Posts

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

According to Who, Based on What…

book_title_page
There’s a lot going on these days and with more activity, comes more information.

The challenge is this: Are you hearing information or are you experiencing manipulation? I’ve decided that even with Fact Checkers and “Community Guidelines,” there’s a phrase I’m superimposing over every resource and talking head…

According to who and based on what?

It’s getting to a point where you can find a headline to reinforce whatever it is that you want to be true. If you go out to Google and do a search for “states that stopped counting,” you’ll find pages of fact checkers, authorities and experts insisting that no state actually “stopped” – that the whole business of counting having been interrupted is absurd.

According to who and based on what?

If you “want” fraud to be non-existent, you can find plenty of content to justify your belief that the whole thing is nothing more than Trump and his supporters refusing to accept defeat.

On the other hand, if you “want” fraud to be an issue, you can find plenty of commentary and complaints to justify your being skeptical and even indignant. But again…

According to who and based on what?

As the days ahead unfold, don’t just listen TO what’s being said, listen FOR what’s being said.

It’s very difficult to champion your cause when you have to simultaneously defend your character. I’ve discovered this is very important. Reason being is that there’s a tactic out there that is deployed when confronted with a truth that can’t be easily refuted. In that situation, the strategy is to assault the character or the credentials of the person speaking and in that way, undermine the credibility of whatever is it that they’re saying. Now, you’ve contained the problem by forcing your opponent to divert their energies from articulating their platform to defending their integrity.

When you hear this strategy being deployed, though there are exceptions, there’s a good chance that whatever is being said by the person being attacked is probably worth listening to.

According to who, based on what…?

You don’t dismiss a problem by saying it doesn’t exist anymore than you create a problem by speaking it into existence.

Headlines are designed to get your attention as well as shape your perspective so even without reading the article, you’re associating a degree of credibility with whatever’s being implied by the headline itself.

According to who and based on what?

If fraud in this election didn’t occur, you have to PROVE that it didn’t happen. And with that proof, you have to be able to explain the statistical realities that border on the bizarre, in terms of the huge uptick that Trump experienced with different demographics as well as the poor performance Biden turned in with his supposed supporters. You have to refute the findings documented in the report the State of Texas prepared that denounced Dominion Software. And you have to do this in a manner that stands up to the tests invariably applied when your audience asks…

According to who and based on what?

On the other side of the aisle, if fraud did occur, you can’t just submit mathematical anomalies. You have to demonstrate their impossibility, you have to prove through sworn testimonies and signed affidavits that oversight was non existent, that dead people voted and the mail in ballots that Biden depends on to claim a victory are not legitimate. And again, you have to do this in a way where people who are skeptical can nevertheless be confident in what’s being stated because you’re able to answer the question…

According to who and based on what?

Enough of the three piece suits and high dollar production. No more attention grabbing headlines and social media “objectivity.” No more Senators quoting the Constitution when it’s convenient to do so and criticizing it when it doesn’t advance their agenda.

According to who and based on what?

You have the floor…

Kick the Tires

The following is a sermon I preached on September 29, 2020 at Faith Church in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. You can download the outline as well as the Listening Sheet by clicking here. The underlined words are the blanks you’ll see on the Listening Sheet.

cover I) Intro There are ­three sides to the topics we’re dealing with in our society today. There’s what’s wrong … …there’s what’s accurate and then there’s what’s True “Facts” are like pieces of a puzzle. However important and credible they may be, there are nevertheless fragments of a greater whole. The Truth is the fully assembled puzzle with all of the “facts” correctly configured. It’s the Truth that you need in order ensure that your convictions are fully vetted and informed. Otherwise, you’re basing your perspective on a solitary instrument as opposed to a full orchestra and you’ll never be able to hear or appreciate the music as it was intended to be heard. It’s for that reason you can’t afford to be merely smart, you have to be wise. You can’t allow yourself to be satisfied with your intellect alone, you have to make use of the Perspective God offers by “testing” what it is that lies before you.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1)

You have to “kick the tires.”

