Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

/in , , , /by

I) Trump / Pence 2016

I’ve never been as intrigued with an election, nor so resolved to be better educated when it comes to current events than I am this election cycle (2016).

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

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

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

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

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

The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump.

Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether.

The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.

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

Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice.

This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.

Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason. As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised.

You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).

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

II) But What About Trump?

But what about Trump?

Bigot?

Typhoon?

Hates Women, Warmonger?

Hates Veterans?

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

And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.

III) Combat Veterans

When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished.

They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.

Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style.

He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying.

If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.

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

This brings up a good point.

IV) I Voted for Cruz

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

yanceyIn the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day.

And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.

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

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

He’s a very talented business man.

What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise.

The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers.

Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.

Think…

V) For the Record

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

“You didn’t build that…” even when proponents of President Obama attempt to better justify his comments by quoting them in context, when you process his statement as part of the Progressive dynamic as a whole, the message is still the same: If you’re not rich, you are persecuted and the victim of a flawed system. If you are rich, you are guilty of extortion and an unethical exploitation of people not as fortunate as yourself. The Solution: Give government the necessary amount of control it needs to force a level playing ground, regardless of an individual’s work ethic, their ability to risk and their creative talent. The Result: Facism. Those who work are compelled to surrender the fruits of their labor, their convictions, and whatever right they have to themselves to a constituency that makes demands more than they make contributions. All the while, those in government profit from the control they now have and justify their financial position by insisting that they are promoting the best interests of society.

He’s Rich

The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default.

President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together.

This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.

Born Into Privilege

Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.1

When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved.

Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.2 Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur.

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

John McCain and the Military Vote

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

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

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

Luntz: Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a “dummy.” Is that appropriate in running for president?
Trump: You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt all the time, okay? [laughter] No, I know him too well, that’s the problem. Let’s take John McCain. I’m in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel: It’s turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before – they’re pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, We can’t handle this, it’s gonna destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than – fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than anybody. And everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans, I will tell you. John McCain goes, Oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had fifteen thousand crazies show up.
“Crazies” – he called them all crazy. I said, They weren’t crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you would’ve seen these people – I know what crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren’t crazy. So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said, Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him – I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. That’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Laughter] But, Frank, let me get to it.
Luntz: He is a war hero, he’s a war hero.
Trump: He hit me. He’s not a war hero.
Luntz: Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp.
Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? I hate to tell you. He was a war hero because he was captured, okay And I believe – perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is: John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren’t crazy. And, very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said – nobody knows that – I said, He graduated last, or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.5

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

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

Bankruptcy

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

Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt.

Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded.

But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair.

The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.

Miscellaneous

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

The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public.

Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns?

I didn’t.

Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t process numbers that large doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.

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

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

What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with…

  • Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office
  • Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them
  • JFK’s multiple affairs
  • Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters
  • Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him
  • Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick
  • Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape.

What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.

Here’s the bottom line:

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

Where does Trump fall in all of this?

Is he wrong?

Yes.

What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact?

Own it.

Apologize.

He has.

Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.

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

No.

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

Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in.

I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I’m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.

VI) Connecting the Dots

Here’s the bottom line:

Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle.

Why?

Is it because of what he says?

To some extent.

But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.

America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control.

And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots. Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would think Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at.

But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen.

The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements.

He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.” While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.

I’m voting for Trump.

VII) Parting Thoughts

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

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

RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action.

This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.6

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

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

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

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

Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement.

The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.

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

Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin.

It’s not.

It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party. It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.

But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War.

The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”9

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

It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed.

So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of Racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into Fascism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority.

Alinski disagreed.

Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School. Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong.

By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned.

In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.

VIII) Conclusion

The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda.

But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage.

It’s twisted, but it’s real.

And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.

I will vote for Donald Trump.

1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)
2. Ibid, p99
3. Ibid, p129
4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40
5. Ibid, p109
6. Ibid, 171
7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104
8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69
9. Ibid, p139
10. Ibid, p163
11. Ibid, p171

Trump’s Lies

/in , , , /by

The New York Times is one of several news sources that have been almost entirely negative when it comes to President Donald Trump. Like many liberal leaning media outlets, during the campaign, they spent the better part of a year in a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Trump was not qualified to be President for any one of number of reasons.

In the end, they were overruled by the Electoral College and the American Republic told the Obama administration to clear out its desk. Since then, the media, now painfully aware that its hold on popular opinion is nowhere near what they thought it was, is determined to undermine the Trump administration.

It’s difficult not to sense that there’s a disposition championed by the Left that says if you can’t win an election, then you steal it. And if you can’t steal it, then do your best to ruin the outcome.

In the early part of 2017, the NYT published a front page article that consisted of one massive block of text that supposedly represented every lie Trump has uttered since the beginning of his administration. It’s an imposing looking piece and initially intimidating in that you can’t help but wonder if in the midst of all these indictments, there’s isn’t an element of truth. But upon closer inspection, it becomes evident rather quickly that this article is nothing more than just yet another part of the media’s resolve to deploy a “dirty glacier” approach to current events in order to feel justified in portraying Trump as a fiend.

The fact of the matter is, you can be wrong and not be guilty of lying. It’s only when you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary that you can be rightfully accused of being a liar.

With President Trump, he exaggerates in some instances but to accuse him of lying is inappropriate, especially when you look at some of these indictments and realize that it’s the NYT who’s lying and not Trump.

In the end, at the bare minimum, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that there’s a more comprehensive perspective to consider with each supposed accusation. With minimal “digging” you can uncover facts and truths that the NYT seems determined to either overlook or dismiss as irrelevant.

If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, your justification better be more than just an intentionally casual analysis of the situation. Then again, if you don’t expect anyone to pick up where you made a point of leaving off, perhaps your approach is purposeful which thus qualifies you as truly sinister and not merely irresponsible.

