pursuit of one’s own happiness is part of our philosophical foundation as a nation. But that same philosophy references an Absolute as the justification for our ability to secure the blessings of life and liberty. When we step outside the moral boundaries defined by that Absolute, we are no longer exercising our “right” as much as we are simply rebelling against that which is right. And while rhetoric and legal sounding verbiage can veil that for a season, inevitably it will be revealed for what it is – immoral, unjust and just plain wrong.

The Civil War was both tragic and costly. Whether it could’ve been avoided is speculative, but the lessons to be learned in terms of being vigilant in recognizing a perversion of the Truth are not vague or illusive. And those lessons need to be deployed now as we process what’s going in our culture and in our government. The result of apathy may not be a Civil War, but left unchecked, the result will not be healthy.

Postscript: Check out this video from Prager University. It’s excellent and reinforces the point about the Civil War being about slavery and slavery alone – http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Was-the-Civil-War-About-Slavery.html

  1. “Civil War Casualties”, “Civil War Trust”, http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html, accessed June 6, 2014
  2. By the late 1850s, the Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats generally opposed slavery’s expansion while many Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist across the United States. In the presidential election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two, with Stephen Douglas running for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge representing the Southern Democratic Party. Two other political parties competed in this election as well. One of these parties was the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its candidate. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery’s expansion. The other party was the Constitutional Union Party. The party’s candidate, John Bell, hoped to compromise the differences between the North and South by extending the Missouri Compromise line across the remainder of the United States. Slavery would be permitted in new states established south of the line, while the institution would be illegal in new states formed north of the line. The Northern and Southern Democratic Parties only officially existed in the election of 1860. (“Northern Democrat Party”, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Northern_Democratic_Party, accessed July 3, 2013)
  3. “Team of Rivals”, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Shuster, 2006, page 203
  4. Ibid, p162

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a piece of legislation that prohibited slavery from those territories procured from France as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectually nullified that act by stating that states could choose by “popular sovereignty” whether or not they were to be slave or free. The problem was that those who had the resources and political clout to affect the outcome of these supposedly democratic procedures were predominantly wealthy slave owners. It wasn’t a compromise, it was a political maneuver that further revealed the true motivation of the more vocal proponents of the pro-slavery faction, while simultaneously galvanizing those who opposed it.

5.Ibid, p297

Duck Dynasty (Part Three) – What Tolerance Truly Is

Duck-Dynasty-560-The challenge is: How do I talk with someone in a way that make Christ look appealing when their whole approach to life and morality is based on a platform that dismisses Biblical Absolutes as antiquated, limiting and irrelevant?

But the question is not whether I have to the capacity to accept what is different. Rather, it’s whether or not I am willing to embrace what is wrong. And here’s where the dialogue becomes difficult to navigate apart from a spiritual perspective.

Biblical Absolutes

My definition of “moral” is intentionally based on Biblical Absolutes. My interpretation of those parameters is one that perceives them as keys to success as opposed to burdensome obligations (John 8:31-32). But that paradigm is foreign to the person who’s on the outside looking in as far as an authentic relationship with Christ and they always will be.

As humans, we’re antagonistic to God’s Word and the way in which He defines moral behavior:

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. *(Rom 8:6-8)

So my coming up to someone who doesn’t subscribe to the way in which God has designed things and attempt to tell them that they’re driving outside the lines – that’s not going to make a dent. Whatever they have determined is going to make them happy is now being threatened by an approach to morality that they neither understand nor agree with. You can’t expect to get very far given that dynamic as a starting point.

You’re Not Supposed to Judge

To remain silent is not an option. Some will insist that you’re not supposed to “judge,” but that’s not true. Anytime Jesus said “Your sins are forgiven” He was acknowledging there was dirt on the floor that needed to be cleaned up.  We’re admonished to identify shortcomings both in ourselves and others in order to avoid running off the road, but it has to be done in a way that produces a positive result (see Matt 18:15; Jas 5:16; 1 John 1:9).

It’s important to realize the difference between judging, training and punishing. Jesus never condemned anyone while on this earth, though He would’ve been completely justified in doing so. But while He didn’t condemn someone for their actions, He never hesitated in identifying sin. It’s through the identification of a problem, that you’re able to effectively address it. To say there is no problem is to deny both the obvious as well as the needed remedy.

So, it’s important to judge in order to keep our blind spots from becoming lethal. At the same time, it’s absolutely crucial to do it in a way where the result inspires a positive response.

Consider the chart below:

Action Definition Yes / No Scripture
Judgment Define Yes Matt 18:15; John 7:24; 1 Cor 5:12
Discipline Train Yes 1 Cor 5; 2 Cor 2:5-11
Condemnation
Punish No John 3:17; 8:11

Again, Jesus didn’t hesitate in identifying a particular act as sinful, but He did so in a way that targeted the source of the problem and not just the evidence of it, and that’s key. In John 4:16-19, Jesus is able to bring to light the fact that the woman He was speaking with had a morally checkered past. But He did it in a way where the woman’s response was centered on the One Who defined morality as opposed to defending the morality of a certain behavior.

So What Do You Say?

Phil wasn’t wrong in what he said and insisting that the media backlash would’ve been less had he said it in a different way is speculative at best. The only thing we can do is take our cue from Christ and let that be our template.

That said, what does that template look like?

Going back to John 4, you see how Jesus is able to acknowledge the woman’s lifestyle without making that the centerpiece. The issue is sin and not just a bad lifestyle.

When we converse with someone, it’s important to ensure that we don’t view our situation as any better than the person we’re talking to. Regardless of their lifestyle, we’re all sinners desperately needing a Savior (Rom 3:23).