II) What Does it Mean to be Wise? To be wise is to evaluate a situation correctly. In order to do that, you need as your starting point a Perfect Resource which is God Himself:

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

By framing your thoughts according to what’s specified in God’s Word along with the Guidance that He promises (Ps 143:12), you’re now on track to do the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons (Matt 5:48). It’s not an especially mystical transaction. You pray for instruction and then you let God reveal His Preferences in the context of your circumstance and however else He might shape your mindset (Rom 8:6). There’s one thing, however, that you can do from a purely practical standpoint that Christ Himself demonstrated in the way He responded to some of His detractors… You have to ask the right questions.

III) Ask the Right Questions

A) When Contending with the Enemy

Throughout the gospels you see the Pharisees asking Him questions that would’ve revealed Him as a fraud had He not been everything He claimed to be. But rather than “answering a fool according to his folly (Prov 26:4),” He responded with the “right” question that compelled His opponents to acknowledge both their sinister intentions as well as the flawed logic that were attempting to assert as a philosophical given. Here’s an example:

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” (Mk 11:27-33)

Jesus had no formal training nor academic credentials. While that might be a legitimate cause for concern, John the Baptist didn’t have any formal training either. The fact that were willing to validate John as a prophet despite his non-existent resume (Jn 1:19) but not Jesus demonstrates that weren’t looking to validate Him as much as they were trying to discredit Him. But do you see how Christ countered their question with another question? Rather than allowing the flow of the dialogue to be dictated by a hidden agenda, Jesus responds with the “right” question in that it addressed the way the Pharisees were posing as concerned authorities when in fact they were hypocritical assailants. Ravi Zacharias once said, “When you question someone’s question, you compel them to open up about their own assumptions. Our assumptions must be examined.”1 It’s the philosophical scaffolding that supports the question that qualifies it as something that is either looking to justify itself or transform itself into something that better accommodates the Truth. C.S. Lewis reinforces this by saying that “The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.”2 Consider the following:

Does the Bible endorse slavery? What was the punishment in the Old Testament for kidnapping?
How could Abolitionists base their argument against the slave trade on the Bible if Scripture supported it?
Was every one of our Founding Fathers a born-again Christian? Who did our Founders identify as the Source of our Freedom?
Don’t homosexuals have the right to be happy? Do homosexuals have the right to redefine Moral Absolutes?
Shouldn’t we trust the news? Shouldn’t we want the truth?
Aren’t all Christians hypocrites? Are all church members genuine Christians?
Don’t I have the right to choose? Does your baby have the right to live?
Is the Bible reliable? Is the integrity of the Bible dependent on the accuracy of man or the Ability of God?
Why does God allow suffering? Why did Jesus have to die?

You have to ask the right questions. And while the example of Christ and the above responses demonstrate the utility of the right questions being asked in the context of refuting a flawed premise, it’s also a dynamite way to ensure the quality of your own assumptions.

B) When Contending with Yourself

The movie, “Moneyball” is based on the book by the same title authored by Michael Lewis. It stars Brad Pitt and it tells the story of the manager of the Oakland A’s who, at one point, deployed a strategy when it came to recruiting new employers that represented a dramatic departure from convention. Instead of going after big ticket all-stars, they focused instead on players that could consistently get on base. Not home run hitters, just solid and consistent ball players that could get on first every time they got up to bat. The result was amazingly successful. That year the A’s turned in a winning season and were able to do it at a fraction of the cost that comparable teams were paying for a roster that was supposedly more talented. Satan is described in Scripture as both a snake and a lion. Put those two illustrations together and you have something that is as vicious as it is subtle. He’s not posing as a home run hitter. Rather, he’s just trying to get on first. And what happens over time is he keeps advancing runners and before you know it, he’s putting points on the board and you’re up to your neck in the kind of sin you never thought possible. Again, it comes back to asking the right questions and laboring to be truly wise as opposed to being merely smart.

