Read Me Your Rights

I) Intro

Many of the issues that dominate our nation’s headlines are defended by insisting that an individual’s “right” is being violated if someone disagrees with their perspective.

Gay Pride

Pride events are about human rights; they empower LGBTI individuals to reclaim the rights and freedoms they are denied, and the public space they are often excluded from.1

Civil Rights

…more than a year into the Biden-Harris administration, we remain disappointed by a lack of urgency on dismantling inhumane immigration policies and practices, reforming the criminal-legal system, and ensuring that civil rights are front and center in the nation’s technology and AI policies.2

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights—having the ability to decide whether and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health.3

For a homosexual, the “right” to be gay means that any school of thought that denounces Homosexuality as being morally wrong is to be legally processed as a form of discrimination. The Civil Rights movement dismisses any questions pertaining to illegal immigration – statistics that point to the disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black people and the number of black minorities that drop out of High School – as being a front for Racism as opposed to an honest evaluation of all the factors that need to be considered before insisting that America is dominated by a bigoted populace.

And Pro Choice activists make a point of characterizing anyone who questions the morality of abortion as being opposed to women’s rights…

In all three instances, the validity of their platform is founded on an entitlement that is absolute and therefore any person who questions or attempts to refute their argument cannot do so without being immediately characterized as cruel and unjust.

Yet in order for a “right” to qualify as a transcendent given, you have to first consider how a right is defined and what it is that gives a right the ability to subordinate all preferences and opinions to its substance and truth.

What is a “right?” Let’s take a look…

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Life: Ps 139:13-16
Liberty: Lev 25:10 (inscribed on the Liberty Bell), Lk 4:18
The Pursuit of Happiness: Ps 16:11; Jn 10:10

II) The Declaration of Independence

Among the things that makes the Declaration of Independence such a powerful document is the premise it was built upon. The Declaration of Independence is more than a list of grievances. It is a statement that identifies the monarchy of King George as being fundamentally flawed, not because of his tyrannical approach to the colonies, but because of the way his rule violated Divine Absolutes.

That is why it reverberated the way it did around the civilized world. Our Founders recognized both the strength and the necessity of building a government on the Substance of Scripture if that government was to succeed in providing the legal environment where an individual’s God-given rights could flourish.

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.4

It was both the advantages of a biblically based government and the way in which they rightly identified the King of Great Britain as ruling in a way that was contrary to the way in which Scripture defined a human being, that positioned our nation has having a legitimate cause and not just a mere complaint.

It’s also here where we see what a “right” is and why its legal efficacy is so profound.

III) What is a Right?

A “right” is something that has as its Source God Himself. Anything less is nothing more than a consensus arrived at by a human collective. And if the composition of the right in question is nothing more than a collaboration of like-minded people, it will ultimately fail to be reliable because if a human dynamic can give it to you, that same human dynamic can take it away, which means that it wasn’t a “right” to begin with as much as it was a temporary accommodation.

That’s not to say that a godless individual is incapable of recognizing and championing a fair and compassionate system of rules and laws. The problem is not in the substance, but in its Source.

In addition to the inconsistent dynamic of a humanistic approach to morality and government due to its dependence on a consensus rather than an Absolute, the other problem is that by establishing the individual as his own bottom line, he can’t insist on his own autonomy without extending that same dynamic to everyone else.

In other words, if he’s going to live by a mantra that says, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” when it comes to issues of morality and the value of a human being, then they cannot logically declare that someone who differs in their viewpoint is “wrong.”

By saying that “You do you…” you’re implying that everyone can be right at the same time in the way they approach themselves and the world around them.

If that is the case, then there is no such thing as “intolerance” because, according to the idea that a person can choose however they want to perceive a particular behavior, then there is no right or wrong, it’s all a matter of preference.

So, any attempt to defend your perspective by labeling a person a person who disagrees with you as being “legalistic” or “intolerant” proves to be a pointless argument because of the way its philosophical foundation declares every viewpoint as being on the same moral plane.

Basically, you’re entitled to your opinion until you don’t agree. And then you’re labeled “hateful” and “intolerant” (see graphic below).

 

 

Yet how can this be if everyone’s viewpoint is valid?

This is why the court system is so utterly crucial in the mind of a Liberal. It’s the closest thing to being able to establish their preferences as principles without having to concede the one side aspect of their argument. But once the ruling of the court changes, the true nature of their philosophical paradigm is revealed as being an unsustainable and nonsensical preoccupation with one’s self as the ultimate bottom line.

IV) Ropes of Sand

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.”  Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.5

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.5

Guiness is completely on point in what he says, as far the way in which a humanistic approach to morality and the world in general has no sure foundation. Even the idea of focusing on “what’s best for the community” ceases to be a legitimate restraint because, in the absence of an ideal that is not subject to interpretation, even what’s most beneficial becomes purely subjective.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you hear someone attempt to defend a behavior or viewpoint that’s contrary to Scripture by invoking the idea that it is their “right” to do so, you can easily refute their rationale and defeat their argument by simply asking who gave them that right?

Inevitably, they will have to concede that their right comes from the Constitution. Yet, as was recently seen in the way the verdict of Roe vs Wade was overturned, their “right” wasn’t a right after all as much as it was “a coupon” – an agreement made between the manufacturer and the customer that a certain provision could be assumed to be in place. But if the manufacturer decides that coupon is no longer valid, it becomes both obvious and incriminating in that what you claim to be a “right” is a favor defined exclusively according to the dictates of a higher, human authority.

It’s not a right.

And the idea that everything can be regulated to an open forum – that there are no Moral Absolutes and the individual is his own deity – is a sinister mechanism used to conceal a self-absorbed perspective that is ultimately revealed to be both hypocritical and nonsensical.

A right is something created by God to guard your way, not a weapon you can use to get your way.

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.  10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb. 11 By them your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps 19:8-11)

As believers we want to be the greatest commercial for all that Christ brings to the table, as far as the Purpose, Peace and Power that is available through a relationship with Him and how that translates to the kind of life that’s worth living.

We also want to be in spot where we can not just “defend” what we believe in the context of fielding criticisms and attacks, but also in being able to identify and defeat the assumptions that serve as the basis for the arguments used by those who are antagonistic to the idea of having to answer to anyone other than themselves.

However you may choose to believe that you are your own absolute and you can drive on whatever side of the road that you wish – that may be your choice…

…but it is not your “right.”

  1. “5 Reasons Why Prides Matter”, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/5-reasons-why-prides-matter/, accessed June 27, 2022
  2. “Civil and Human Rights Must be Advanced in 2022 and Beyond”, https://civilrights.org/blog/civil-and-human-rights-must-be-advanced-in-2022-and-beyond/, accessed June 27, 2022
  3. “Reproductive Rights”, https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/, accessed June 27, 2022
  4. “Declaration of Independence”, America’s Founding Documents, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed June 27, 2022
  5. “Last Call for Liberty”, Os Guiness, IVP Books, Downers Grove, p117
  6. Ibid, p117-118

 

If you’d like to teach this content as a lesson in a Small Group context, you can buy both the outline and the Listening Sheet for $5.00 at brucegust.com

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV

I) Intro –  A Conflict of Visions

“A Conflict of Visions” is a book by Dr Thomas Sowell. In it, he distills the various political philosophies and worldviews into one of two “visions…”

The Constrained Vision…
“…sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings.”
“For the amelioration (improvement) of these evils and the promotion of progress, they rely on the systemic characteristics of certain social processes such as moral traditions, the marketplace, or families.”1

 

The Unconstrained Vision…
When Rousseau said that ‘man is born free’ but ‘is everywhere in chains,’ he expressed the essence of the unconstrained vision, in which the fundamental problem is not nature or man but institutions.”2

Sowell is an Economist. He is not a theologian nor does he attempt to position one “vision” over the other in his book. Rather, it’s a dispassionate overview of the two visions and how they capture much of the angst and tension that exists in today’s cultural and political arenas because of the way The Constrained Vision sees life as something that is hard by nature and requires individual resolve and moral courage to succeed…

…and not government.

The Unconstrained Vision, however, sees life as a place where good things happen automatically and the only barrier to individual and corporate utopia are institutions.

By implementing different laws or instituting different systemic paradigms, suddenly life becomes better.

This is what we’re looking at as a society: Two approaches that are defined exclusively by what it is that makes the difference in terms of prosperity and fulfillment both from an individual and a national perspective.

The Constrained Version says that you look to morality, industry and healthy family structures.

The Unconstrained Version says that you depend on institutions and legislative systems for your happiness and satisfaction.

While the practical advantages of the Constrained Version can be validated using objective economic realities, there’s more to this discussion than what can be calculated on an Excel spreadsheet.

While Sowell makes no mention of the spiritual realities inherent in both Versions, because The Constrained Version incorporates morality into its perspective, the definition of what is moral has to be addressed and that will be determined by one’s view on Moral Absolutes.

And it’s because the Unconstrained Version doesn’t acknowledge one’s morality as a contributing factor to your economic success, either Moral Absolutes don’t matter or they don’t exist. Either way, there’s a perspective that goes beyond dollar signs and spills over into personal convictions pertaining to Who it is that makes the rules.

It’s here that one’s definition of God becomes the defining issue and this is why we need to be talking about, not just Economics, but the Politics and the Theology those Politics are based on that allow those economies to exist in the first place.

In this series, we’ve looked at how God is intimately engaged in Politics and He expects us to be aware and involved (Dan 2:21; 1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2). We also discussed how the best candidate for office is the one who’s platform is most consistent with the foundation laid by our Founding Fathers who conceived a form of government based on Biblical Absolutes.

In Part II, we looked at the importance of being wise in the way you process what you hear and what you see in the media. In Part III we looked at two of the five tactics that are often used by people who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

Today we conclude our series by looking at the last three of the five tactics referenced in Part III and looking at the importance of evaluating a tree according to its fruit more so than its appearance.

Here we go!

II) The Progressive Pentagon (Part II)

They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.

But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt…10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”

11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses… (Ex 3:11; 4:10-14 [see also Matt 7:21-22])

When you’re on the bench, you can’t be expected to be putting points on the board because you’re not on the field. It’s a reasonable sounding excuse for the person who’s looking to avoid having to function and perform.

However you may be inclined to say: “I’m not, I don’t, I can’t and I won’t” remember, you are, you do, you can and you will…because He does, He can, He will and He is.

An unwilling mind will take up with a sorry excuse rather than none. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Exodus 4)3

They spend more time trying to sound honest rather than actually telling the truth.

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)

All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the Lord. Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plans. (Prov 16:2-3)

The judgment of God concerning us, we are sure, is according to truth: He weighs the spirits in a just and unerring balance, knows what is in us, and passes a judgment upon us accordingly, writing Tekel (TEE-cale [to weigh]) upon that which passed our scale with approbation—weighed in the balance and found wanting; and by his judgment we must stand or fall. He not only sees men’s ways but tries their spirits, and we are as our spirits are… (Matthew Henry Commentary on Proverbs 16:2-3)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:21-22) You can’t drown out the crash of a bad decision with the sound of a good intention.
I’m not that bad…

 

The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Gen 3:12) “He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.” Benjamin Franklin
It’s not my fault…

 

Don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Look, we didn’t know.” For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve. (Prov 24:12 [NLT])

Proverbs 28:13 “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”

Recap…

An easy way to remember the five tactics that we’ve looked at is by using the acrostic, “Mickey Hood.”