I hope that’s not the case…

Feel free to click here or on the image to the right and view a spreadsheet that details each of the NYT’s accusations and the rebuttal represented by a more thorough review of the facts that are readily accessible.

Also, below are ten questions I was asked to respond to as part of an internet based radio program hosted by Jack Watts. You can get an idea of what prompted this project and the conclusions that were drawn by reading through both the questions and the responses.

Go God, boo devil!

1) What prompted you to put this project together?

Conversation with you (Jack Watts). Initially a little intimidated but then determined to find out just how credible the accusations were.

2) Does Trump lie? Is the NYT and the liberal media justified in calling him a liar?

In order to qualify as a liar, it has to be proven that you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary. You can be wrong, you can exaggerate and still not be guilty of lying. The NYT doesn’t attempt to make that distinction. If Trump is wrong or if he’s stretching the truth, he’s demonized as a liar even when that kind of accusation is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

3) Why do you think the press is so determined to paint Trump as a villain?

Two reasons: First off, Trump was not supposed to have won. For an entire year, the press engaged in a campaign to destroy a Trump victory and even at one point predicting Hillary to be by 85%. They were terribly wrong and while they proved to be flawed in their predictions, they simultaneously proved that they don’t have the kind of influence over the political process that they thought they did.

The result was embarrassing as well as telling as far as what their true agenda was.

Secondly, Trump is not a politician and therefore does not play games as far as sacrificing results on the altar of polls and mindless processes. That makes him a very effective force in dismantling a lot of what Progressives have in place as well as what their mandate would dictate. Therefore, Trump must be stopped.

4) What is “truthful hyperbole?”

It’s a phrase that Trump uses in his book “The Art of the Deal.” It’s how he describes ethically exaggerating things in order to sell his product or platform.

5) You went through over 100 accusations made by the NYT stating that Trump lied? Were there any that really stood out? Why?

Lockheed F-35, NYT apology, Obamacare The Lockheed F-35 is a military aircraft that was the subject of a deal Trump made with the company that wound up strengthening our military while saving a substantial amount of money. The NYT refers to this scenario repeatedly and insists the Trump contributed nothing and that the cuts were already in place. But Lockeed makes it clear that Trump was a significant part of the process and the Times isn’t accurate in calling him a liar let alone accusing him repeatedly. The NYT ran an ad in the aftermath of the election that said it would “reflect on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on America and the world honestly.”

While the words “We’re sorry” are never articulated, it’s obvious the NYT was confessing that there was room for improvement in the way they reported the news. Obamacare is a hot mess. But the press will intentionally overlook certain aspects of it in order to maintain the idea that it’s a homerun. Consequently, when Trump criticizes it, the NYT insists that he’s lying.

For example, when Trump says that Obamacare covers very few people, the NYT responds by saying that Obamacare increased coverage by a new of about 20 million. What they don’t tell you is that just because you sign up doesn’t mean you’re covered. You have to first pay your first month’s premium. That in and of itself dramatically affects who is truly being covered.

6) After having engaged this project, do you see the press as merely bitter or is there something more sinister behind their efforts to undermine Trump?

Definitely sinister. One does not have to “dig” much at all in order to secure a more comprehensive perspective. I mention at the top of the site that, if nothing else, what I’ve done demonstrates that there is always another side, another set of data that dramatically affects the conclusions the average reader is going to walk away with given the limited account the Times would assert as being the bottom line.

When you see this being done over and over again, it becomes obvious that there is an agenda in place that governs the way in which the news is going to be reported. It will not be fair, it will not be accurate. In short, it will be intentionally crafted to undermine the President and promote a legislative and cultural paradigm that is godless, amoral and devoid of personal responsibility.

7) How should a Trump supporter respond to all of the vitriol?

John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Rarely does a person shape their convictions according to merely what they know. Their mindset represents a combination of facts and feelings – feelings crafted according to a lifetime of experiences that you’re not going to affect in the context of a single paragraph. And what makes it more challenging is that the more emotionally invested you are in a lie, the less impact the Truth is going to make.

The bottom line is that the true essence of this contest is spiritual. Only God can change a person’s heart. Even if you win an argument, all you’re doing is increasing their resolve to be better armed with more compelling talking points in the future. To change their mind – to affect real change – you’ve got to fight with the only weapons that make a difference and that’s the Power and the heart changing Utility of the Holy Spirit.

8) You hear a lot about the possibility of Russian interference with the election collusion on the part of the Trump campaign with Russia. Did the NYT indict Trump at all in this particular article about that?

More than once. It’s part of the Progressive Playbook right now and it will continue to be until it blows up in their face. You might even argue that it already has by virtue of the way the Clinton campaign was revealed as having given Russia a sizeable foothold into American Uranium mining. Trump’s having colluded with Russian elements in order to affect the outcome of the election is nothing more than an attempt to justify Trump having won while simultaneously portray Trump as a fiend.

We’re 11 months into the allegations and there is still no evidence because there is no evidence. The thing that is disconcerting, however, is that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the mind of the Democrat party. If there isn’t evidence to support their claim, no doubt they’ll make an attempt to manufacture some.

9) Between ANTIFA, violent protests at universities where conservative commentators are scheduled to talk, the controversy with the NFL – does America seem fractured to you and, if so, how does it get put back together again?

I think you’ve got to be able to sound intelligent when you present what constitutes a truthful rebuttal. You have to be familiar with the fact that this is a game of chess. It’s not about substance as much as it’s about “feelings.” We’re no longer asking what’s “right,” we’re asking what’s “Constitutional.”

For that reason, again, the real contest is a spiritual contest…

Case in point: The Homosexual Agenda is based on the fact that “everyone has the right to be happy.” That’s true. You see that in our Declaration of Independence. But where does that right come from? According to the Declaration of Independence, we appeal to a Divine Standard for that right. Moreover, one’s right to be happy is subordinate to one’s responsibility to be moral.