1) Politics, Race and COVID-19

Volatile issues are sometimes labeled as “divisive” and therefore something to be avoided altogether in order to better foster a Christian sense of unity, peace and compassion (2 Tim 4:3). That’s one extreme. In the middle of the spectrum you have Scripture being applied in ways that resonate as “accurate,” but because the application consists of the Bible being deployed in a manner that is incomplete, the result falls short of true obedience (2 Tim 2:15). And then there’s the Truth where topics are being processed according to the whole of God’s Word and the resulting approach is profoundly positive (Rom 12:1-2). Think about it… In the absence of wisdom…

  • Unity becomes Corruption
  • Love becomes Neglect
  • Peace becomes Indifference
  • …and however you want to be perceived as compassionate, in the absence of wisdom you become an accomplice

So, how do you “stay in the zone?” How do you ensure that you’re being wise? Ask the right questions. Test the spirits. Kick the tires.

i) Politics

We’re commanded in Scripture to pray for our leaders that we may, “…live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (1 Tim 2:1-3). That’s the goal. In order to pray intelligently, you need to be engaged just like the men of Issachar (1 Chron 12:32). And when it comes to supporting a particular candidate, you base your decision on the platform and not their personality. Should you find yourself distracted by what appears to a godlessness on the part of the one you may favor, remember King Cyrus . King Cyrus was the Persian King who God used to enact legislation that would give the Hebrews the opportunity to rebuild the Temple and the Wall. But look at what is said of Cyrus is the book of Isaiah:

who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.”’ (Is 44:28)

God calls King Cyrus, “my shepherd.” But in the very next chapter…

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me…(Is 45:5)

Would you have voted for King Cyrus?

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. 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 would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”

P.S. To write in another name on the ballot or to abstain from the voting process entirely is to withdraw your support of “King Cyrus” and insist that unless God provides the kind of leader that’s consistent with your expectations than God’s Activity goes unnoticed and both the wall and the Temple remain in ruins.
ii) Black Lives Matter

God evaluates individuals according to their character and not their uniform or their ethnicity (Dt 24:16; Ez 18:20; 1 Cor 3:13). To project the character flaws of a select few on to an entire institution or people group is the very definition of Racism, yet this is the approach represented whenever you hear the term, “Police Brutality” or “White Supremacy.” From that standpoint, those who use those terms are the very thing they claim to despise and theirs is an agenda of Destruction and Deception rather than Direction. You can see this illustrated in the way the Israelites were commanded to treat the “foreigner” in the Old Testament. These “foreigners” were inevitably a part of people group that were among Israel’s enemies. It would’ve been both logical and perhaps even appropriate to assume that these people according to the vile gods they worshipped and the murderous acts they committed against the Israelites. But commanded the Hebrews to love the foreigner who had agreed to live among the Jews peacefully rather than raise their hand against both Israel and her God. (Ex 22:21; Dt 20:10-15). And what’s significant about this is that some of these foreigners would go on to occupy prominent positions in Israel’s army, leadership and even a part of Christ’s lineage (Uriah [2 Sam 11], Caleb [Num 32:12 {Gen 15:19}], Ruth [Ruth 4:13-22; Matt 1:5]). This demonstrates conclusively that individuals are gauged according to their merits and not the flaws of their lineage or whatever label society would fix upon them. Whatever injustices have been committed, they need to be evaluated first in terms of the individuals involved and their personal history before evaluating a system either according to the way it’s abused or as a veil to conceal the moral failings of the individual being considered. So, the question isn’t “Do black lives matter?” The question is, “Do you evaluate a person according to their skin or their character?”

iii) COVID-19

The Corona Virus is a very real sickness that can be lethal. Statistically, however, the chances of a person dying from Covid-19 are comparable to dying in an automobile accident. Proverbs 21:16 says,

Whoever strays from the path of prudence comes to rest in the company of the dead. (Prov 21:16)

To throw caution to the wind is not responsible, but anything taken to the extreme is never wise (Ecc 7:16-18). So the question isn’t, “Do we trade the economy for the elderly?” as much as it’s, “At what point does ‘caution’ become destructive?”

IV) Conclusion

Let’s review some of the verses that we looked at today: We just concluded that anything take to the extreme is never wise:

Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked,  and do not be a fool—why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

In other words, you want to be prudent. In Proverbs 8:12, it says:

I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. (Prov 8:12)

Prudence is a companion of wisdom and wisdom is…

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

Whether you’re talking about being prudent or avoiding extremes, it all comes down to being wise. And true wisdom is based first and foremost on the Perspective that comes from God. However obvious a particular issue may be, it’s always good to “kick the tires” and test those things that would appear to be givens by asking the right questions. It’s in the context of those questions that you’re able to discover the assumptions that may be lurking behind those dispositions and it’s there where you can ensure that you’re not being merely smart… …but you’re being truly wise.

Test the spirits.

Ask the right questions.