Mickey Hood
M Mobs They spend more time talking about Labels, Mobs and Crowds than they do a Name, a Person and a Choice.
C Characters They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content.
H Hurt They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
H Honest They spend more time trying to sound honest rather than actually telling the truth.
D Decisions They spend more time defending bad decisions than they do applauding good choices.

All of this can be boiled down to one central Truth and that’s the fact that you can know a tree by its fruit…

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. (Matt 12:33)

However a person looks on paper or in person, however they speak – while all of that is something to be considered, Christ makes it clear that in the end, it’s a person’s actions that reveal their true colors (see Matt 15:18-19).

III) Real World Examples

Attempting to distract from a person’s actions by using one of the aforementioned tactics so as to better justify what amounts to a bogus mindset is a practice frequently used and is hard to miss once you know what to look for.

A) Illegal Immigration

Prager University recently published a video that details our nation’s immigration policies and describes them as generous and fair (see QR code to the right).

There are those, however, who insist that America is a racist enterprise and any kind of legislation that seeks to limit the ability of a particular people group into the country is unjust and a manifestation of its resolve to promote white supremacy.

One argument that’s presented as a way to prove the theory that America is a racist nation and has a history of preventing specific ethnicities from entering the country is the Page Act of 1875.

1) Page Act of 1875

Beginning in 1845, Chinese looking to escape the sufferings of the Taiping Rebellion were easily convinced to sign contracts offered by recruiters featuring the promise of a better life in the US in exchange for an extended period of time as an indentured servant. For all intents and purposes, these “contracts” weren’t designed for the sake of providing opportunities to Chinese foreigners as much as it was an attempt to circumvent the abolition of slavery and secure cheap labor provided by a nationality that was easy to exploit.

This was the “Coolie Trade.”

Many of the Chinese that signed these contracts had no idea what they were actually signing up for. Some were actually forced to sign and the conditions that they had to contend with included being congregated at Hong Cong in Barracoons before they were loaded into ships and then transported to any one of a number of foreign destinations that included America, Britain, France Spain and Portugal. While some died of disease or suicide in the Barracoons, the average mortality rate was 12% during the journey overseas which was the same mortality rate as the African Slave Trade.

And while Chinese men were obviously preferred for the sake of physical labor, Chinese women were also being enslaved…

…as prostitutes.

In 1860, upwards of 85% of Chinese women in San Francisco were prostitutes. An 1870 census reported that 61% of the 3536 Chinese women in California were employed as sexual appliances. Some of these girls had been kidnapped, many of them had been sold into slavery by their families.

It was a terrible life in many ways…

Conditions in the California brothels, concentrated primarily in San Francisco and Los Angeles, were terrible. Often mistreated by customers, the indentured girls received little care and no medical attention. Homesick and left untreated for venereal disease or other illnesses, most women were broken within a few years and rarely lasted more than five or six years in bondage. Some who started when they were 14 years old were dead before they reached 20, according to Chinese academics Yung and Lucie Cheng and the reportage of Gary Kamiya based on stories in the “San Francisco Chronicle” archives.4

In 1862, the Republican party submitted a piece of legislation designed to put an end to the way in which the Chinese people were being abused and exploited. It proved almost impossible to enforce, however, because there was no way to systemically identify a “coolie” from a legitimate Chinese immigrant – an unfortunate circumstance that was enthusiastically embraced by those who profited from the, “Coolie Trade.”

The point of the legislation was not to restrict Chinese people, but to protect them from being exploited.

It was called the “Page Act” because of it’s sponsor, Horace Page. When you look him up on Wikipedia, you find this:

Horace Francis Page (October 20, 1833 – August 23, 1890) was an American lawyer and politician who represented California in the United States House of Representatives for five terms between 1873 and 1883. He is perhaps best known for the Page Act of 1875 which began the racial prohibitions against Asian, primarily Chinese, immigration. Page was among a faction of congressmen who openly used racist ideas to defend their positions. Page introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to the House. When arguing for a ban on the immigration of Chinese laborers, he sought to win support from those who believed in white racial superiority, telling his fellow members that “there is not a member upon this floor… who believes that the coming of the African race… was a blessing to us or to the African himself.5

The comment “…there is not a member upon this floor…who believes that the coming of the African race…was a blessing to us or to the African himself” makes it apparent that this man is a racist.

But note the ellipsis (…). Anytime you see those three dots, you may want to roll up your sleeves and do some digging because there’s at least a chance that some crucial context is being omitted.

Here’s the actual comment he made as recorded in the Congressional Record dated March 15, 1882:

I believe, Mr Speaker, that there is not a member upon this floor, of either party, who believes that the coming of the African race to this country originally was a blessing to us or to the African himself. Their condition has long been a subject of careful and earnest consideration among thoughtful people.

The time was, Mr Speaker, when the United States Government undertook to suppress African slavery, or when it entered into an agreement in a treaty with other governments that they would suppress African slavery. It also provided by law that when any vessel having slaves on board was captured upon the high seas by any of our cruisers those Africans found on board and held as slaves, if brought to the United States, should only remain her six months and then be returned back to their native country.6

The point Page was making is that Africans were not brought here voluntarily. As slaves they were subjected to all kinds of inhumane treatment and the result was a horrific existence for the slave and ultimately a war that would wipe out over a quarter of a million people.

While he doesn’t reference the Civil War in his comments, Page was a Major in the California Militia– a unit that was active during the conflict.7

In addition, later on in his comments, he speaks specifically to the Chinese people in general. He says:

The other sections of the bill provide that any native of China who comes here for the purpose of trade or travel or of engaging in legitimate commerce may do so unrestricted and shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the most favored nation.8

When you take the context of his comments into consideration as well as his military record, you find yourself viewing Page not so much as a Racist, but as someone who was concerned about a specific situation more so than a general people group.

If Page was alive today, I can’t help but think he wouldn’t be extremely offended to be labeled, not only a Racist in the context of African Americans, but also in the way he was maligned for supposedly targeting Chinese people in general as opposed to those who were here either against their will or brought here under false pretenses. It’s not that he was looking to limit their opportunities as much as he was trying to destroy the trade of their oppressors.

But did you see how Mickey Hood was used to make Page and his legislation appear malicious?

B) Christopher Columbus

For centuries, Christopher Columbus has been respected as a brave and virtuous explorer credited for having discovered the New World.

Recently, however, historians such as Howard Zinn have depicted Columbus as a greedy racist intent on enslaving the natives he encountered and ushered in a wave of disease and abuse that qualifies him as a true villain.

He quotes from Columbus’ journals with things like this:

(describing the natives) They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane…The would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.9

Again, you see the ellipsis and the “mystery” suggested by those three dots does not disappoint, as far as the way it hides the context that Zinn obviously wants to conceal.

Columbus’ actual log entry was this (the highlighted section is what Zinn omits):

Thursday, October 11: They neither carry nor know anything of arms, for I showed them swords, and they took them by the blade and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their darts being wands without iron, some of them having a fish’s tooth at the end, and others being pointed in various ways. They are all of fair stature and size, with good faces, and well made. I saw some with marks of wounds on their bodies, and I made signs to ask what it was, and they gave me to understand that people for other adjacent islands came with the intention of seizing them, and that they defended themselves. I believed, and still believe, that they come here from the mainland to take them prisoners. They should be good servants and intelligent, for I observed that they quickly too in what was said to them, and I believe that they would easily be made Christians, as it appeared to me that they had no religion.10

Columbus wasn’t saying they would make good servants because he had in mind to expand the slave trade to include the natives he had just discovered. Rather, he was observing why this particular people would be potentially victimized by neighboring tribes because they were so submissive.

In his translation of Columbus’s log, Robert Fuson discusses the context that Zinn deliberately left out: “The cultural unity of the Taino [the name for this particular tribe, which Zinn labels “Arawaks”] greatly impressed Columbus…Those who see Columbus as the founder of slavery in the New World are grossly in error. This thought occurred to [Samuel Eliot] Morison (and many others) who misinterpreted a statement made by Columbus on the first day in America, when he said, ‘They (the Indians) ought to be good servants.’ In fact, Columbus offered this observation in explanation of an earlier comment he had made, theorizing that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because there were so docile and obliging.”11

Notice Columbus’ statement: “They should be good servants” and how that one phrase is quoted by Zinn, but then nothing after that is cited until the next section of Columbus’ log which is…

…three days later!

It’s here where he mentions how the natives could easily be subjugated.

Sunday, October 14: I went to view all this this morning, in order to give an account to your Majesties and to decide where a fort could be built. I saw a piece of land which is much like an island, though it is not one, on which there were six huts. It could be made into an island in two days, though I see no necessity to do so since these people are very unskilled in arms, as your Majesties will discover from seven whom I caused to be taken and brought aboard so that they may learn our language and return. However, should your Highnesses command it all the inhabitants could be taken away to Castile or held as slaves on the island, for with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.12

It’s hard not to suspect Columbus of something sinister when you hear him assure his sovereigns that they could enslave all of the natives on the island with no problem because, after all, they don’t know anything about modern weaponry and, “…with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.”

If Columbus’ actions had mirrored his comments, there would be good reason to believe that he was scheming to enslave and exploit the Arawaks. But Columbus’ first priority was to be an effective witness:

…welcomed as a “deliverer”
According to Professor Felipe Fernadndez-Armesto – a specialist in Latin American History and the author of Columbus, Columbus was actually, “welcomed as a deliverer” by the Arawaks because they were “already doomed by the fierce imperialism of the neighboring Caribs.16

“I,” he says, ” that we might form great friendship, for I knew that they were a people who could be more easily freed and converted to our holy faith by love than by force, gave to some of them red caps, and glass beads to put round their necks, and many other things of little value, which gave them great pleasure, and made them so much our friends that it was a marvel to see.13

Columbus wanted to convert them to the Christian faith. To do that, in his mind, required genuine friendship and compassion and you can see this if you read his journal entries in their appropriate context.

Beyond that, however, you have the reality of a world that is not acknowledged at all by Zinn.

First off, while the natives that Columbus interacted with directly were docile enough, there were other tribes that he could confidently categorize as possible threats given the way in which they had demonstrated their willingness to attack the locals he had met.

The natives make war on each other, although these are very simple-minded and handsomely-formed people14

The Actions of Christopher Columbus…

In their book, “The Worlds of Christopher Columbus…”

…William and Carla Phillips point out, “One prime motive for European expansion, reiterated by nearly all of the early explorers, was a desire to spread Christianity. To the current cynical age, religious motivation is difficult to understand; it is much easier to assume that missionary zeal merely served to justify a lust for gold and glory. Christian faith in early modern Europe touched “virtually every aspect of human life.”18

 On his first return trip, Dr. Carol Delaney, author of “Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem,” writes…

“…Columbus did bring six natives back with him to Spain where they were “baptized with the king (Ferdinand), queen (Isabella), and Columbus standing as godparents. . . . One became Columbus’s godson who accompanied him on many of his later explorations. . . .”19

In addition to the civil unrest among the neighboring islands, it should also be noted that Columbus left some of his sailors behind when he made his way back to Europe only to return and find his men had been murdered to a man.15

So, there was ample reason to be precautious and tactical in the way one planned ahead for any kind of enduring outpost.