But who defines what’s moral?

Either God is your Absolute, or you are your own absolute which is both eternally lethal and practically unsustainable. Regardless of how you approach it, the underlying question is “Who defines what’s right?” And it’s because of that dynamic that our the only real Solution is a national revival (2 Chron 7:14).

10) If you were to make a prediction as to how the Trump administration is going to be perceived by future generations, what would you say?

Provided that Christians are able to rise to the occasion and leverage the opportunity represented by a Republican administration and pray for God’s Intervention, I think God through Trump can dismantle a lot of the damaging legislation that Obama has instituted and the tension he has amplified. If a true revival can occur, I think the Trump Administration will be remembered the same way as a truly great timeframe. Not because of who Trump was but because of what God did through Trump as far as getting our nation back on track. And I think that’s the bottom line now and that’s always been the bottom line.

Psalm 20:7:

“Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (see also 2 Chron 7:14)

That’s always been the Solution. And it’s not so much God showing up and changing things through miraculous burning bush type episodes, as much as it’s godly individuals living out their faith in a way that convinces people that God is Who He truly claims to be and true success is measured in terms of one’s obedience to Him and being a conduit of the Power He makes available.

Dirty Glacier

/in , , , /by

“Dirty Glacier” is an apt illustration of what happens when you’re considering a particular issue that’s being presented according to a collection of very judiciously selected facts. Or it could be something that’s weighing on you and, either because you’re too tired or you’re too emotional, rather than seeing your scenario in a way that’s founded on the Reality and Power of God, you restrict your perspective to only that which you can see and the end result is depressing.

What makes it challenging is that the accuracy of the data that’s being perceived is intact, it’s just that the data itself isn’t complete. It’s like a dirty glacier in that you’re only seeing the dirty “facts” that are being communicated / considered while the bulk of the information that’s needed to formulate a truly accurate conviction remains intentionally hidden. Jesus said in John 7:24

Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. (John 7:24)

Get past the dirty glacier and make an effort to access what’s below the surface. Whether it’s a current event or something going on in your own life, when confronted with a dirty glacier, pop the hood on that thing and “judge correctly.”

Women Leaders in the Bible

/in , , /by

I) Multiple Passages

Anytime you have multiple passages in the Bible that talk about the same issue, you have to combine their individual meanings into a comprehensive whole. Only then is your perspective based on a genuinely biblical foundation. Otherwise, you’re formulating your convictions on human traditions and personal preferences more than you are Divine Absolutes. For example, women occupy leadership positions throughout Scripture, yet Paul seemingly says that a woman should never teach or speak up in a worship setting. How does that work?

II) A Bad Situation

First of all, in 2 Timothy 3:6-7, Paul references a situation where false teachers had wormed their way into the minds of some households where the women were loaded down with guilt and regret. Because they were listening to bogus content, rather than embracing what amounted to a biblically based transformation (2 Cor 3:17), these ladies not only subscribed to a facsimile of the real thing, they were the kind of unruly personalities who were not shy when it came to voicing their personal opinions.

In 2 timothy 3, Paul refers to a group of individuals who “worm their ways into homes and gain control over weak-willed women.” It’s this passage that suggests that the situation Paul is referring to is exclusive to a specific fellowship that had some ill informed women who tended to be disruptive. In other words, he was addressing a unique scenario as opposed to proclaiming a general guideline.

It’s reasonable to believe that the situation described in 2 Timothy was what prompted Paul’s instructions to Timothy to tell the women in his church that they needed to stop being disruptive and cease those activities where they were trying to tell others how and what to teach…

11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. (1 Tim 2:11-14 [see also 1 Cor 14:34-35]).

Paul was addressing a situation where certain women were obstructing what would otherwise have been an orderly worship service. And while Paul is referring to the situation as it existed in Ephesus, it seemed to be an issue in Corinth as well (see 1 Cor 14:34-35). But to process his instructions as being utterly against any kind of female leadership or involvement is to ignore the original Greek as well as the numerous examples of the way in which women were used by God to lead and to teach large groups of people and even the nation of Israel itself.

III) Women Leaders in the Bible

Consider the following:

Women Leaders in the Bible
name reference context
Miriam Exodus 15:20 Miriam is referred to as a prophetess and understandably so in the way God had spoken through her (Nu 12:1-2). She was a significant and well known figure in Israel’s history (see also Ex 15:1-21; Mic 6:4).
Deborah Judges 4-5 Deborah did an amazing job as Judge over all Israel. Barak, general of Israel’s army, listened to her and regarded her counsel as that which came directly from God (Jud 4:14). God uses her to pen an entire chapter of the Old Testament (Jud 5). Israel prospered and had peace under her leadership for 40 years (Jud 5:31).
Huldah 2 Kings 22:11-20 Huldah was the one that Josiah sought out to interpret the portion of the Law that was found in the Temple. He sent an all male delegation to her to find out how God was going to work. She was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Zephaniah.
Noadiah Nehemiah 6:14 Not much is said of either one of these two women, but they are nevertheless addressed as “prophetess.”
Isaiah’s Wife Isaiah 8:3
Anna Luke 2:36-38 She’s referenced specifically as a prophetess. She was a contemporary of Simeon and, in like fashion, she approached Joseph and Mary and publicly reinforced Jesus’ true Identity and Mission.
Daughters of Philip Luke 2:36-38 Four daughters of a well-known evangelist described in the books of Acts as women who prophesied.
Lydia Acts 16:40 Lydia is an early convert and her house becomes an important location in Philippi where believers met to worship in a society where being a Christian was a huge risk. It’s here where Paul and Silas went after being released from prison before leaving the city. She’s not referenced as a leader, but she nevertheless stood out among her male counterparts as a crucial part of the evangelical work in that city (click here for more information).
Phoebe Romans 16:1-2 Paul describes Phoebe as a “servant” of the church in Cenchreae. That word “servant” is translated “diakonos” which is where we get our word, “deacon.” Paul uses that term to describe himself (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21-22, and even Jesus Himself (Rom. 15:8). For Pheoebe to rate that kind of title, it’s doubtful she was a mere spectator in her congregation.
Priscilla & Aquilla Romans 16:3 Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquilla as “fellow workers” who risked their lives for him.
Eudodia & Syntyche Philippians 4:2-3 These women are described as two who had “contended for the gospel.” The word “contended” is “synthaleo” which means to “fight or work alongside someone.” It’s not stuffing envelopes or answering phone calls. The fact that they’re referenced alongside Clement is significant as well because there’s good reason to believe that he would go on to be the leader of the church in Rome. To be listed referenced among those who had “strived” and would go on to lead and not just serve does little to support the idea that women had no leadership role in the early church let alone any real place in today’s efforts to teach and lead others when it comes to the gospel.