Kick the tires.

Everything You Know…

graduationEverything you know about the world is based on what you’ve been told.

Interviews, video clips, testimonies, photos, statistics, polls – the information is as accessible as it is abundant, but…

Your boots have never touched the ground, you weren’t in the squad car nor were you on the scene. I don’t know the players personally, you’re not a doctor nor a biologist, we’re not collecting the data…

We’re simply consumers assuming that the information we’re getting is both credible and comprehensive.

The problem is that the information we’re processing isn’t always packaged in a way that is complete. And in that way, it’s not honest and can lead to convictions that, however passionately they may be held, they are nevertheless flawed (Prov 19:2).

But it’s not the responsibility of the media to ensure an accurate perspective on the world.

It’s ours.

I’ve decided there are three things you have to do in order to guarantee an accurate assessment of the world:

  • Pop the Hood
  • Keep Your Balance
  • Kick the Tires

Pop the Hood (1 Jn 4:1)- if a physician tells you that you have a terminal disease, among the first things you’re going to do is get a second opinion. If you’re “hearing a noise” in your engine, you pop the hood and you investigate things for yourself. You become your own reporter so that your outlook is based on more than a knee jerk reaction to a headline that is designed to both inform and to sell advertising space. Remember: Every news outlet is biased at least to the extent that they’re determining what it is that constitutes a headline. “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Keep Your Balance – rarely are you going to encounter a media segment that is a complete falsehood. There’s an element of truth to most of what you hear pertaining to the current events that are being reported. But you have to listen to more than just your preferred source of information so you’re hearing both sides of the story (Ecc 7:16-18). Apart from a “balanced” intake of information, you become biased according to the implied philosophies being communicated by the journalistic pool that you unwittingly default to every time you want to know what’s going on.

Kick the Tires – Christ said that you’ll know a tree by its fruit (Lk 6:44). In other words, if something is true, it’s going to reveal itself as such at some point. Trust is something that has to be earned and if you find yourself constantly disappointed by a resource that proves to be consistently flawed in the way it reports the news, then you want to keep that in mind when they present themselves yet again as a noble commentator on a particular topic.

So, what does all this mean? How does it translate to some action items that improve the overall situation both for yourself and your neighbor?

Be able to explain what you believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).

Be able to explain why you think the way that you do. Your feelings are important but they have to be companions to your logic and not replacements. Take the time to investigate the nuts and bolts of your reasoning so you don’t sound like you’re just regurgitating a random sound byte. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, COVID-19 or the administration of the President…

  • Look, don’t just watch
  • Study, don’t just read
  • Think – don’t just feel

And don’t neglect one of the most productive disciplines you can ever engage and that’s the practice of laying your world at the feet of Christ Himself. There’s a difference between being smart and being wise and it all stems from the extent to which you’re either looking at things from the ground or in the air. However stark things may appear, there’s another Perspective that is far more capable and is seeing things from a viewpoint that encompasses literally everything both now and in the future. It’s one of the advantages of being both Sovereign and Omnipotent. Hitch your mental wagon to everything He offers and not only will you be able to confidently cast off those things that are bogus, but your sense of calm and confidence will be dramatically improved as well.

Everything you know about the world is based on what you’ve been told. It can be a toxic lullaby in the way it dulls your senses and cheats your mind.

But you have options. Use them. Be informed and not just opinionated and vet your convictions through the Filter that is 100% correct, 100% of the time. In that moment, what you know goes beyond what you’ve been told…

…it’s now based on what you know to be true.

Are We Trading the Elderly for the Economy or Fear for Wisdom

cuomoTrading the elderly for the economy…

That’s what Governor Cuomo accused Trump of doing due to the way in which the President has stated that he wanted to get America back to work, despite the way in which the Coronavirus is still at large and has a tendency to prove lethal to people over 60 .

Does he have a point?

No, he doesn’t.

We’re not trading the elderly for the economy. Rather, we’re trading fear for wisdom.