To evangelize would require, not only a place to inhabit, but also the means by which to protect oneself from the obvious presence of local violence. And while that perspective may require some conjecture, one aspect of Columbus’ journey which is not open to debate is the condition of Spain in 1492.

The Crusades had resulted in Spain being conquered in 711 A.D. From then until January 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabelle reclaimed Grenada from the Muslims, Spanish Christendom had endured almost eight centuries of jihad ravages including massacres, pillages and mass enslavements. Columbus was looking for an alternative route to East Asia in order to secure alliances and resources that could be used to reclaim the Holy Land from militant Muslims as well as eliminate the oppressive presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.17

There was more to this trip than a mere curiosity in global sea routes or even the possible discovery of mythical stores of gold.

Columbus’ homeland was occupied, the Holy Land was still under Muslim control and there was a New World filled with souls that needed to hear the gospel. Taken together, Columbus’ journey had the potential to right several wrongs, not by supplementing the slave trade with more human resources, but by strengthening the Presence of Christ both at home and abroad.

There were matters far more pressing in Columbus’ mind than his bank statement. While his words can be taken out of context and used to characterize him as a fiend, his actions say otherwise as do the historians and eyewitnesses that are willing to take an objective view of history rather than one poisoned by a political agenda and determined to make use of the Progressive Pentagon.

Which of the tactics represented by the Mickey Hood acrostic are used by Zinn and his likeminded activists?

Seriously. Take a minute and see if you can’t name a few…

IV) A Ready Response

In May of 1940, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands. Initially, Corrie Ten Boom and her family perceived any effort to protect a Jewish person as a political action and therefore something that didn’t necessarily coincide with a believer’s mandate to focus on matters of the soul as opposed to affairs of state.

But one night, a Jewish infant was brought to the Ten Boom home. A local pastor, unwilling to take any personal risk, had brought the child to the Ten Boom’s. Appalled, Casper Ten Boom, Corrie’s father, took the child in and thus began an underground campaign that would successfully hide several Jewish persons, but would cost the lives of several in the Ten Boom family (see “Corrie Ten Boom: A Faith Undefeated”).

What the Ten Boom’s discovered is that Politics is ultimately the collection of laws that define the way a person is to be treated and perceived.

Politics is about people and to that end a believer cannot ignore the impact a godly foundation  – or the lack thereof – can have on a government and ultimately the citizens who live beneath its legislative umbrella (Prov 29:2).

The purpose of this series is to reveal the spiritual aspect of Politics and to recognize the role that we must play as believers in order to preserve and promote the Truth that defines us as a nation and benefits us as a people.

This is why you need to know our nation’s true history and our spiritual heritage. This is why you need to be aware of what’s going on and familiar with the tactics that we’ve discussed so that when it’s time to pray, you know what and who to pray for.

13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron 7:13-14)

At the beginning of our discussion we looked at Dr Thomas Sowell’s brilliant approach to summarizing the various political and sociological schools of thought into two main “visions.”

But his approach can be boiled down into an even more rudimentary collection of categories.

Either God is God or man is god.

When you hear someone say, “You can’t make me believe the same things that you do!” they’re not wrong.

You can’t “make” them drive on the right side of the road let alone believe in the God of the Bible.

But that’s not the point.

The question is whether you’re going to formulate your convictions according to what God says or someone else’s opinion.

The challenge, however, is that regardless of how bulletproof your logic may be, the proper processing of God as the Absolute against which all things moral and political are measured is not possible apart from having a relationship with Christ (1 Cor 2:12).

This is how a conversation about Christ can occur – by being able to trace the foundation upon which you build your political convictions on the Word of God.

And the thing is, you need to be able to do that because more and more our world is becoming a place where there is no bottom line, only different broadcasts.

You go to the “Today Show,” and hear one perspective on the President’s State of the Union speech and you can go out and listen to Ben Shapiro offer a completely different viewpoint.

Without a definitive Standard to compare things to, the only thing that qualifies something as being  “right” is however you as an individual want to process it.

If you perceive credibility as represented by academic degrees or by popular vote, than there is no “right” or “wrong,” there’s just consensus.

We are who we are as a nation because we had more than a group dynamic to base our convictions upon and we are that same nation today, but only to the extent that godly men are willing to take their place at God’s Throne on their knees, pray, seek His Face, turn from the wicked ways and ask Him to heal out land (2 Chron 7:14).

God cares about Politics because God cares about people and it’s prayer that resulted in the Declaration of Independence, it’s prayer that produced the Constitution, it’s prayer that has seen us through multiple wars and crises and it’s prayer that will make the difference now.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I,” click here…

  1. “The Independent Whig”, “sowell: the unconstrained vision”, https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/sowell-constrained-and-unconstrained-visions/sowell-the-unconstrained-vision/, accessed February 22, 2022
  2. Ibid
  3. Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry, “Commentary on Exodus 4”, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/4.html, accessed February 20, 2022
  4. “China’s Lost Women in the Far West”, Historynet, https://www.historynet.com/chinas-lost-women-in-the-far-west/, accessed February 27, 2022
  5. Wikipedia, “Horace F. Page”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_F._Page, accessed February 23, 2022
  6. Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
  7. Page was attached to the unit based out of Placerville, which was the county seat of El Dorado County. You can visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_State_Militia_civil_war_units#Placer_County to see which units were active during the Civil War
  8. Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
  9. “A People’s History of the United States”, Howard Zinn, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY, originally published in 1980, p1
  10. “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real, p38
  11. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p12
  12. “Christopher Columbus: The Four Voyages”, Being his own log book, letters and dispatches with connecting narrative drawn from the Life of the Admiral by his son Hernando Colon and other contemporary historians, edited by J.M. Cohen, Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1969, p58
  13. “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, p101, https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/columbus/Columbus-Journal.pdf, accessed February 23, 2022
  14. Ibid, p42
  15. In “Debunking Howard Zinn,” author Mary Grabar explains how Columbus lost one of his ships and had to leave some sailors behind in that there wasn’t room for everyone on the return voyage. When he returned, every one of his men had been killed. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regency History, Washington D.C, 2019, p16
  16. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p10
  17. “Muslim Spain”, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml#:~:text=In%20711%20Muslim%20forces%20invaded,1492%20when%20Granada%20was%20conquered, accessed February 27, 2022
  18. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p14
  19. “Scholar disputes source of criticism of Columbus (Commentary)”, Mary Grabar, Ph.D., syracuse.com, https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2020/07/scholar-disputes-source-of-criticism-of-columbus-commentary.html, accessed March 1, 2022

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I

Despite the fact that Donald Trump was defeated in the 2020 Election, his opponents continue to attack his character, minimize his accomplishments and question the sanity / morality of anyone who would support him.

To some extent, you can’t help but wonder why?

If he’s no longer in office, than there’s no reason to be concerned that his policies will make their way into the public sphere given the fact that he’s no longer in a position of authority.

But there’s more to Trump than just him being a political figure.

He represents a different approach to politics that makes some very uneasy because of the way it reveals the lack of ethics and efficiency typical of big government and the Liberal perspective in general.

Ultimately, Trump’s platform translates to a result that’s very difficult to argue with, given the way it serves our country’s best interests.

But that doesn’t change the fact that those who dislike him are especially passionate in their disdain and an intelligent conversation can be a real challenge because of the way they’re conditioned to perceive Trump as evil along with anyone who would come to his defense.

And it’s not just Liberals. You’ve got Conservative Christians who either refuse to vote or assert a different name on the ballot because they’re so convinced Trump represents the kind of immorality that they simply can’t support.

So, why Trump?

Why would anyone support Donald J. Trump?

 Executive Summary

We’re going to break this down into several sections because there’s more to this than just an affinity for a particular political party.

 I) God & Politics

To say that God doesn’t care about Politics is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates all governments to begin with. And while that’s obviously a nonsensical disposition, you also have the false premise that says that God doesn’t care about the laws of a nation and how they either promote what strengthens an individual or tears them down (Prov 28:2-3, 28; 29:2, 4). He does care and He expects His people to be engaged (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2).

 II) Your Best Option

The candidate that represents the most qualified to lead is the one who champions the approach that is most consistent with the foundation laid by the ones who defeated the most powerful empire in the world and established a system of government that, up to that point, was completely unheard of in the way it established the individual as the one who had the right to choose how they wanted to be governed and the extent to which they wanted to succeed (Ps 33:12).

 III) Who is Your Source?

Over the course of the last several decades, Journalism has become more of thermostat than a thermometer and you need to be wise in the way you process information coming from those who are vying for a position in your inbox.

 IV) Trees and Policies

Christ said you’ll know a tree by it’s fruit (Lk 6:44). However Trump is made to appear in the headlines, it is his policies that need to be evaluated in order to determine the substance of his platform and not just the commentary crafted by those who have a problem with his personality or his past.

I) God and Politics

A) God Cares

Some will insist that God doesn’t care about Politics.

Because it doesn’t directly impact a person’s soul and the fact that it can be a very divisive issue to the point where a conversation about Christ becomes difficult due to the way in which political topics can poison a dialogue, the tendency is to avoid it altogether and believe that God is basically indifferent to who gets elected and what goes on in the halls of government.

That’s absurd.

First of all, it’s God Who establishes kings and those who are in positions of authority (Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13). So, to say that He’s not concerned is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates governments to begin with.

B) God’s Side

Some Christian communicators cite the answer given to Joshua by an imposing figure standing near Jericho just prior to the Israelites marching around the city as evidence that God does not take sides…

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[a] have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Josh 5:13-15)

God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility

If God is Sovereign, what’s the point of voting? If He’s the One Who, “…removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan 2:21), what part, if any, does the Electoral College play in legitimately “selecting” a President if God’s already made His Choice?

The world is not a runaway train travelling out of control with nothing other than the forces of chance acting upon it. God is in control and you see that it in Isaiah:

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ (Is 46:10)

You, yourself, are designed with a Purpose and a Plan that was put in place before you were born…

Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps 139:16)

However difficult it may be to reconcile the idea that we are free to choose or that we have a legitimate role to play in a process that God has already completed, it really isn’t that hard when you consider the fact that God is All-Knowing (1 Jn 3:20) and therefore He doesn’t have to guess how we’re going to choose.

That’s how our free will and God’s Sovereignty work together. It’s not that God forces us to function in a certain way as much as He knows our thoughts before we’re even aware of them ourselves (Ps 139:1-4) and from that perspective, He is therefore able to Plan while simultaneously empowering us with a legitimate freedom of choice.