IV) The English Language

The English language doesn’t possess the kind of expressive ability that’s characteristic of the Greek language. While Paul’s words can appear abrupt, the Greek word for “submission” comes from the Greek word “hupotasso” which is a military term that’s more about the voluntary alignment and organization of one’s resources beneath the heading of someone else’s authority. It’s not a forced obedience. The word word for “quietness” is “hesuchios” which refers to an “inner calm.” It’s not a dictatorial muzzle. It’s how you look and act when you’re at peace (click here for a full translation of 2 Timothy 2:11 as it appears in the original Greek).

V) Both Men and Women

So when you combine the multiple examples of women excelling in leadership roles throughout Scripture and the literal meaning of the words Paul used in the context of addressing difficult characters in the local church, it’s difficult to process Paul’s direction to the church in Ephesus and Corinth as universal prohibitions of women leading or teaching in general.

Fact is, when you look at the resume of Deborah and the courage of Priscilla and Aquilla, it’s obvious that God has gifted both men and women with exceptional gifts and character traits that you wouldn’t ever want to dismiss based on a mere portion of God’s Word as opposed to Scripture evaluated as a comprehensive whole.

Slavery in the Bible

/in , , , /by

While you find the word, “slavery” in the Bible, in no way shape or form do you find an endorsement for the kind of slavery that existed in the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not even close. Easton’s Bible Dictionary sums it up real well by saying that “Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel.” And the slavery that’s referred to in the New Testament is a Roman institution that contradicts the way the gospel defines all of humanity as being equal in the sight of God and therefore eliminates all cultural categories that would otherwise be used to justify the enslavement of a particular people group.” Still, while Scripture doesn’t give  slavery a Divine stamp of approval, it is nevertheless present as a form of servitude that can appear harsh at times and in that way generates some questions which deserve some answers. Here’s what we’re going to look at:

  • The Old Testament defines kidnapping as a capital offense. That directive alone is enough to destroy any notion of a Biblical endorsement of the slave trade as it existed in modern history.
  • The word “slavery” in the Old Testament is used to describe one of three types of servitude, none of which entail the kind of inhumane dynamics that characterized the 18th and 19th century slave trade. It was:
    • a temporary arrangement established for the sake of working off a debt that couldn’t otherwise be paid
    • a work release program assigned to an apprehended thief which compelled him to work off the dollar amount of whatever had been stolen
    • an alternative to war where the enemies of Israel agreed to live among the Hebrews as workers that were to be treated with kindness and respect
  • In the New Testament, slavery was a Roman Institution that crumbled beneath the weight of the gospel in that all men are created equal under God. And while that Truth would be used to dismantle the machinations of the slave trade by future generations, it was also deployed as a way to redefine the relationship between master and slave in a manner that was both immediate and transformational

Here we go…

I) Slavery in the Old Testament

First of all, in Exodus 21:16, you read how kidnapping was considered a capital offense:

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

That verse alone is enough to condemn anyone to death who owned a slave in the United States during the time leading up to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. So, again, anyone who wants to even imply that Scripture condones the kind of slavery that existed in our country during the 17th and 18th centuries is absolutely wrong in that it was based on kidnapping. As far as the other kinds of slavery that are represented in the Old Testament, you have three basic categories:

#1) To make restitution for whatever it was that you stole

There were no penitentiaries in the ancient world. If you stole something, you were to make restitution by working off the dollar value of whatever it is that you stole. You see this in Exodus 22:3:

A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. (Ex 22:3)

So, that’s not “slavery” per se as much as it’s a work release program.

#2) To pay off financial obligations that you couldn’t afford to pay off otherwise
…In Revelation 18:13 the word “slaves” is the rendering of a Greek word meaning “bodies.” The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply “servant,” “bondman,” or “bondservant.” Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery ( Exodus 21:20 Exodus 21:21 Exodus 21:26 Exodus 21:27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Joshua 9:6-27 ). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.

The second appearance of “slavery” as it’s found in the Old Testament refers to that situation where you found yourself in debt and could not afford to pay it off. Since there was no such thing as a status of “bankruptcy” in the ancient world,  you simply made yourself and / or members of your family available as servants (see 2 Kings 4:1-7  for examples of children being put to work to pay off debt).

Bear in mind that this was voluntary, temporary and was to be conducted in manner that honored the worker’s dignity:

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 4243 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:39-43 [see also Ex 21:2])

So, according to this verse, should you choose to hire yourself and / or your family to the person you were indebted to, you / they were in the employ of that person only until:

  • the debt was paid off either through your labor or income you were able to earn through other means (Lev 25:49) or…
  • a period of six years had passed or…
  • the Year of Jubilee which happened every 50 years (see Ex 21:2)
The only exception to that rule is if you got married to someone that was also working for your employer. Because she is also serving out an obligation, if your term was up before hers you couldn’t simply cancel her debt and justify it by saying that you wanted to leave with your new family. Rather, you had the option of choosing to remain in the employ of your boss for the rest of your life or the Year of Jubilee when all Hebrew slaves were set free and all property was returned to the original owner (see Lev 25:8-55). Then again, you could simply wait until her debt was satisfied and then move on from there.