Before we attempt to pop the hood on the Governor’s accusation, let the record show that

A party requires more than hatred for an individual. A party has to stand for something that transcends the immediate or the visceral. Yet, in the age of Trump, the public is not interested in nuance or niceties. The watchword is “resist” and that means to push back at all costs, even against our core values. So the question is not what the Democratic Party will do but what it will be after Donald Trump eventually leaves office. (The Hill)
  • he represents a mindset that’s traditionally more preoccupied with power than principle (see sidebar)
  • some of the deaths that have been recorded as  Coronavirus casualties are actually due to pre-existing health conditions that were aggravated by COVID-19 and not the virus itself. In addition, some estimates state that as much as 50% of Americans have had the Coronavirus which means the chances of dying is dramatically lower than what’s being publicized.
  • in an effort to retool the philosophical and spiritual foundation upon which this nation is built, some would define the economy as being an institution dominated by sinister wealthy types who are as corrupt as they are greedy.  The real economy, however, is defined by the creative and industrious citizen who is laboring to put food on the table and make a better life for themselves. It’s in the context of the “real economy” that, not only is the average citizen given the opportunity to prosper, it is also the life blood of our country’s financial well being.

Alexander Hamilton and Salmon P. Chase adorn the face of our ten dollar bill and our ten thousand dollar bill respectively. While their individual accomplishments were substantial, the honor of appearing on our currency is a result of their performance as Secretary of the Treasury. Both Hamilton and Chase kept our nation moving forward financially despite war time scenarios that threatened to destroy our country. Reason being is that unless you have the monetary wherewithal to support your legislative ideal , a country is nothing more than an idea as opposed to an infrastructure that provides the means by which people can live, work and function.

In other words, it’s not about wealth as much as it’s about sustenance. And the crisis we’r’e facing is not just about a virus, it’s about maintaining the health of our country’s operational status and our citizens livelihood.

Cuomo’s statement is heinous. It’s an obvious distortion of the decisions that need to be made in order to vilify his opponents and it represents an intentional dismissal of the fact that unemployment claims in his state were up by 425,000 compared to this time last year. He is facing an economic crisis himself, given the number of people who have been laid off and it will get worse the longer businesses are forced to keep their doors closed.

The thing is, it’s not about Trump.

It’s about wisdom and gauging truth according to a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts rather than the manipulation of only some of the facts. Those that seek to politicize this event reveal themselves the moment they’re required to live according to the standards they set for others including limited income, questionable future and a dramatic disruption of their lives on every level. Those that are irrationally fearful need to answer for why they’re hesitant about a virus that doesn’t even compare to the number of people that die as a result of the regular flu. Bear in mind too that the models are constantly being adjusted in light of the fact that as much as 50% of the American population may have already been infected with the disease which means its mortality rate is far lower than what has been publicized.

And those that want to insist that the elderly are being forfeited in the name of profit have to prove that’s about maturity and not pre-existing health conditions. And if they want to insist that our nation’s economy doesn’t matter, have them produce a spreadsheet that shows their ability to remain solvent, sheltered and fed for the next several months without any income.

The only way we’re going to solve the crisis we’re in is to recognize that it’s more than just a health concern. Our entire infrastructure is at risk and for that reason we can’t afford to listen to bogus accusations or self absorbed fiends that thrill at the prospect of underscoring statistics rather than highlighting solutions.

That’s not what real Americans do.

We pray, we come together, we endure and we overcome…

…and if there’s any substitutions to be made…

We trade fear for wisdom.

 

An Open Letter to Those Who Question My Walk With Christ Because I Support Donald Trump | Part One -> Unity

unity_wolfLet’s talk about “unity.”

In 1 Corinthians 11:18 it says:

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:18)

What Paul is saying is that while petty conflicts need to be dealt with and dispelled (1 cor 1:10-17), the tensions that come from good and evil factions interacting with one another are not to be avoided as much as they are to be embraced as indicators of what is genuinely True and Just.

Those who want to lump all of the varying opinions that exist within our culture as being morally equivalent to one another are making a huge mistake. Moreover, to long for “unity” in the absence of first evaluating the moral bottom lines that characterize the different parties involved is to risk a tolerance of a toxic element that left unchecked will translate to something lethal (Prov 16:25; Rom 6:16).