That’s why it’s important to pray and to engage the world around us because He’s working through our obedience and our point of view to accomplish His Purposes. The fact that we’re saved is a result of God having preordained it (Rom 8:29-30) doesn’t change the fact that He used the choice of another human being to obey their King and communicate the words that needed to be said in order for us to be redeemed (Rom 10:14-15). Dr. John MacArthur does a great job of summarizing that idea in a two minute audio recording that you can listen to by clicking here.

The fact that God is in charge is a good thing, given the alternative of a pointless chaos with no rules or processes that can be known and understood. And while the fact that God is in control can seem problematic given the pain He allows the world to choose, it’s His Sovereignty that justifies hope and confidence in the future as well as the trust we can place in His command to pray and to work knowing that it’s His Purposes being accomplished in and through us (Rom 8:26-28; Phil 2:12-13).

Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.
(Saint Augustine)

The fact that the man replied by saying that he was neither on the side of the Israelites nor the Canaanites was not indicative of God being neutral and detached from the situation. The fact that it was God working through the Israelites that resulted in the successful siege of Jericho demonstrates that God was obviously invested in seeing the city destroyed.

The point that was being made is that we don’t need to be asking whether or not God is on our side as much as we need to ensure that we are on God’s side and operating according to His Instructions and overall Purpose.

C) Why Bother?

But even if you’re on God’s side, do we need to be concerned about voting or even paying attention to the news if God’s Purpose is going to be accomplished regardless of our involvement?

You could ask the same question about salvation, given the fact that those who are born again were predestined to be saved (Rom 8:29), yet we are to witness and Paul makes the Divinely inspired observation that you can’t expect someone to hear and understand the gospel unless someone preaches to them (Rom 10:14-15).

The fact is, God has set things up in such a way where His Sovereignty exists alongside our responsibility – both are true simultaneously (see “God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility” on sidebar). Emphasizing one over the other invariably leads to disobedience and we are commanded to pray for those who are in positions of authority (1 Tim 2:1-3). The fact that our prayers are referenced as an act that makes a difference reinforces the idea that our involvement is both mandated and effective.

II) Your Best Option

A) The Template That Works

The key to political success is to model our approach according to the template used by our Founding Fathers who were able to defeat the world’s most powerful empire and to establish a system of government that, at the time, was completely unheard of. It’s that template that has allowed our country to flourish and it’s more than just political theory as much as it’s an ideological paradigm that serves as our legislative foundation.

Those ideals go beyond human preferences or sensible philosophical options and it’s because they’re rooted in a transcendent Absolute that they can be asserted as functional bottom lines.

The best qualified candidates for political office are those that possess the talent and the mindset that best facilitate those bottom lines – not just because they’re consistent with a successful history, but because of the way they’re based on Something that transcends human opinion and therefore avoids all of the corruption that characterizes the human condition.

You can see that transcendent Absolute clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence. When we submitted that document to King George, we were saying that it’s because that God has created all men to be equal (Gal 3:28) that the individual has the right to choose how they want to be governed and the extent to which they want to succeed. It’s because it was a Divine Truth that we could logically point to as that which substantiated our claim, we weren’t just filing a complaint, we were making a point. Yes, there were other brilliant political philosophers, such as John Locke, that had contributed to the collective mindset represented by the Second Continental Congress, but ultimately it was a collection of references to God that was cited as the basis for our reasoning and not the names of several respected thinkers.

This is why a candidate’s platform is so important. However noble or approachable they may appear, if their goal is to implement a worldview that runs contrary to our spiritual foundation, they invoke a doctrine that inevitably positions man as his own moral authority and the state as its own religion.

B) There’s Only Two Religions

While that may sound overly simplistic, the fact is there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is God.

Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4, Hindus pursue Moksha (MOKE-shah) in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). In each scenario, while you have a supernatural element, you have the ability as a human being to tip the scales in your favor through some kind of action or mindset.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. And that miracle is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Divine Guidance

I am not to be understood to infer that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new Federal Constitution; yet I must own that I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of so much importance to the welfare of millions now in existence, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered  to pass with being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent and beneficent  Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being. 1(Benjamin Franklin)

For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.2 (Alexander Hamilton on the ratification of the Constitution)

It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution.3 (James Madison)

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament were the effects of a Divine power.4 (Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence)

1. Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2007),  pp. 303-304, Benjamin Franklin’s reflections on the ratification of the Constitution
2. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and Other Men of Their Time, The Federalist and Other Contemporary Papers on the Constitution of the United States, E.H. Scott, editor (New York: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1894), p. 646, Alexander Hamilton to Mr. Childs, Wednesday, October 17, 1787.
3. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, & James Madison, The Federalist (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 194, James Madison, Federalist #37.
4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 475, to Elias Boudinot on July 9, 1788.

When you pull back the curtain and see how Christianity is the only authentic religion in that it’s based solely on the grace of God rather than a human being attempting to be a god, you can understand why it resonates as a stronger option in the mind of the person who recognizes the frailty of his human condition and the veiled attempt on the part of other creeds to position man as his own deity.

C) The General Principles of Christianity

You can also see why from a purely logical point of view that only the Absolute Power and Perspective represented by the Word of God would suffice in providing the philosophical strength the Founders needed in order to refute a monarchy and create a republic.

John Adams said it best:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.1

This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture.

However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource.

Samuel Adams had this to say:

May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. 2

John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:

…We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams)3

George Washington leaves no doubt as to his perspective on religious piety and political prosperity:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.4

Christianity or Deism?

Regardless of the volumes of correspondence and documentation that demonstrates the Founders had  a decidedly Christian approach to themselves and the world around them, there is a determined effort on the part of some historians to either eliminate a Biblical influence on the minds of those who crafted our country’s governments entirely, or dilute it with the claim that many of our forefathers were Deists.

Deism rejects the Resurrection of Christ. So, from that standpoint, Deism is nothing more than a human philosophy because if Christ is not revered as God Incarnate, then you’re not accepting God’s Word as Absolute Truth and you’re positioning human reason over Divine Revelation.

By reducing the Founders’ regard for the Son of God to a noble teacher, the resulting perspective on the Founders’ view of Christianity is far less “spiritual” and substantially more “rational.” The Bible becomes less of an Absolute and more of  a code of ethics than it is anything else and has no real bearing on practical matters and it provides a logical justification for establishing man as his own bottom line. And while “spiritual” verbiage may be utilized from time to time, in the end, God is a literary appliance that’s added for effect as opposed to a transcendent Truth that inspires, evaluates and strengthens the heart of man and the destiny of a nation.

There is a problem, however, in concluding that the faith of our Founders was either casual or unorthodox. Contemporary historians and sociologists will often introduce certain assumptions in order to arrive at the situation that best matches their philosophical preferences.

For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to George Washington as a Christian Deist.

A Christian Deist, by definition, doesn’t believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And while Britannica goes on to say that Washington’s family and personal clergy should be given precedence over the,”…opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death,”8 Washington’s adopted daughter, who lived with the General for 20 years, testified in a letter to Jared Sparks, who published an eleven volume work that cataloged the writings of Washington entitled, “The Writings of George Washington,” that Washington was very involved in his local church, his character was Christlike and when he died, it was evident from her standpoint that both Martha and he were confident that he was being welcomed into the arms of His Savior.

This is not consistent with the idea that Washington was a Deist. It becomes even more questionable when you look at his prayer journal and see how the idea that he believed Jesus to be Anyone other than the Son of God can be immediately dismissed:

Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ. (Washington’s Prayers)

While a human being is incapable of fully knowing another person’s faith and their redeemed status in the sight of God, assuming a secular approach to Christ simply because it matches your preferred perspective on the extent to which the Founders invoked and depended on the Savior revealed in Scripture is both academically and practically irresponsible. You see that intellectual recklessness in the example above with George Washington.

While Deism was a part of the religious landscape in the 18th century, to assume that it was the preferred creed of the Founders requires an intentional dismissal of the comments and the behavior they exhibited which positioned Christ as Risen and the Bible as Absolute.

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Washington’s words capture the spiritual and political direction that needs to be central to the platform of anyone who aspires to public office because it’s that foundation alone that guarantees a successful administration.

D) They Weren’t Really Christians…

Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).  In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).

The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd.

Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).

The “Black Robe Regiment” was the name the British troops gave the clergy who supported the Revolution from behind their pulpits with their Bibles and in combat with their rifles.

Historians have commented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.5

British soldiers went as far as saying blaming Christianity for the Revolution:

The influence of the Reformed political tradition in the Founding era is manifested in a variety of ways, but particularly noteworthy is the almost unanimous support Calvinist clergy offered to American patriots. This was noticed by the other side, as suggested by the Loyalist Peter Oliver, who railed against the “black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a part in the Rebellion.” King George himself reportedly referred to the War for Independence as “a Presbyterian Rebellion.” From the English perspective, British Major Harry Rooke was largely correct when he confiscated a presumably Calvinist book from an American prisoner and remarked that “[i]t is your G-d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”6

E) Slave Owners

While it is not difficult to believe that the Founders based their approach to government on Christian principles, given their verbiage both public and private, it is nevertheless challenging to reconcile their perspective with the fact that many owned slaves.

While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress.

How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings? 

First of all, from a purely practical standpoint, we don’t evaluate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence according to the character flaws of the men who wrote them. Rather, we evaluate them according to the substance of the documents themselves.

Secondly, many of those that owned slaves were the same ones who sacrificed their homes, their fortunes and, in some cases, their lives, to ensure a system of government that possessed the necessary tenants that would ultimately translate to the end of the slave trade.

Third, to align yourself with the Revolution, whether as a statesman or a soldier, you were committing treason against the crown. The punishment for that included:

  • That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement
  • That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
  • That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
  • That his head be cut off
  • That his body be divided in four parts
  • That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal7

This was the fate that loomed over the progress of the Revolution. Those that fought and served to win America’s independence did so risking everything. However flawed they were in the way they processed the sin of slavery doesn’t change the substance of their work. It’s that work that we honor, not just because of the sacrifices that were made which made it possible, but also because of how the biblically based freedoms those efforts established would go on to secure the liberties that timeframe denied to others.

The Signers of the Declaration:
What Did They Lose?

There’s a popular essay that is sometimes published during the fourth of July timeframe that details the sacrifices made by those who signed the Declaration of Independence. It’s inspiring to see what they risked and sobering to see what some actually lost. What’s both frustrating and disconcerting is the way some “fact checkers” seize upon some details of the essay and advance the impression that it’s more of a romantic exaggeration than it is anything else.

Anytime you exaggerate, you risk sacrificing the credibility of whatever point you’re trying to make. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were all remarkable men and displayed incredible courage by fixing their signatures to a document they knew could bring about their deaths. You don’t need to embellish the truth.

By the same token, you don’t need to point out discrepancies in a way that trivializes the very sacrifices that afford you the right to be critical.

For example, in an article published by USAToday entitled, “Fact check: Decades-old essay about Declaration of Independence signatories is partly false,” they make their point with examples from the essay such as this one:

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.​​​​​​​

They go on to say that this represents and exaggeration because:

Lewis’ home was destroyed, and his wife was captured by the British. And Hart’s story is also largely described accurately, according to the NPS’ record.