Perhaps Paul said it best:

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Cor 2:2)

That’s the bottom line. If the conversation drifts away from the one central Truth, communicated in a way that has your audience leaving their water containers behind to go and talk to the very people she was hoping to avoid earlier that day, then we need to make sure we’re streamlining our verbiage to accommodate only those things that truly matter.

Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Robertson said at one point that it’s God’s job to sort everything out. That’s true. Until them, all we’re expected to do –  and all we can do – is present Christ and let Him sort everything else out. Frankly, when it comes to these kind of scenarios, it’s not only our best approach, it’s the only one that yields any real results.

Want to see how much you learned? Take the quiz

Duck Dynasty (Part Two) – More Than Strategic

duck-dynasty-menHonesty, Compassion, Equality and Kindness

The recent comments of Phil Robertson, as far as his disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle is neither inaccurate nor cruel, they’re just not welcome.

The LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) crowd maintains that their platform is based on honesty, compassion; equality and kindness. And anyone who disagrees is engaging in the antithesis of those virtues. In other words, should you voice your convictions which are contrary to the homosexual lifestyle; you’re guilty of hate speech.

It’s a brilliant strategy to predicate your stance in a way where anyone who disagrees is automatically disqualified as someone who lacks compassion. But there is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning that needs to be indentified in order to facilitate a compelling rebuttal.

A Flawed Philosophical Foundation

You cannot logically assert a virtuous quality as the basis for something immoral.

Honesty, compassion, equality and kindness are all noble attributes because of the way in which they advance an agenda based on Truth. Should I attempt to use them as a philosophical foundation to justify a depraved action, my argument is neither logically sound nor are my actions any less corrupt. Yet, this is the argument the homosexual crowd maintains as their first line of defense when it comes to dialoging with anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

They’ll insist that their being honest about who they are is worthy of applause. Those who differ need to keep their criticisms to themselves in the name of compassion and kindness. And given the supposed amoral dynamic of sodomy, their commitments need to be granted the same legal consideration as their heterosexual counterparts.

A platform that asserts a moral virtue as the basis for an immoral act is ineffective in refuting a guilty verdict. When held up to the light of Truth, the homosexual lifestyle is perverse. But if the basis for the verdict is irrelevant in the mind of the accused, then there is no indictment and therefore no need for a defense.  And that’s why the homosexual stance is as vocal and as compelling sounding as it is – not because it’s right, it’s just clever.

More Than Strategic

Still, there’s more to this debate than simply being strategic. While the homosexual argument may be temporarily overcome by a more tactically sound response, ultimately if my words are to be effective, than I have to follow Christ’s example and point to the Source of Truth and not just a deviation from it. My saying that their use of virtue to cloak their vice means nothing if the Standard by which I measure their lifestyle is considered less than Authoritative. That’s why I have to guide the conversation in a way that presents Truth and not just a fact.

Want to see how much you learned? Take the quiz

Muscular Christianity Billboard

What Would Your Billboard Say? (Part I)

Muscular Christianity BillboardIf you were tasked with creating a billboard that promoted the advantages of being a Christian, what would it say?

Let’s take it a step further and say that you can design it however you want, but you have to leave out the idea of eternal life as well as the notion that says “He helps you with your problems.”

It makes you think, doesn’t it?

John 3:16 and verses like Isaiah 42:10 and John 16:33 demonstrate that missing hell and going to heaven along with having a Divine Source of assistance in moments of trouble are both very much a part of the Christian’s landscape.

But, if your approach to Christ is limited to either a funeral home or a major crisis when you’re feeling like you’re at the end of your rope, then you’re missing out on the vast majority of what God brings to the table in the context of a relationship with Him.

In John 17:3, Jesus defines eternal life as “knowing God.” That’s not something that begins when your heart stops, rather it’s something to be enjoyed, experienced and deployed right here, right now. And while it’s certainly a game changer when you’re dealing with a problem that threatens to overwhelm you, it was never intended to be something you reached for only in times of duress.

That said, how does knowing God translate to an advantage when comparing the life of a believer to their unsaved counterpart? What would your billboard say?

I’ve got a few ideas. Check it out: Read more

The Law Must Serve The Truth

Intro

In California there’s a law that allows transgender students to choose which restroom they want to use – either the boys room or the girls room.

gavel

“The law, which will take effect Jan. 1, gives students the right “to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities” based on the gender they identify with as opposed to their birth gender. Those programs also include sports teams.”1

 

It’s the law…

Usually, if something is put into law, it’s pretty much accepted that the legislation in question is nothing more than a moral concept being reinforced by a legal dynamic.

But there’s nothing “moral” about someone insisting that they’re a female when, in fact, they are a male. That is neither noble nor healthy. Rather, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed as a perversion and not accommodated as a reasonable decision. Read more

The Edge of God

gideonsI’m reading a book right now that has a young, idealistic guy determined to prove that he has what it takes to be an agent within an organization whose job it is to fight and bring to justice those who engage in illegal drug trafficking.

He often has to pose as a buyer and in the context of playing this role, he descends into a pit of depravity and moral darkness. And it’s not just due to the part that he must play, it’s also the manner in which reports are falsified and the culture within the agency that says the ends justify the means.

His story prompted a question in my mind: How does someone in that kind of position maintain a firm grasp on his morals? If a solid individual is capable of relinquishing his grip on the sense of right and wrong he grew up with, is it inevitable that a good person will be corrupted given the right set of circumstances?

I decided the answer to that question is “Yes.” A good person will be compromised if the only thing they have to default to when exposed to a consistent regimen of overtly wicked influences is the mere notion that says “people should play nice (see 1 Cor 15:33).” Read more