In some cases, this is an honest mistake made by those who recognize the utility and advantages of a collaborative environment where everybody’s able to work and exist together peacefully and want to see that sense of friendly community adopted by those on both sides of the aisle. It sounds great on the surface, but at what expense? If the end result is a willingness to allow an evil element to endure, that’s not “unity,” that’s a vulnerability that will prove disastrous in the end.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

(Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address)

In other instances, insisting on “unity” is an intentional strategy deployed by some in an effort to shut down any honest debate that threatens to reveal the lack of moral substance that characterizes their platform. Dialogue happens only when both parties are willing to converse. The problem these days is that more and more Conservative speakers are being shut down by labeling them as purveyors of hate.  So if there’s not any real dialogue and what content that constitutes an opposing viewpoint to what’s incessantly presented as “fact” is either dismissed or demonized, than what is “unity” if not yet another noble sounding word used to disguise a sinister resolve to silence dissenting opinions?

1 Chronicles 12:32 describes the men of Issachar as those “…who understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” John 7:24 says, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” Put those two verses together and you have a solid “one-two” punch as far as what should be motivating you to be aware of what’s going on in our country politically and culturally.

The bottom line is Truth isn’t gauged by how some facts can be manipulated as much as it’s how all facts are being evaluated. And to arrive at that bottom line you have to be intentional about not succumbing to the pleasant songs of those who long for “unity” when their melody is more often about strategic ignorance and a lazy tolerance than it is a wise awareness and a just response.

Click here to read “An Open Letter to Those Who Question My Walk with Christ Because I Support Donald Trump | Part Two -> Trump’s Manner

 

Q&A

Texas-Mineral-Group-16-1A quick “question and answer” session to highlight the true underpinnings of the Left…

What does a Progressive call democracy when they’re not in charge?

Fascism

What does a Progressive call foreign policy when America’s security is made a priority regardless of who it may offend?

Warmongering

How does a Liberal refer to an economy that is booming when a Republican is in the Oval Office?

Unfortunate

How do Liberals react when it’s decided that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize a woman’s choice to have sex out of wedlock?

An infringment of woman’s rights

What do Progressives call a statement that they either don’t want to hear or cannot refute?

A microagression

What do Liberals call a person who evaluates a minority based on their conduct and character rather than the color of their skin?

A racist

What do Democrats call a public official who acknowledges the very real threat of militant muslims?

An Islamaphobe

What do Liberals call an election that they’ve lost but refuse to concede?

Collusion

What do Progressives call a President who doesn’t retreat when attacked by the press?

Unfit for office

What do Liberals call a person who expects the law to protect traditional values the same that it does the LGBT community?

Intolerant

What do Democrats call a reasonable response to Conservative thought?

Antifa

What do Liberals call an athlete who refuses to stand for the National Anthem and in so doing dishonor the very paradgim that gives them the right they’re exercising in that moment?

A hero

What do Progressives call a situation where everyone gets whatever they want regardless of their work ethic or their character?

Social Justice

And what do Democrats call a President who keeps his campaign promises?

An embarassment

Lou Dobbs on the Trump Presidency

41RSc+JLStLWhy is it that anything that translates to something positive in terms of our economy or our foreign policy – if it’s coming from a Republican / Conservative platform – is automatically categorized as false, fake or even harmful?

Meanwhile, the damage done by senseless legislation that was proudly put into place by a Democratic base is written off as either a flawed perspective or a hinderance authored by a Republican? It’s as though Democrats can no wrong and Republicans can do nothing right. Perhaps there are some reading this thread who are even now applauding, thinking, “Finally, someone gets it.”

Here’s what I think:

Obamacare was unconstitutional, it was financially unsustainable and it was a lie on more than one front. You cannot legally force a private citizen to sign up for health care. Auto insurance is different in that you have to be in a place to pay for potential damages done to other parties. Health insurance, on the other hand, is completely up to you. How you choose to pay for your medical treatment is entirely an individual’s decision. Congress can regulate commerce, it cannot create it. This was the issue before the Supreme Court in 2012. Their decision to uphold Obamacare was bogus in that they chose to process it as tax legislation. In addition, Obamacare is engineered in a way where the government subsidizes, either partially or completely, 25 million Americans. That translates to a national debt of over 33 trillion by 2020. Finally, Obama promised that Americans would be able to keep their current health care preferences. That was one lie among several.

Racism has not been as much of a problem since the 60’s. A problem, by the way, as a result of a constituency of individuals who were primarily Dixie-crats. Today it’s center stage thanks to the efforts of Obama who often used his platform to accuse every caucasian of being a bigot. Read the transcript of the comments he made at the funeral of a slain, caucasian police officer for an example.