But the caveat for both is that these tragedies did not occur because they signed the Declaration. The occurrences were unrelated side effects of the war itself.

The same is true for the alleged 12 unnamed men whose homes were ransacked and burned and eight men named (many incorrectly) as having their homes vandalized or looted.

To say that the essay is wrong because, “But the caveat for both is that these tragedies did not occur because they signed the Declaration. The occurrences were unrelated side effects of the war itself.” is to introduce a standard of scrutiny that’s deployed for the sake of distracting from the truth rather than pointing people to it.

The point being made is that Francis Lewis lost his home and his wife in the War for Independence. Whether or not the British knew his name and had targeted him specifically doesn’t change the fact that Lewis’ signature was on the document that had precipitated the war to begin with.

So, from that perspective there’s nothing being said that’s inappropriate or dishonest. But this is nevertheless the approach that’s often taken by people who want to distract from the truth of what’s being said in order to make the message they would imply appear more credible.

Historian Stephen E. Ambrose sums it beautifully in an article featured in “Smithsonian Magazine:”

Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part.8

F) Sin

Some of the most accomplished characters in Scripture were guilty of some truly despicable sins: David and his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Uriah (1 Sam 11) and Paul, one of the more prolific writers of the New Testament, condoned the murder of Stephen and was an accessory to the persecution and imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of Christians (Acts 22:17-20).

While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal.

In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair. Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20).

The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.

This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person.

You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls. We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness.

And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.

King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).

The example of Cyrus demonstrates that a leader can be a heathen and still be worthy of your support because of the way their platform promotes and protects the work of God. So the question isn’t, “How can I support someone who doesn’t acknowledge God?” The question is, “Whose platform is most aligned with that which promotes and protects our nation’s spiritual wellbeing?” Or, another question which better accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to those passages that restrict God’s usage of individuals to those that honor Him would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”

III) Conclusion (Part I)

God cares about Politics.

He facilitates governments and He uses our involvement and prayers to accomplish His Purposes.

Our nation is founded on Christian Principles that come from the Word of God. Our Founders were not masquerading as pious human beings when they cited Divine Absolutes as the basis for their declaration to King George. Anything less than the Substance of Scripture would’ve reduced our cause to nothing more than a complaint and it’s those same Truths that guarantee our continued success and serve as the basis for the way in which we choose our elected officials.

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about Politics.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II,” click here…

1. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208#:~:text=The%20general%20Principles%2C%20on%20which,by%20me%20in%20my%20Answer, accessed February 2, 2022
2. “The Writings of Samuel Adams”, Harry Alonzo Cushing, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, London, 1908, p189
3. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed February 2, 2022
4. “Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)”, ourdocuments.gov, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript, accessed January 31, 2022
5. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170
6. Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 41; Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 173; John Leach, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol.19 (1865), p. 256
7. Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936, p891
8. “Founding Fathers and Slaveholders”, Stephen E. Ambrose, “Smithsonian Magazine”, November 2002, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/, accessed February 2, 2022

Excellent Reading: “Did America Have a Christian Founding” Mark David Hall

Who Makes the Rules?

So, here’s what happened:

The “Gay Pride” Club at Independence High School built a float that was featured as part of the Homecoming parade that drove around the High School, down 31 and then made a lap around Heritage Elementary and Heritage Middle School.

It’s a big tradition and the Kindergarteners along with the Grade Schoolers are allowed to sit outside and watch what amounts to a big parade coming close enough to where those who are on the floats can throw candy and wave hello.

But at one point, two of the individuals on the “Gay Pride” float kissed…

Some saw that and felt an overwhelming sense of disgust and threw a fit. Others saw it as a sign of the times and, while they don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, accept it as a hill that’s not worth dying on because, after all, everyone has the, “…right to be happy.”

You can watch the clip and read the article by clicking here.

It’s a volatile discussion, but there’s a key element that often gets overlooked that’s worth considering because in the end, there’s a lot more at stake than a person’s right to be happy.

The real question is: Who Makes the Rules?

I) It’s a Strategy

First of all, the manner in which the Homosexual Agenda is advanced is done according to a strategy that’s characteristic of someone who has something to hide more than they have something to say. The moment you hear elements of that strategy being deployed, you can rest assured that what you’re hearing is not meant to champion the truth as much as it’s intended to distract from it.

Typically the Homosexual Activist positions themselves as a victim of a cruel and intolerant society that’s determined to prevent them from being able to exercise their right to be happy.

However that may or may not be the case, the fact that you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled as insensitive and inappropriate is a handy tool in the hands of someone who needs to avoid those questions that have the potential to reveal their argument as being weak apart from a controlled collection of polls, pictures and personalities.

In this case, the issue isn’t whether or not the Homosexual has the right to be happy as much as they have the authority to redefine Moral Absolutes.

That’s the question on the table. And that’s why it’s necessary to frame the entire conversation around the “victim,” because otherwise it becomes too obvious that there’s a resolve to either manipulate or dismiss the Bible in a way that’s neither accurate let alone appropriate.

That’s why characterizing those who have a problem with Homosexuality as being guilty of “fear and hate” can be so effective because now you can divert attention away from what the real issue is:

Who Makes the Rules?


click here to watch Frank Peretti’s
“God’s Way or My Way”

II) Who Makes the Rules

You’ve got one of two options: Man or God.

Granted, for some, there’s a lot to unpack there. But the point is this: It’s not about a person’s “right to be happy.” You can conceivably assert that as a way to justify almost whatever you want to do.

The question is, “Who makes the rules?”

And while that’s not a question people want to entertain in the context of a Homecoming Parade, that’s the other piece of this that makes this whole campaign so diabolical.

By positioning their agenda in the context of something that is traditionally processed as healthy, patriotic or philanthropic, they compel those who would otherwise object to be silent because of the way any criticism will come across as inappropriate given the obvious noble nature of the event.

But if the issue isn’t so much about one’s rights as much as it’s about what’s True…

…then regardless of the event or the situation, we’re now looking at a completely different issue.

Who Makes the Rules?

A) It’s What You Do Believe

However passionate or dogmatic a person may be in insisting that God has no place in a civilized conversation pertaining to morality, it’s not about what you don’t believe…

…it’s what you do believe.

There is a “god” in this equation – there is someone who’s calling the shots and defining the standard that you deem acceptable.

And it’s one of two people.

It’s either the God Who created the heavens and the earth and validated His Identity by dying and coming back to life, or…

…the person who’s staring back at you in the mirror every morning when you wake up.

B) There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

Atheists want to be perceived as having an impartial approach to the various faiths represented by the American population by insisting on a “religion-less” perspective on morality.

But there is no such thing as a “religion-less” approach to anything, let alone morality.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, “religion” is the way in which you answer four basic questions:

  • Origin – how did the universe come to be?
  • Destiny – what happens when you die?
  • Morality – how are you supposed to behave while you’re here?
  • Purpose – what’s the point of your existence?

These are not lofty, theological issues or advanced, philosophical themes that only academic types bother to engage. The way you process yourself and the world around you on a daily basis is based on the way you answer these questions and from that standpoint, you are a “religious” person regardless of how often you go to church, if you go at all.

And from that standpoint, there’s no such thing as an atheist. You’re simply your own god – you’ve established yourself as your own religion.

So, when you hear critics of Christianity or social activists insist that they represent a more judicious approach to moral issues and social tensions by removing the Bible from the conversation, they’re not leveling the playing field as much as they’re giving priority to that “religious” school of thought that establishes the individual as his own deity.

C) Not All Religions are the Same

And before you allow yourself to think that there is more than one “god” to choose from, bear in mind that Christianity is the only faith where man cannot facilitate his own salvation let alone merit the favor of his chosen deity.

Every other religion, be it Islam where you’ve got the option of Jihad, or as a Buddhist you have the pursuit of Nirvana or as a Hindu, you have Moksha – every other doctrine, save what’s represented by the gospel, positions the individual as the one who can achieve their own redemption.

In other words, you don’t need a god to achieve the highest good or obtain a perfect existence. You can rise above the limitations of humanity simply by being, “better.”

Christ, on the other hand, says there’s no amount of noble activity or disciplined sacrifice that can alter the fact that your capacity to sin translates to a perpetual willingness to rebel against the One Who created you to begin with.

Solomon says as much in Ecclesiastes 7:20:

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. (Ecc 7:20)

And Paul reiterates the same thing in Romans 3:10-18:

10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” 14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

In short, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1-7) and it’s God and God alone that makes you alive. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary (Jn 6:65).

D) There is No Comparison

So, no, not every religion is the same and although a person can sound articulate and even compelling as they elaborate on what it is that they don’t believe, it’s when they start elaborating on what they do believe in that the temporary and relative dynamics they they subscribe to are revealed as the veiled attempt to make mathematical absurdities, philosophical train wrecks and moral disasters sound fulfilling.

Not only is not fulfilling, it isn’t even logical. But you can’t expect anything more from a spiritual paradigm based on the limited and corrupt perspective that defines the human condition.

On one hand, I have the option of believing I’m a lucky accident desperately trying to explain and validate my existence before my expiration date…

…or…

I’ve been created with a purpose by an all-Powerful God Who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself in order to ensure a life that’s worth living

There is no comparison. I’ll take the option that defines me as an intentional creation that doesn’t depend on a human mechanism to grant me meaning, value and love.

III) Breakdown and Conclusion

So, while on the surface this issue appears to be whether or not a certain people group has the right to be happy, the real issue is whether or not they have the Authority to redefine Moral Absolutes.

Initially, that response doesn’t work because Moral Absolutes do not exist in the minds of those who maintain themselves as their own bottom line and to try and convince them otherwise is virtually impossible because of the way they frame their argument in the context of a victim. You can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain, let alone the person who’s trying to help without immediately be labeled as cruel and intolerant which gives the Homosexual Activist the ability to champion their platform without ever having to substantiate it.

But in order for your argument to resonate as compelling, you have to be able to base your reasoning on something other than personal preferences because if you don’t believe in God and the Moral Absolutes that He has established, then you’ve replaced every bottom line you would use to validate your perspective with a temporary and transient commodity that has no credibility apart from whatever substance you assign to it.

That may sound reasonable, but if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is therefore inconclusive.

In short, you don’t have an argument, only a preferred alternative rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself it’s own philosophical foundation.

And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

The Homosexual Platform is not a demand for equal rights or an innocent desire to simply be happy as much as it’s an instance of an individual going up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and telling Him to get out of their chair.

They’re basically asserting themselves as the answer to the question, “Who makes the rules?”

And when they do that, they’re ignoring what God has said, Who God is and who we are in relation to Him.

Trusted Messengers | Part II

On August 6, 2021 I noticed something you don’t see very often…

USA Today | August 6-8, 2021

A graphic / headline that took up the entire front page of a national newspaper.

The last time I saw something like this was when the NYT did a report on the, “100 Lies” told by President Trump during his first 100 days in office.