The bottom line is that this kind of servanthood was designed to be temporary, dignified and voluntary and engaged as an alternative to bankruptcy. It was not permanent nor was it founded on the color of one’s skin and built around the idea that a human being was nothing more than a piece of property.

#3) An alternative to combat and judgment

Apart from that situation where a thief is to offer restitution for his crime through an extended period of physical labor that matched the value of what had been stolen (Ex 22:3-4) or working off a debt that you couldn’t pay otherwise, the only other reference to slavery in the Old Testament is in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.

While it may see that this is a Divine Endorsement of Slavery, there’s more to this than what meets the eye and it goes back to the book of Genesis.

     A) A Man by the Name of Canaan

All of the peoples in the world, both past and present, hail from one of the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Of these three, Ham distinguished himself as being especially heinous in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

To fully appreciate the vile nature of Ham, you have to remember that this situation with his father is happening not too long after the Flood. Ham had waited for seven days with his family on board the ark before it even began to rain (Gen 7:10). He saw the entire planet covered in water (Gen 7:19) while he and he family remained on board for more than a year (Gen 7:11; 8:13). And he was there to see the very first rainbow in recorded history (Gen 9:12-13). He had seen God’s Power and Mercy firsthand. For him to be as rebellious as he was required a truly lethal deficiency in character – a trait that was apparently passed on to his son, Canaan.

In Genesis 9:20-25, you read:

20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his drinking and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said:

Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.

Not only did Ham seemingly take some pleasure in mocking his father’s indecency and indiscretion, but there’s reason to believe, according to verse 24, that Ham actually did something to Noah. Whatever the case may be, Noah saw something in Ham that was also present in Canaan, Ham’s son – something that would surface in the form of a character trait that would result in idolatry and all the consequences that go along with it. In this instance, one of the consequences would be a lifetime of servitude.

     B) Anything that Breathed…

Fast forward to the book of Joshua. The Israelites are getting ready to claim the land that had been promised to Abraham several centuries beforehand. But this wasn’t a mere collection of military campaigns, it was the Judgment of God being poured out against the vile behavior of…

…the descendants of Canaan.

Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination.1

The Canaanites have descended into a mindset that despises God, just as Noah had declared in his response to Ham’s belligerence centuries beforehand. Their idolatry and their immorality are so repugnant in the sight of the One that saved their forefathers from the Flood that they are now literally on death row from God’s standpoint. These aren’t whole people groups, however. Rather, they’re cities and areas that represent concentrated regions of pure evil and it’s these cities that God specifies in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God (Dt 20:16-18 [see also Dt 7:1-2]).

Again, these are geographical areas and not entire bloodlines. You see that in Joshua 11. There were Hivites among the northern kingdoms that joined forces against the Israelites that lived below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. The Israelites totally destroyed them. In verse 14-15, it says:

The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:14-15).

But, again…

     C) …Only in Specific Areas

While there were Hivites among those destroyed in Joshua 11:14-15, there were also Hivites living in Gibeon:

These devoted nations are here named and numbered (v. 1), seven in all, and seven to one are great odds. They are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further; nor must they, under colour of this commission, kill all that came in their way; no, here must its waves be stayed. The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent; this will not serve to justify those barbarous laws which give no quarter. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 12

19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:19-20)

So not every Hivite was killed. Only those that lived among the northern kingdoms referenced in Joshua 11:3 (they lived at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpah) were destroyed. But those that were spared were nevertheless condemned to become slaves as was stated centuries beforehand in Genesis 9:25.

Critics of Scripture are quick to point to the total decimation of all those that lived in the cities that God had directed Israel to destroy as evidence that God endorsed genocide. Their perspective is that a God Who would condone or, even worse, command the Israelites to “not spare anyone that breathed” is not worthy of worship.

Their indignation is ill founded, however.

First of all, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t entire people groups that were destroyed – just those that lived in areas that engaged in an aggressive brand of idolatry and decadence. Just like there were Hivites living in Gibeon as well as Mizpah, the Hittites were not exclusive to one particular area in that you have godly Hittites showing up later in Scripture occupying prominent positions within Israel such as Uriah, one of David’s Mighty Men (1 Chron 11:41 [“Uriah” in Hebrew means, “Yahweh is my light”]). So, yes there were entire cities that were put to the sword, but not entire ethnic groups. And the inhabitants of those cities slated for destruction were not mere military targets, they were direct descendants of the sons of Noah who knew and experienced God first hand. Yet, they chose a reprehensible lifestyle and a form of idolatry that was a belligerent dismissal of what they knew to be True which included an awareness of what happens when you choose a lifestyle that labors to advance a satanic agenda.

This is the wrath of God. And when you process it knowing the truly despicable psychology and methodology that characterized the Canaanites, while it still makes you cringe the way you might wince as you view pictures of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is an understandable horror given the evil that was being addressed and justly destroyed.

But not all those who deserved the wrath of God were taken to task for their actions. Some were given an option despite the spiritual blood on their hands.