And to cite racism as something systemic is brilliant. You can then point to something that is virtually impossible to identify specifically while simultaneously gloss over all those things that come down to personal responsibility. Over 40% of minorities dropping out of High School, over 70% getting pregnant out of wedlock – those two figures alone can account for the majority of economic hardships as well as the rampant crime that is so common in lower income urban areas. But no one wants to talk about personal responsibility when it’s far easier to insist that a person is persecuted rather than oppressed by their own lack of morality and poor decision making. And if you think this is all bogus in that it’s coming from a caucasian, feel free to talk with Ben Carson, Larry Elder, Deneen Borelli, Morgan Freeman, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Allen West or anyone else that’s refered to as an “Uncle Tom” by their liberal brothers and sisters.

Finally, since Trump took office, Iran, China, the Middle East and Russia are conversing with American rather than laughing.

Consider Israel’s response to Trump’s decision to tear up the ridiculous nuclear deal with Iran authored by Obama:

“The deal didn’t push war further away. It actually brought it closer. The deal didn’t reduce Iran’s aggression, it dramatically increased it. We see this across the entire Middle East,” Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday afternoon. “This is why Israel thinks that President Trump did a historic move and this is why Israel thanks President Trump for his courageous leadership, his commitment to confront the terrorist regime in Tehran and his commitment to ensure Iran never has nuclear weapons. Not today, not in a decade, not ever.” Futhermore, when Iranian President Rouhani recently threated America, Trump responded by saying, “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!” Thank you, Mr Trump, for being willing to stand up to the militant Muslims rather than constantly capitulating to them.

In addition, Trump is the first president in decades to get tough with China economically, militarily and in the context of ideology. And China respects him for it, or at least they’re acknowledging him as a legitimate tactition.

Finally, if Putin was betting big on Trump, as far as the way the Left wants to insist that Trump’s election was a result of Russian collusion, he has lost and he has lost big! Since Trump’s inauguration last January, the United States has confronted, criticized, or frustrated Russia in global diplomatic forums, in military alliances, in economic competition, in regional military conflicts, and in prosecuting human rights abusers.

The previous administration had a foreign policy that was founded on the practice of apology and a resolve to look the other way. Trump has done the exact opposite and to be critical of his manner is one thing, but to be critical of his policies define you as someone who would prefer to be an international victim and a domestic ward of the state.

Make. America. Great. Again.

How Can a Christian Support Donald Trump?

BN-PT933_fundsp_P_20160911123943On occasion I get asked, “How as a Christian can you support someone like Donald Trump?”

It’s not really that much of a stretch, but it merits a response, especially given the stakes represented by the upcoming November elections, so let’s pop the hood on this and see whether or not a vialble, biblically-based logic even exists.

First off, Psalm 2:1. God is Sovereign. If He’s Lord at all, He’s Lord of all. That means that while the electoral college is making their choice from a human standpoint, it’s the Sovereignty of God that is ultimately at work and whoever occupies the Oval Office is therefore deserving of my respect, my esteem and my prayers. He may be a fool and a fiend (and there have been several), but at no time am I justified in spitting, sneering or raising my hand against him unless he’s doing something that is antithetical to God’s Word. And by that I don’t mean Antifa which is nothing more than militant Democrats upset over having lost the election. That said, as a Christian, I am duty bound to honor the office even if I’m not especially impressed with the man.

Secondly, 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I want to support the candidate that is going to be govern in a manner that will best facilitate “quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.,” specifically in the context of security. From that standpoint, I could and would not ever support Hillary Clinton. Her conduct as Secretary of State in the way she, not only handled Top Secret information, but also her sale of uranium to the Russians (talk about collusion) and the whole Benghazi debacle reveals her as a fool and a fiend that is willing to sacrifice the security of this nation for the sake of her own financial prosperity. However Donald Trump might be criticized in the context of his behavior and morality, his approach to border security, the military and the general good of our country is completely opposite Hillary Clinton and the vast majority of the Democrat party.