That particular article inspired some real interest on my part, just because the sheer volume of accusations compelled a closer look to see just how much substance was represented in the paper’s indictments.

As I researched each “falsehood,” I became increasingly skeptical of the paper’s use of the word, “lie.” Exaggeration, hyperbole, perhaps. But to go as far as assaulting the man’s character based on words that were obviously speculative, or to apply a standard that seemingly applies only to Conservatives and not to anyone who flies the banner of the Democrat party over their camp, is neither logical nor appropriate.

However you might want to agree or disagree with my take on the article, the thing that was most disturbing was the way in which the paper chose to eliminate any ad space or eye catching headlines in order to publish what was an op-ed that took up the entire front page.

Ever since the Vietnam War when the media had the technology to pump into every American’s home images of a conflict they were determined to characterize as a waste of time and resources, the MSM has been able to sway public opinion in whatever direction they choose.

Did you know that we won the Vietnam War? There was actually a day set aside called, “Victory in Vietnam Day.” It was January 27, 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were signed by North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, South Vietnam, and the United States of America just days later. You can read more about that by clicking here.

Did you know that?

I didn’t.

And I served with many who fought in that war.

The point is, much of what we use to formulate our convictions is based on whatever we allow into our inbox. But whereas before, our knowledge of the world was shaped by NBC, CBS and ABC, now we have access to any one of a number of resources and we can filter the data we consume according to that which is most consistent with our philosophical preferences.

In some ways, that is a great option to have – right up until the truth becomes distorted and accuracy is allowed to be a substitute for substance.

In many ways, much of the media we are confronted with is what you expect from a Pharisee tasked with having to write an article about the death and resurrection of Christ. It’s not that we’re being lied to as much as our viewpoint is being shaped according to a judiciously selected collection of data that emphasizes certain things over other information that is potentially more relevant.

Take COVID-19 for example.

Here are some things that are often either ignored or qualified by the media as being detrimental to one’s overall perspective on the virus:

What is it? Was it engineered or was it a natural occurring mutation?

click here to see more images of Fauci emails

“Gain of Function” is a term used to describe medical research that’s geared towards altering a virus in order to enhance it’s functional capabilities which includes how contagious it might be as well it’s ability to infect other organisms.

In June of 2021, the “Freedom of Information Act” compelled the releases of emails exchanged between Dr Anthony Fauci and several key individuals. Contained within those emails were comments that point to Fauci having been told by NIH researcher Kristian Andersen that the virus appeared to be something that was manufactured as part of “Gain of Function” research.

At the time, Fauci publicly denied any kind of human intervention that would’ve created the virus. This despite the fact that, not only was he being told by colleagues that the virus had been manufactured, he himself was circulating emails that included information about how the virus might’ve been engineered (see image to the right).

Moreover, Dr. Fauci insisted that the NIH did not financially support any research done at the Wuhan Lab where the Coronavirus originated. But this doesn’t line up with the fact that while the US ceased funneling tax payer dollars to any kind of gain of function research in 2014, the Wuhan lab somehow continued their work using US government funding disguised as monies allocated to the EcoHealth Alliance by the NIAID lead by Fauci.

It was during a recent Senate hearing where Fauci was being questioned by Rand Paul, a Senator from Kentucky and a physician himself, where much of this information pertaining to funding and the origin of the virus came to light. Fauci’s words convinced many that he was incapable of answering a direct question which just reinforces the fact that much of the way in which this virus is being presented to the public is characterized by information that has been carefully packaged to ensure that it’s true nature is buried beneath a mountain of data and statistics that omits relevant information.

Bottom Line: To believe that the COVID-19 virus was not intentionally engineered requires a person to ignore what “gain of function” research is and how it can incriminate anyone who’s involved, regardless of their motives or intentions.

The evidence that it happened naturally is not only dwindling, but the case for it being created intentionally is increasing along with the reasons to suspect that the experts we’ve put our faith in up to this point are suffering from a conflict of interests and their recommendations can therefore no longer be trusted.

 

How deadly is COVID-19?

The mortality rate for COVID-19 is 1.4%:

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover) (worldometers.info)

 

To put that in perspective, you have a better chance of passing away in an automobile accident than you do from COVID-19.

But what makes this so sinister, is that the preventions that were put in place at the beginning were done so despite the fact that Fauci had been briefed by some of his contemporaries that shut downs, masks and social distancing were not needed. Rather, the focus should be on those that were most vulnerable to the disease which included the elderly and those whose immune systems had been suppressed.

Of the emails that were recently released, there was one from a peer that expressed concern that the right message was not getting out and the subsequent reaction was not accurate let alone wise…

I wanted to convey an idea I had with regard to the coronavirus. It seems to me that trying to contain the virus as we are doing at present will be futile. Since the virus can be present for many days without a person having any symptoms, you would literally need to test everyone at the same time to determine who has it–an impossible task.

I have a different thought. We know that the virus is especially dangerous for the old and/or immunosuppressed. IMO we should be focusing all of our efforts on keeping that group from becoming infected. To do so that group should be encouraged to self-isolate, to limit their social interactions and other groups should be instructed to avoid them. Sort of a reverse-quarantine idea. All testing would be done within those groups and all groups would also be encouraged to continue with the hygienic suggestions they’ve already received.

The problem right now is that the media has created a panic. Last night my wife and I went to the local Whole Foods and many of the shelves were empty and healthy younger people were wearing masks. The message is not getting out that the virus is almost solely dangerous to the elderly and immunosuppressed. [Why aren’t the demographics being released? That in itself could calm many people.] With my suggestion, exposures to them would be diminished, significantly reducing the number of deaths, as well as the potential impact on hospitals. Any person outside of that group that was severely affected could be identified and treated. Quarantining otherwise healthy people outside of those groups who finally demonstrate symptoms–like the NBA players–is ridiculous. They are likely to get the sniffles and have also already spread the virus. As long as they’re not spreading it to the endangered group we should not worry about it. In sum, we need to isolate the vulnerable and realize that the mortality rate for people outside of that group is likely lower than the flu.

Of course, while this occurs we are working on finding treatments and vaccines. But sending home workers who have next to no likelihood of being significantly impacted by this virus is ridiculous. The virus hits hardest the old and infirm, two groups that are most likely NOT to even be in the workforce! To me, this solution is a lot simpler than what is being tried right now and is much more likely of success. To everyone besides the endangered group, this virus is literally less dangerous than the flu. There is no reason that anyone outside of the endangered group should have any concern at all and we need to make that clear. Please let me know what you think. (townhall.com)

 

The identity of the person who reached out to Fauci is protected, so it can’t be known for certain who wrote the email, although the name on the email is Michael Betts, a UPenn researcher who knows Fauci but denies that he wrote the email. Still it’s obvious that whoever penned the email knew Fauci and Fauci did take the time to respond, which suggests, in light of the thousands of emails he received, that he thought enough of the person to reply. And how did he reply?

“Thank you for your note.”

Taken by itself, this email may not mean a whole lot. But when you combine it with the incessant rehearsal of body bags, new cases and the need to “mask up” and compare that to the way in which certain physicians have been demonized and even Rand Paul has been recently accused of circulating a “mass murder” campaign, it becomes obvious that there’s a resolve in place on the part of major media outlets to stress frenzy over facts.

It’s not that the virus isn’t real as much as it’s the way the virus is portrayed in a manner that doesn’t allow for a comprehensive analysis of all of the data – just those things that can be made to sound lethal in the absence of an informed perspective.

Bottom Line: COVID-19 is lethal, but only in very rare situations. Those situations are limited to the elderly and those who have pre-existing health conditions. To dispute that is to ignore the numbers themselves and instead default to those who simply talk about the numbers.

☆ mortality rate for COVID-19 is 1.4%
☆of those who pass away as a result of the virus, 94% have pre-existing conditions
☆ Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19
☆ Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT Biologist with four degrees, insisted back in March of last year that the, “fear mongering on coronavirus will go down as the biggest fraud to manipulate economies.”

 

How to Best Mitigate the Risk?

Vaccine

Most will say the best way to mitigate the risk of infection is get a vaccine.

The problem is, the vaccine is not bulletproof.

First of all, it’s not been “approved.” It was authorized to be distributed under the FDA’s “Emergency Use Authorization” clause. Below is information that comes from americasfrontlinedoctors who advocate a much different approach to the virus than what you see in the press.

The investigational COVID-19 vaccines were granted emergency use based upon reducing symptoms only and not based upon preventing transmission of SARS CoV2. Once the trials are completed, Moderna October 27, 2022 and Pfizer January 31, 2023, the data will be analyzed and at that time it may be possible to know if either or both vaccine candidates reduce viral transmission. There has never been a situation where a vaccine candidate was rolled out to millions of healthy people under such a bizarre set of facts.

In her article, “My Brother Won’t Get the Vaccine,” Nicole Carroll interviews her brother who doesn’t want to get the vaccine and responds to every one of his objections with statistics and data designed to reinforce the integrity of the vaccine while simultaneously reveal his logic as being irrational. She also mentions that he’s a Christian and a lifelong Texan – implying that his faith and his address are contributing factors to a cruel and selfish disposition towards the virus.

She says the adverse effects of the vaccine are minimal and that those who have been vaccinated are less likely to transmit the disease and to contract it themselves.

According to who and based on what?

A recent Pfizer study revealed that after six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, there were 15 deaths in the vaccinated group and 14 in the unvaccinated group.

The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the virus, it just lessens the severity of the symptoms. Much like aspirin alleviates the nagging pain of a headache. This is why you’re still being asked to wear a mask and, in some cases, you’re seeing vaccinated people contract the virus.

At one point, Carroll says, “Medical experts agree that vaccines and masking can help control the spread of the virus, including to kids.”

Who?

Who are the “medical experts?” How many people have they actually treated? What were the demographics of their patients? Are they aware of those who have passed away as a result of the vaccine? How do they respond to those risks? Over 12,000 people have died as a result of the vaccine and there’s excellent evidence to support the idea that many of those who experienced lethal complications aren’t even captured in the data that’s being reported.

Whoever your “experts” are, there’s a large number of medical professionals who will say their perspective is fundamentally flawed – especially where masks are concerned.

Masks

Your typical store bought mask does very little to protect you or anyone else from contracting the virus. Fauci said this on February 5, 2020 and was recently reinforced by University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Director Michael Osterholm when he said cloth or paper masks don’t work to stop the spread of the disease. 

Nobel Prize winner, Luc Montagnier insists that the vaccine is helping to create the variants.

Delta Variant?

And what about the Delta Variant?

In June of this year, a report released by Public Health England shows the Delta Variant of the COVID-19 virus to be, “…much less lethal [than it’s] said to be, compared with the previous dominant strain.”

Really?

Dr. Catherine O’Neal insists it’s the other way around – that the Delta variant, “…holds on more tightly, infects you more deeply.”

So, who’s right?

Deaths per 100,000

On the surface, it looks like an impossible question to answer with any degree of certainty. But in the same edition of USA Today, Louis Villalobos and Ken Alltucker provide a clue.