     D) You Have an Option…

Every city that constituted a threat to Israel, with the exception of those that were specified by God as being objects of His Wrath, were to be given the option of either being destroyed in combat or live among the Israelites as servants:

10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. 11 If it accepts your offer of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. (Dt 20:10-11)

If they didn’t accept that offer, however, the men were to be completely destroyed and all the remaining inhabitants:

12 However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. 13 When the Lord your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. 14 But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. (Dt 20:10-18)

So with the Conquest of the Promised Land, you have a large territory populated with a substantial number of people, many of whom have distinguished themselves as truly heinous in the eyes of God. They live in specific cites / areas that the Lord had directed the armies of Israel to wipe out entirely. Every city – even those that are slated for destruction – are given the option of surrendering and living among the Israelites as servants. But only Gibeon is allowed to take advantage of that offer (see Josh 11:20). Every other city chooses to fight Israel and God deals with them accordingly.

     E) Surrounding Nations

There are the “other nations” surrounding the area where the Canaanites are being destroyed. It’s these nations that are being referred to in Leviticus 25. If you look at a map of the area surrounding Canaan, those nations would’ve included the Moabites, Hittites, Ammonites, the kingdom of Bashan, the Edomites and the Philistines. Take a look at the chart below and consider the lineage and the disposition that characterizes each of these nations.

nation lineage history
Moab Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was a descendant of Shem (see Gen 19:25) Balak enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Num 22). The Moabites were hostile to Israel on more than one occasion.
Ammonites Ammon was the son of Lot, the brother of Moab (see Gen 19:38). They were a part of the party that enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel. They were enemies of Israel throughout their existence. Click here for more information.
Amorites “Amorite” literally means, “dwellers in the summits.” They were not one particular nation, but a collection of Canaanites that dwelled in the high country as opposed to the lowlands. In Numbers 21 you read of how the Israelites defeated Sihon king of the Amorites after he denied them permission to pass through his territory and attacked them.
Bashan Bashan was an Amorite territory that consisted of 60 cities. The king of Bashan was a giant of a man named Og. After the defeat of King Sihon, he and his army attacked Israel and were soundly defeated.
Edomites The Edomites were descendants of Esau who was Jacob’s brother. But while they were close relatives, all of Esau’s wives came from the Canaanites. The Edomites were hostile towards Israel (see Numbers 20:14-21) and are listed among the enemies of Israel that Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 14:47 and again in 2 Samuel 8:13-14 where David defeats them in combat and established garrisons in their cities.
Philistines The Philistines were descendants of Egypt – one of Ham’s four sons (Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan). While the Philistines are probably recognized most readily by the story of David and Goliath, they were enemies of Israel beginning as early as Genesis 26:14-15 when they were antagonistic towards Isaac.

 

Joshua 12 gives a summary of all the nations and kings that were conquered as part of the conquest of the Promised Land. In Joshua 13, God identifies several other territories that need to be subdued but represent campaigns that are distinct from the original marching orders given to Moses and Joshua. Among those that God enumerates are the five cities within the territory of the Philistines. While the Philistines were not initially listed alongside those slated for destruction, the five cities that God specifies could nevertheless be counted as Canaanite cities. Reason being is that while they were governed by Philistine rulers, the inhabitants were entirely Canaanite and thus deserving of God’s wrath.

Each of these “surrounding nations” represent enemies of Israel and to be an enemy of Israel is to be an enemy of God (see 1 Sam 2:9-10; Zec 2:8). To oppose God is to invite His Wrath and that’s exactly what is going on behind the scenes when you’re looking at Israel’s military actions.

It’s not Israel’s tactical might nor their moral superiority that translated to increased land holdings or a greater population of servants (Dt 9:1-6). It’s the fact that all of these nations, to varying degrees, had identified themselves as enemies of God and it’s for that reason that they were either executed, defeated in combat or allowed to live among the Israelites as servants.          

1) Servants and Not Enemies

Given the obvious tension that existed between Israel and her hostile neighbors, it’s not difficult to imagine the potential for the way in which a slave might be physically abused by a Hebrew or the hostile actions a passionate enemy of Israel might attempt while serving an Israelite. God made it very clear on numerous occasions that a foreigner was to be treated with dignity and respect. Even those Egyptians that had chosen to live among the Israelites were to be treated with kindness and love:

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev 19:34)

That being the case, should a foreign soldier find themselves working for an Israelite and they give full vent to the antagonism they feel towards the Hebrew community by doing something heinous, while their actions may merit some harsh discipline, their punishment was to be just and not used as an excuse to play out hostile intentions based on past social and military experiences.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Ex 21:20-21)

By the way, the word “property” in Exodus 21 is actually translated “money.” It’s not a term to be interpreted as something demeaning as much as it’s referring to the worth of that servant’s labor. The Contemporary English Version translates it as:

However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property. *Ex 21:21 [CEV])

 Another thing to consider is the way in which runaway slaves were treated. Rather than them being returned to their master, they’re allowed to remain with whomever they took refuge:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Dt 23:15)

 The bottom line is that “slavery” in the Old Testament is completely different from the slave trade that existed in the United States. Whereas slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was a form of servanthood that was either offered as a means by which you could pay off a financial debt, or imposed as a work release program / alternative to judgment, the slave trade as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on kidnapping (a capital offense) and the dehumanization of individuals to the point where they were mere appliances with no rights, no future and no real value.

II) Slavery in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the world is ruled by Rome and their domination was maintained almost entirely by slave labor.

Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.2

Much of the slave population in the Roman Empire was procured in the context of military campaigns where those who were defeated were enslaved. Their numbers were further supplemented by piracy and kidnapping.

”… if any people ought to be allowed to consecrate their origins and refer them to a divine source, so great is the military glory of the Roman People that when they profess that their Father and the Father of their Founder was none other than Mars, the nations of the earth may well submit to this also with as good a grace as they submit to Rome’s dominion.”3

Unlike the situation in the Old Testament where Israel’s military victories and their domination over the surrounding nations were a consequence of those countries’ resolve to rebel against God, Rome’s approach to the world was inspired by nothing more other than to simply increase its size and might as is evidenced by the way in which they defined themselves as dedicated disciples of Mars, the god of war (see sidebar to the right). And while those who were consigned to a lifetime of menial labor within the Hebrew community were treated with kindness and respect, those that had to answer to their Roman masters were nothing more than pieces of property who had fewer rights than freed criminals. This was not an institution endorsed or invented by God. Whereas slavery in the Old Testament was either a way of paying off a financial debt – be it a loan or something you stole – or offered to a condemned people as an option to being a casualty of a just war, here it’s just a terrible manifestation of greed and a will to dominate those around you.      