Finally, 2 Chronicles 7:14. My future and the future of my children are best guaranteed in the context of a God-fearing nation. 69% (2/3) of atheists identify themselves as Democrats. That doesn’t mean that all Democrats are atheists nor does it mean that all Conservatives are born again. What it does mean is that you have a vast majority of God-denying individuals feeling more comfortable with a liberal dynamic than they do a conservative one and the reason for that is simple: What is often presented as “just” and “compassionate” is promoted in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10) and is ultimately revealed as something that gives license to behavior that is as destructive as it is immoral. Unless your philosophical starting point is the Word of God, as it has been historically, then you’re going down a road that is both godless and toxic.

See you at the polls.

The NFL Protesters – You Are Not Brave…

jenkinsMalcom Jenkins is a member of the Philadelphia Eagles. He tweeted this yesterday before the game:

“Before we enjoy this game lets take some time to ponder that more than 60% of the prison population are people of color. The NFL is made up of 70% African Americans. What you witness on the field does not represent the reality of everyday”

“America. We are the anomalies…”

Why? Why are you the anomalies? Why are the people of color you are referencing in prison to begin with?

First of all, if you’re certain that the reason behind this statistic is that the law enforcement community is prejudiced and embraces every opportunity it’s presented with to either harrass, arrest or kill a minority, then you need to take that to your police department and get a bottom line. Ride with the officers that are on patrol. Take advantage of the offer the San Francisco made to Colin Kaepernick when they offered to let him participate in any simulations or observe their training. Make a point of researching what it is that you’re protesting beyond the headlines that rarely give a full account of what happened when an officer drew their weapon.

Secondly, know a little bit about the history of this great nation. We are the only country in the history of the planet that fought a way to end slavery. While you want to invoke the phrase “systemic racism” at every opportunity, be ready to explain how a system is to blame for 41% of black kids dropping out of High School or how a system is to be held accountable for over 70% of the babies born to the black population are born out of wedlock. Be prepared to elaborate on how the lack of a High School education or the responsibility of having to raise a child while you’re still a teenager doesn’t result in a scenario where your ability to secure a good paying job (in the absence of a college education or a marketable skill), however difficult that may be, is not the problem. Rather, it’s an infrastructure that’s determined to keep people of color poor.

Third, you tend to side with Democrats, believing them to be the true champions of racial equality. Do you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was nothing more than a regurgitation of amendments ot the Constitution which were already in place? It was a completely pointless piece of legislation because all of the dynamics contained within were already referenced in the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th Amendments). And where did those amendments come from? They came from a Republican congress in the immediate aftermath of a war that cost the lives of over 360,000 people, most of whom were white. And by the way, however redundant the Civil Rights Act was, had the Republicans voted in favor of the Act in the same proportion that the Democrats did, it never would’ve passed.

  • Your indignation would be better directed to those within your community that are perpetuating the crimes rather than the ones who are tasked with maintaining law and order.
  • You would be wise to consider the whole of American history and not just those headlines crafted by journalists who are more preoccupied with their agenda then they are the truth.
  • It would be prudent to analyze the legacy of the Democrat party and understand that those who are historically guilty of prejudice and racism constitute a small percentage of our population and are not indicative of the nation as a whole.
  • And if you still feel like you have a point to make, be smart enough not to disrespect the National Anthem which represents the very paradigm that gives you the right to protest to begin with.

I’m thankful for a President that recognizes the fundamental flaws of the platform these players champion as well as the disgraceful manner in which they go about championing it. If this is the true nature of the NFL – players who waste more than most people make, players who are protected by the very profession they demonize, players who enjoy all the benefits that go along with living in a country that is free – yet decide that they are justified in demonstrating a belligerent disdain for an iconic symbol of this nation and those who died to establish it – you’re wrong, you are not brave and you’re destroying the very stage you want to use to publish your rhetoric.

Frankly, the only thing you’re doing is making it more difficult for any real change to occur.

And what is that change?

Let’s just say it has very little to do with those who wear a badge. It’s got everything to do with the family unit that exists with the inner city. And that comes from Barack Obama. Those who insist that it’s not absentee fathers and blame institutionalize dynamics because it’s easier to pose as a victim and not have to take responsibility for your actions. Head out to Racism – Absolutely Not! to read more.

Bruce Gust SSGT USMC (1981-1990)
father incarcerated my senior year of High School
earned my degree by attending night school six of the nine years I served
make my living as a PHP Developer, a skill I taught myself – not something that was financed or a result of a grant