In his op-ed, “5 Hard Truths, and What We Must Do Now,” he says, “What politicians say just doesn’t matter. That’s true in general and truer when we’re dealing with a nonpolitical pandemic that won’t go away unless we stand together.”

And yet, his co-worker Ken Alltucker in his article, “Hospital ICUs fill as Delta Variant Rips Across Nation” highlights two states as examples of the resurgence in COVID-19 who also happen to be headed up by Republican governors who have publicly disagreed with President Biden and pushed back on vaccines and mask mandates. Both of these states have significantly less deaths per 100,000 people than their Democrat counterparts (see statistic to the right), but that doesn’t stop Alltucker from implying that part of the reason Texas and Florida are struggling is because of their political paradigm.

In addition, while American citizens are contending with the possibility of being forced to get the vaccine and watching our economy and schools getting shut down once again, at the border, thousands of infected, illegal immigrants are streaming into our country everyday. Yet, no push back from Fauci or Biden.

According to Villalobos, we need to, “…stand together.” Yet, when you look at those that are being criticized the most, it’s the Conservative, Republican, Christian crowd that takes the most lead – despite their numbers being better, their remedies more effective and their approach far more sustainable.

Not only do I associate more credibility with those that risk the most by speaking out, I also suspect any commentary that includes political innuendos as being motivated by something other than a passion for the truth.

Bottom Line: The best way to mitigate this risk is to first acknowledge the effectiveness of those medications that have proven effective and been championed by physicians who’ve risked their livelihoods by taking a stand against everything from Big Tech to the Deep State.

Secondly, instead of allowing ourselves to be convinced by media outlets that silence anyone who doesn’t advocate the same panic stricken response to this virus – that they are they are the only reputable source of information – we need to give a fair hearing to those who produce results and not just op-eds.

Finally, this virus is now a part of the human experience. 20,000 people died as a result of the flu in 2017. Your health is your responsibility. If you are at risk, you need to take care of yourself by taking the necessary precautions. But disconnecting from the human race is not a preventive measure nor is allowing sinister actors in government to use this virus as a way in which to make Socialism more palatable. Stop being scared and start being wise.

 

In Conclusion…





America’s Frontline Doctors White Paper on Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19

Not long ago I was at the doctor’s office and tactfully mentioned to the attending physician my concern about the way COVID-19 had seemingly been exploited in order to achieve certain things in our society that had nothing to do with medicine. I referenced how God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1) and the Biblical admonishment for a balanced approach to all things (Ecc 7:16-18). She responded by saying that I should hesitate before attempting to apply Biblical Absolutes to a topic that was subjective at best.

It fascinates me to see believers restrict the Power of God to a church building and insist that current events exist outside the realm of God’s oversight or interest.

Fact is, COVID-19 is well within God’s Reach. He was there when it became a problem and He knows how to fix it. He knows who’s lying and who’s not.

We need to be praying that God would make this right. But we also need to be praying for the wisdom and the resolve to question those things that appear either sinister or impulsive.

Should the answer to those questions resonate as healthy and appropriate, then we move forward and thank God for the remedies that He’s provided.

But…

If the answers are either intentionally withheld or less than credible, than we need to push back and not allow our government to disguise themselves as caretakers when in fact they’re thieves.

And however over the top that may sound, the fact of the matter is…

…there are no Trusted Messengers.

P.S. There are a number of documents that are worth reading which you can find at America’s Frontline Doctors that document some things about the vaccine that you’ll want to know. It’s effectiveness, the date(s) the clinical trials are expected to wrap up and other things that reveal the vaccine as something other than the bulletproof remedy that so many believe it to be.

There’s one thing that stands out which you can see below…

What you’re looking at is a portion of the Federal document that documents the Phizer trials. You’ll notice that the clinicals aren’t supposed to wrap up until May 2, 2023. Yet, the FDA has already approved this vaccine. 

How does that work?

The physicians that comprise the “America’s Frontline Doctors” group issued this statement…

AFLDS decries the FDA’s unprecedented and grossly negligent approval of the Pfizer Covid vaccine, years before completion of their phase three trials. The vaccine was authorized for a variant of the virus that has faded from circulation. The current vaccine is known to be an ineffective and “leaky” vaccine (defined as a vaccine that produces stronger variants once in circulation) against the current variant.  

Much of the way this is being promoted by the Federal Government falls into the category of the Progressive Pentagon. But liberal tactics aside, there are looming questions that aren’t being answered, not the least of which is why should I be forced to put something into my body that is neither effective nor proven to be safe?

Good question…

Trusted Messengers | Part I

USA Today | August 6-8, 2021

This is Part I of a two part series that uses some data and testimonies that don’t get a lot of air time where the Coronavirus is concerned. 

In Part I, we look at the response from Insurance companies to the claim that a death benefit can be denied if the deceased passed away as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine. Fact is, there are several situations where a beneficiary can be denied their claim based on clauses buried with the policy. And however obvious the cause of death may be, the manner in which the dispute is categorized as an ambiguous irregularity will effectively prevent it from ever making it to the internet.

In addition, we’ll look at some of the inconsistencies that have characterized the way in which the virus has been defined and mitigated which make it very clear that the question on the table isn’t whether or not the virus is real as much as it’s the extent to which it’s been exploited. 

Fact is, the virus is now a part of the human experience. The vaccine is not a bottom line, there will be additional variants and mandatory booster shots.

This is not going away. 

But the things that will go away include the privacy, the security and the opportunity represented by a free, Democratic society.  And if you read that last sentence and catch yourself scoffing – believing that to suspect what appears to be a logical and necessary collection of preventive measures as a godless power grab on the part of sinister parties, keep reading.

There was a rumor being circulated recently that said if you passed away as a result of getting the COVID-19 vaccine, your beneficiaries would be denied your death benefit.

Fact-checkers and official statements from Insurance Agencies rushed to deny such claims and if you were to base your perspective solely on what you can find on Google, you would have no real reason to be concerned.

For example,

In March, the American Council of Life Insurers responded to a social media post that said payouts were denied to beneficiaries when the insured received a vaccine.

“Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit,” said Paul Graham, the organization’s senior vice president, in a statement March 12.

Whether someone received COVID-19 vaccine is not a consideration for life insurers deciding whether to pay a claim, he said. (USA Today)

But here’s the problem…

In many ways, credibility has been mortgaged on several fronts where the COVID-19 virus is concerned. Whether it’s the CDC, the WHO or the White House, the mixed messages and forever changing standards have created a population that is not willing to accept something as being true just because the media insists that it is.

And they’re not wrong.

It’s not just the mask nor is it merely a matter of getting vaccinated. It’s the way certain treatments have been demonized, the manner in which some medical professionals are silenced and even in the way some have been killed.

Recently, President Biden stated that there was a plan being considered by the Federal Government to enlist “Trusted Messengers” to go door to door into the communities and encourage those who yet to be vaccinated to go ahead and get the vaccine.

Trusted Messengers…

That’s the problem.

There are no Trusted Messengers.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic. (New England Journal of Medicine)

Mixed Messages

On one hand, you have physicians and virologists saying that COVID-19 is a real threat and justifies everything from masks to total economic shut downs.

On the other hand, you have medical professionals who insist that the disease can be treated successfully and to continue processing everything as a legitimate reason to isolate one’s self and destroy our collective ability to purchase food, pay our bills and fund further research is neither practical let alone accurate.

While the virus is real and people have died, statistically you’ve got a better chance of passing away in a car wreck than you do from COVID-19. But you don’t hear that perspective from the media. Instead, it’s a non-stop enumeration of death tolls and new cases as opposed to recovery rates and effective treatments.

In addition, there’s credible voices out there that will tell you that masks are not effective, social distancing is pointless and shutting down the economy is more about destroying Trump’s past accomplishments than it is about preventing the spread of the virus.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…

  • In February of 2020, Fauci recommended that you not wear a mask

Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines. (gateway pundit)


The CDC is now stating that even vaccinated people should be wearing masks. This despite the fact that other experts will say that that wearing a mask has done very little as far as mitigating the virus in general.

Meanwhile…

  • Bars were allowed to remain open while churches were shut down.
  • Trump’s rallies were ordered to be canceled, yet BLM rioters were accommodated.
  • The Washington Examiner published an article in March of 2021 saying that the World Health Organization has recommended not to use Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. This, despite the fact that a study by the Henry Ford Heath System, showed Hydroxychloroquine to be capable of significantly cutting death rates among COVID-19 patients.
  • Those physicians who are able to successfully treat their COVID-19 patients with tried and true medications are being demonized
  • CNN’s Don Lemon recently suggested that anyone who doesn’t get the vaccine should be restricted from buying groceries 
  • However the vaccine is being promoted, the fact of the matter is an unvaccinated person doesn’t pose more of a risk than someone who is vaccinated. (see quote below)

Both Joe Biden and Kamela Harris previously stated that they would not get any vaccine until it had been approved by the FDA, yet now…

The 3 clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson clearly state that neither transmission of disease nor infectivity (risk of getting COVID infection) were studied or were endpoints. So the shots they claim only possibly help the vaccinated individual avoid severe disease. Getting an experimental vaccine helps no one else. You can download their clinical protocols from their own websites. (Denise Sibley, MD FACP)

Both of them are now vehemently insisting that everyone should get a vaccine despite the fact that the vaccine is not yet approved.

Confused yet?

It’s not a question of whether or not the virus is real. The question is how do you mitigate the risks in a way where the preventions don’t become more of a problem than the virus itself.

Here we go…

Death Benefits

First of all, you can be denied a death benefit from a Life Insurance Company in certain circumstances. The best place to go to learn what those circumstances are is not an Insurance Company’s website. Instead, you want to go to the site of a legal firm and look at some of the cases they’ve had to adjudicate.

For example, Life Insurance Lawyer identifies several  scenarios where a beneficiary was told they would not be receiving any benefits. While there is generally no problem, there are, nevertheless, situations where some Insurance companies will try to deny a benefit based on ambiguous clauses buried within the policy itself.

You see this potential in the “Critical Illness” clause of a Life Insurance policy. 

Critical illness policies allow the policyholder to receive payments in case they are diagnosed with certain diseases or conditions such as a heart attack, kidney failure, organ transplant, stroke, or cancer. Most life insurance companies do not include COVID-19 as a covered condition under their critical illness policies. Unless your critical illness policy includes the newly discovered coronavirus, your critical illness claim will be denied. 

So, while a person may think themselves to be covered, their surviving relatives may find that, depending on the way the policy is worded and the extent to which COVID-19 is covered, what they may be rightfully entitled to will be withheld in a way that sounds both legal and compelling. 

And what makes it so toxic is that their scenario won’t be found on the internet nor acknowledged as a reasonable dispute because of the way the Insurance Carrier will categorize it as an irregularity that has nothing to do with the virus despite the fact that it was COVID-19 that caused the death of their policy holder.

Bottom Line

When you’re dealing with a fearful person, you can convince them to make concessions they wouldn’t otherwise make. And they can be even more vulnerable if you can show them by not agreeing to your proposal, they’re hurting innocent people. 

But the good news is that those kinds of campaigns become more and more obvious as the rule of law, the Hippocratic Oath and the Bill of Rights are overruled in the name of something “necessary.”