A) Man is Made in the Image of God

In addition to Scripture’s condemnation of kidnapping, which deals a lethal and final blow to the slave trade right out of the chute, there’s also the fact that because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) you can’t rightfully strip a person of their humanity to the degree where they’re nothing more than an appliance. Genesis 9:6 demonstrates that because man is made in the image of God that murder is considered an assault on the Person of God as well as an attack on the individual:

Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Gen 9:6 [see also Jas 3:9])

In a similar way, to reduce a person to nothing more than an intelligent beast is to ignore the Divine Dignity that characterizes every human being that has ever walked this earth. You see this expressed in Job 31:13-15:

“If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me 14 what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? 15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13-15)

Yet, this is what the Roman brand of slavery was: A demeaning subjugation of another human being that, not only consigned them to a lifetime of hard labor, but also stripped them of the most basic human rights. God’s condemnation of such an institution was expressed in the Old Testament, as has already been mentioned (Lev 19:34). But God’s grace takes it a step further by erasing all of the cultural boundaries that would otherwise elevate one person over another.      

B) There is No Slave or Free…

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)

It’s that Truth in particular that Paul emphasizes in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus was a runaway slave that had, at one point, belonged to Philemon. Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and then ran away to Rome – a crime punishable by death. But after hearing the preaching of Paul, he became a believer and worked alongside Paul for a season before deciding he needed to make things right with his former master.

While Onesimus would’ve been safe under Old Testament law (Dt 23:15-16) in that, while he would’ve been held responsible for what he stole, he would not have been handed over to his original master, his future was far more bleak under Roman law. But in the context of the gospel, Philemon and Onesimus are in a place where they can view each other as equals in that they’re both sinners saved by grace.

This is what Paul is referring to when he says…

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. (Philemon 1:12-16)

So, while in the Old Testament where a slave who had taken refuge with another person was not to be handed back over to their original master, Paul points to the New Covenant that is even more liberating by admonishing Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a… …brother!      

C) Making a Difference

As has already been mentioned, Roman law forbade the harboring of fugitives and runaways were often punished with great severity. Freedom was a possibility but, for all intents and purposes, was highly unlikely. You were doomed to watch others bask in the light of comfort and liberty while you were forever destined to be at their beck and call to do whatever work needed to be done.

It was a crushing reality in some cases, in others it was just a cultural and legal weight that had to be borne with no complaint and to aspire to the status of a free man was to reach for something that was virtually impossible. Given that kind of culture, imagine the response of a master whose slave is suddenly enthusiastic about doing the work they’re assigned to do. Ponder what must’ve been going in the mind of a Roman whose slave bordered on belligerent just yesterday and is now respectful and even pleasant.

This is what the New Testament encouraged among those who were slaves. While both the Old and New Testament provide a voluminous and substantial body of Divine Concepts for the abolitionist, the New Testament don’t merely condemn slavery as much as it eliminates any social construct that could justify the elevation of one person over another by establishing all people being equal in the sight of God .

You see this in the book of Colossians. To slaves he says:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)

And to their masters, he says:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Col 4:1)

In order for this change to occur, it would require a Divine change of heart which is precisely what the gospel facilitates:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here… 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:17; 21 [see also Jn 1:3])

It’s in the context of being a “new creation” and becoming the “righteousness of God” that, not only would the relationship between slave and master be dramatically changed, it would also promote the Power and the Reality of the gospel itself. And as the gospel spread, so did the tools and the Truth that would one day be used to eliminate slavery entirely.

III) Conclusion

Critics of Scripture have a series of talking points that can be hard to refute if you engage them according to the way in which they formulate their convictions. They’re not looking at a full color portrait, they’re looking at a black and white thumbnail that resonates as compelling only if certain elements are accepted as both comprehensive and assumed givens.

If you structure your rebuttal according to a series of questions whose answers reveal those elements as flawed, they’re forced to concede the fact that their argument is lacking. On the other hand, if you target only those things they cite as relevant, you never get beyond the thumbnail and, not only does your platform look anemic, more importantly the full color portrait gets overlooked and the Truth gets ignored once again.

That said…

Does the Bible advocate kidnapping as an acceptable practice?

No. It doesn’t. It was a capital offense which means that the Slave Trade as it existed in the United State during the 18th and 19th centuries is contrary to God’s Word.

What did the nation of Israel provide as an alternative to penitentiaries? How did an Israelite go about filing for bankruptcy?

You didn’t file for bankruptcy, rather you worked off the dollar amount of whatever you owed. And if you were guilty of having stolen something, you were not incarcerated, instead you provided restitution by working off the value of whatever it is that you stole. These were the dynamics that characterized two of the three types of slavery referenced in the Old Testament.

Did the Israelites offer their enemies the opportunity to live among them as respected servants as an alternative to war?

Yes. To raise your hand against the Israelites was to take your idolatry a step further in that now you were not only ignoring Him, you were actively seeking to destroy His Work and His People. This placed you in a category of wrongdoing so heinous that justice in the form of the death penalty was an absolutely certainty. On the other hand, to live among the Israelites as dignified servants allowed you a second chance and in that way receive grace that, apart from God’s intervention, was neither deserved nor desired.

Was the slavery that existed in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ similar to the slavery referenced in the Old Testament?