The only thing that’s necessary now is a fair hearing of those that risk their reputations and livelihoods to champion a sound, medicinal approach that doesn’t require a toxic dependency on government and a retooling of the human race. 

In addition, those that recognize that there is a man behind the curtain need to push back and you’ll see more of the reason why in Part II.

July 4th, 2021

American-flag_1460851700601_1192238_ver1.0It’s not just brilliant statesmanship or profound philosophy that makes us who we are. It is the way we appealed to the Bible for the moral substance for our cause and the template for our approach to government. While there have been several personalities since then that have used either the Bible or the flag to advance an agenda that was genuinely evil, it was their lack of morality and not a flaw in our foundation that bears the blame for their atrocities.

It is the Ideal that is America that we celebrate today.

  • Those that would insist that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are fundamentally flawed forget that we evaluate those documents, not according to the character flaws of those that wrote them, but according to the substance of the documents themselves.
  • The individuals who see fit to burn the flag or take a knee during the National Anthem forget that they are disparaging the symbols of the government that gives them the right to protest and demonstrate – the very right that they’re exercising in that moment.
  • The persons that believe they’re entitled to destroy and steal because that they’ve been violated by a racially prejudiced system forget that it was the same system that inspired over a quarter million Caucasians to give their lives in order to ensure the death of slavery.
  • And them that want to establish a new morality based on their right to be happy neglect to acknowledge the Author of that right as cited in the Declaration of Independence.

In every instance where there’s a group of people parading their indignation around, insisting that it is not so much the individual responsible for the decisions being made that affect their lives, but it’s the “system” within which these characters operate that needs to be overhauled – there’s a contradiction and a hypocrisy embedded in their cries for equality that doesn’t condemn the system they supposedly oppose as much as it validates it.

It’s because of the way the Constitution can be amended that the injustices which were part of the social fabric of the world in the eighteenth century could later be addressed and resolved. It’s because of the rights guaranteed by the system they’re so eager to destroy that their voices are heard and their freedoms are protected and it’s because of the way an individual is created in the image of God that their happiness can be realized and not because it depends on a favorable ruling from a human court.

This is why we can celebrate and know that our confidence in who and what we are is well placed. It’s not only because of the noble sounding aspects of our philosophical paradigm, but it’s because the Ultimate Source of those Truths come from God Himself. Not only is He the Author, He is also the Standard that we can appeal to in order to properly discern the difference between what’s True and what is accurate.  And He’s also the Provision we require in order to defend the Truths that ensure a healthy government and a strong society.

Any other foundation is going to be championed by someone who sneers at any authority save themselves. However they want to justify their sovereignty over all that dictates the difference between right and wrong by claiming that their priority is the common good is revealed as a hollow statement the moment their community pursues a moral direction that runs contrary to their preferences.

And those who either sneer at Scripture or advocate the “separation of church and state,” forget that from a purely philosophical point of view, “religion” is nothing more than the way you answer those questions pertaining to your origin, life after death, moral absolutes and the purpose of your existence. Whether you answer those questions according to a humanistic mindset or a faith based perspective, both are “religious” from that standpoint. Given that reality, the efforts being directed towards the removal of any Christian icon from the marketplace is not so much about eliminating religion from the public square as much as it’s establishing the “faith” of the atheist as the only religion that will be tolerated.

Politics has never been a spiritually neutral arena. And that’s a good thing! If He’s Lord at all, He’s Lord of all and that includes the way in which men govern themselves. It’s the premise upon which our Founding Fathers based their letter to King George. It’s the common thread that can be seen in our National Archives and throughout our capital’s architecture. It’s the Logic that can be perceived when evaluating any one piece of legislation that that gives moral credence to behaviors and practices that are addressed specifically in Scripture as being toxic.

And this is why we can celebrate the Fourth!

We’re not merely the product of clever thinking or corrupted schemes. We are founded on Divine Absolutes. He is the Source of Freedom, He’s the Strength that has sustained us and He’s the Wisdom that will ensure our endurance.

However different factions seem to rule the day or varying perspectives seem to dominate the public domain, He is the bottom line. When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we are forming the words on our lips, “…one nation, under God.” That is more than just a token acknowledgement of a profound idea. It’s a mental rehearsal of Who is it that gave us the freedoms we enjoy along with the Strength and the Wisdom we need to maintain them.

Happy Fourth!

Sin is a Private Matter…?

Traffic-flow-under-different-types-of-traffic-conditionMaintaining the idea that sin is “private,” is a misnomer.

You can think of it as the flow of traffic.

Adam and Eve

When Adam and Eve chose to take a bite of that apple, they tapped their brakes and everyone behind them was compelled to slow down (Rom 5:12).

If a couple chooses to live together rather than getting married, they affect the perspective of those who observe what they see on the surface and adopt a potentially unhealthy regard for the problems represented by “playing house” rather than building one (Matt 7:24; 1 Cor 6:18). At that point, they’re not just tapping their brakes, their locking up their wheels and causing a legitimate bottleneck.

And when you get into behaviors such as adultery and homosexuality, at that point, you’re coming to a complete stop in the middle of the road and the collective result is a breakdown of the family and ultimately society in general.

Killing the Family

Think about it…

We are all the sum total of our education and life experiences. Every bit of that occurred within an environment that either provided a rock solid foundation upon which we were allowed to grow and flourish, or an unstable base that fostered uncertainty and failure.

The “family,” as God created it, is not just a sitcom or a holiday inconvenience. It’s supposed to be an intimate fellowship characterized by confidence, guidance and affirmation all based on the Absolute of God’s Character and Love.

And that’s the thing…It’s God’s Character and Love. It’s not just a piece of paper or an agreement that can be “legally” edited according to a person’s sexual orientation. It’s called, “Holy Matrimony” for a reason and the only impetus for questioning whether or not marriage should be solely between a man and a woman is a desire to remove the Bottom Line of God’s Reality from the human experience.

That’s what makes sexual immorality such a bogus enterprise. Sexual infractions are not merely rebellious moments of pleasure. They devour the strength and the integrity of what a family is and how it’s supposed to function according to God’s Design.

The more deterioration the institution of the family is subjected to, the more damage is being done to people who may look fine on the surface, but are dealing with some gaping holes in their psychological and spiritual makeup. And when you multiply those wounds over the course of several families, you start to impact the culture as a whole and the ramifications are dramatic.

And it’s Not Just Sex

But it’s not just, “sex.” It’s sin in general. Even lying can have a mammoth impact. The Watergate Scandal started off as a single lie that had to be covered up with more and more deceit until it finally erupted into a national scandal that resulted in many doubting the integrity of institutions that, up to that point, were considered trustworthy.

Watergate changed our culture and it introduced a level of cynicism that continues to this day.

It’s Not a Private Matter

Sin is not a private matter. It affects those around you just like the way you affect the flow of traffic on a busy road with the way you drive.

And the results can be disastrous.

But Wait…!

But here’s the thing..

The opposite is just as True and even more powerful.

When you take your cue from God, as far as the way in which you route your sexual energies as well as your philosophical pursuits, your practical fortunes have just improved dramatically.

God’s Guidelines, as they’re documented in Scripture are not “rules” as much as they’re “tools” He’s given you to avoid all the pain that accompanies head on collisions and instead be able to enjoy the open road that leads to a genuinely fulfilling life.

Bottom Line

Sin isn’t a private matter, but neither is obedience. Both affect those around you and while your ultimate inspiration to obey is to please your King, knowing that your choices impact others is a good motivator as well!

Muscular Christianity Billboard

What Would Your Billboard Say (Part III)

Muscular Christianity BillboardIt’s one of those questions that can take you by surprise in that conventional church culture puts a lot of emphasis on who we are apart from Christ.

Many of the sermons and a lot of the Praise and Worship we sing focus more on the insufficiency of the believer rather than the all sufficiency of God. As a result, the inclination is to process one’s relationship with Jesus as something that comes to bear primarily in the context of a crisis rather than a Resource that’s poised to positively impact every play you deploy on the field rather than something that only applies when you’re on the sidelines.

You are more than your wounds and better than your sin. Not because of who you are but because of Who Christ is in you. To restrict Christ’s Influence to crisis situations only is to overlook both the Attitude and the Ability He’s given you to excel and not just endure.

Bear in mind, when God says, “excel,” He’s talking about all things at all times (2 Cor 9:8). That includes your performance at work, the way you love the people you care about, the way you work out, even the way you mow your lawn.

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Col 3:17)

Do you smell that that? That’s the aroma of excellence!

It’s What You Do Believe

javamanWhen you hear an atheist talk about what they don’t believe, it’s often articulated in a way that sounds as though his perspective is based on an empirical foundation characterized by reason, science and compassion.

  • There’s nothing mystical or “miraculous” about their approach to the human experience.
  • They don’t subscribe to anything other than what can be proven and observed.
  • They don’t believe in Creation, they’re not overly concerned about life after death and they have a real problem with any kind public reference to the Christian faith in that they see it as a violation of the “separation of church and state.”

But, here’s the thing…

It’s not what you don’t believe, as much as it is what you do believe.

When you pop the hood on the philosophical framework subscribed to by the atheist who supposedly refuses to accept anything other than what can be scientifically verified, you encounter some scenarios where a fantastic leap of faith is required in order to justify their mindset. In addition, you’ve got an approach to morality and one’s sense of purpose that reeks of personal preferences more than absolute standards which is like a football player insisting he scored a touchdown, not because he moved the ball down the field, but because he moved the goalposts.

As a born again Christian, you see yourself as someone who was on Christ’s screen long before your parents ever met. You were “fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)” and equipped with everything you need to make a difference and not just an appearance (2 Pet 1:3). You embrace the moral guidelines coming from God as “tools” and not just “rules” that allow you to, not just succeed and prosper (Josh 1:8; Matt 6:33), but also avoid all of the pain and baggage that goes along with driving on the wrong side of the road (Matt 7:26). And when it’s all said and done, the curtains come up and rather than the show being over, the real performance begins (Rev 21:1-4).

As an atheist…

You’re a pointless piece of machinery that exists due to a series of lucky accidents that simply ceases to function the moment you cease to breathe with a purpose and a perspective on ethics that you basically make up as you along.

Doesn’t sound nearly as sophisticated now, does it?

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.  And when you look at what an atheist actually believes – what they submit as a substitute for God, as far as explaining the origin of life and a basis for morality and significance – their platform is revealed as the nonsensical attempt to declare themselves as their own deity.

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.

Bonus: The atheist platform is presented as being a non-spiritual approach to the human experience. But regardless of it’s substance, it is nevertheless a “religious” framework in that it functions in exactly the same way as a faith based paradigm as far as it being a response to those questions pertaining to creation, life after death, moral absolutes and one’s sense of purpose. From that perspective, any complaint coming from the mouth of an atheist about the “separation of church and state” is not so much as a “concern” as much as it’s a campaign to establish their “religion” as the only religious school of thought permitted in public. In that way, they are the very thing they claim to despise.

The Liberal and the First Amendment

There is no Referee