No. Slavery was a consequence of war in the Roman world. In the Old Testament, it was either an alternative to war or an institution used to make restitution for a crime or make good on a debt. And where slavery in the Roman empire involuntarily reduced you to a subhuman status with no rights and no prospects, in the Old Testament it was an option and one that was chosen in the context of respect and dignity.

How can Scripture be said to promote slavery when it was the Bible that the Abolitionist used as a philosophical foundation upon which to base their argument that slavery was wrong? When Abraham Lincoln took the stage in his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was his articulate condemnation of slavery that earned him the Republican party’s nomination for President. On September 16, 1859, in Columbus, Ohio, he gave a speech. In it, you can see a sample of the rhetoric that earned him a spot in the national spotlight. Stephen Douglas believed slavery to be something that could be engaged on the premise that negroes were subordinate to the white race and were not to be thought of as equals in any way. And he believed that the slavery question should be determined by individual states – an approach referred to as “popular sovereignty.”

Lincoln identifies the fallacy of that argument by referring to a comment made by Thomas Jefferson almost a century beforehand that references the inevitably justice of God and how it will be visited upon the United States because of the way certain elements approved of and even insisted upon the enslavement of the black race.

Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.

Bottom line: Those who insist that the Bible condones slavery rely on a distortion of Scripture and not an expression of it. Remember, it was the Christian creed that inspired the spiritual songs4 of freedom sung by the slaves and it was that same doctrine that the abolitionists based their arguments upon5.

To even suggest that the Bible supports slavery requires a limited intake of Scripture, a biased perspective on history and a resolve to base one’s convictions on an intentionally streamlined collection of facts rather than a comprehensive analysis of the truth.

1. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
2. “Slavery in the Roman World,” Mark Cartwright, “Ancient History Encyclopedia”, https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/, accessed November 1, 2019
3. “Military of Ancient Rome”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome, accessed November 1, 2019
4. African American Spirituals Lyrics, https://africanamericanspirituals.com/African-American-Spirituals-Lyrics.htm, accessed January 21, 2020
5. “Christian Abolitionism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism, accessed January 22, 2020

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part I

/in , , , /by

There’s a graphic floating around Facebook that’s entitled, “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” and it goes on to use a flowchart to suggest that it’s both logical and sensible to embrace Homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Biblical standpoint (see image to the right).

The first red flag is that it doesn’t reference any specific chapter or verse. Beyond that, there’s some stuff there that sounds plausible, but after you pop the hood and do some digging, you discover that it’s not credible at all.

Here we go:

Objection:  Jesus Never Uttered a Word About Same Sex Relationships.

Overruled: Jesus endorsed the Law as being valid and in so doing established homosexuality as being a sin. In addition, Jesus was God in the flesh and in light of the fact that God dictated the whole of Scripture, it is therefore nonsensical to claim that Christ had nothing to say on the matter.

Jesus Endorsed the Old Testament as Being Valid Correct. Jesus never taught on the subject, but Jesus endorsed Old Testament Law as being valid in Matthew 5:17 and that would include God’s specific outlawing of homosexuality. Take a look:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22 [see also Lev 20:13])

Homosexuality is Referenced as a Sin Throughout Scripture In addition, it’s referenced in the New Testament which demonstrates that this is a moral sin that rates a special emphasis in God’s mind in that it shows up throughout Scripture and not just in the New Testament.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers,[a] liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (1 Tim 1:9-10)

Jesus is God Another thing to consider is that Jesus is God in the flesh:

I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30 [see also John 1:1-2; 5:17-18;Heb 1:3])

When Jesus says, “I and the Father are One,” He’s saying that He and God are the same thing. The Greek word means “one and the same,” not “one person, “ but akin to two different names for the same thing. That’s why Calvary worked because it was God Himself Who was paying the penalty for our sins and not just a noble substitute. So if Jesus is God and vice versa, then to suggest that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality is pointless. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says the entire Bible is God-breathed so Jesus’ perspective on the subject is well represented throughout the Bible in that it is God’s Word and Jesus is God.

Objection: The OT also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics and to eat pork? Should we still live by OT laws?

Overruled: God’s condemning of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament Law as has already been mentioned. In addition, the portion of the law that is being referenced here is the judicial law which was fulfilled in Christ. The moral law, however, endures and that includes the condemnation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is Referenced Throughout Scripture Two things: First off, homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture so to limit one’s scope to the Old Testament alone and attempt to justify homosexuality by saying it’s an Old Testament law and therefore obsolete is to ignore the way in which it is addressed in the New Testament:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:8-10)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:9-10 [HCSB])

While the Old Testament Law Pertaining to Ceremonial and Judicial Specifics Were Fulfilled in Christ, the Moral Law Still Applies In addition, it’s important to realize that while the ceremonial and judicial aspects of Old Testament Law having been fulfilled, the moral law still applies. Here are the OT passages that are deal with the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics and the eating of shellfish:

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. (Lev 11:9-10)

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Lev 19:19)

And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Lev 11:7-8)

Why God prohibited the consumption of some animals or the wearing of certain types of clothing is speculative. But there are a couple of things about what was going on historically that allow these directives to make some sense.

Israel was surrounded by pagan nations whose practices included the combining of fabrics and different types of seed as part of religious rituals. Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204) wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books.”1

So there’s good reason to believe that one of the reasons that God directed the Israelites to not mix seed or fabrics or different kinds of animals is because by doing so you were engaging in behaviors that were recognized as idolatrous.

As far as why you were to not eat marine life lacking in fins or scales, again it’s possible that due to the diet of the typical pagan, which included shellfish, God was putting up some guard rails that would make it difficult to even eat with those who despised the Lord.2

The point that’s being made the “So You Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” crowd is that if all of these instructions were valid in antiquity, yet not relevant in today’s world then why should God’s command pertaining to homosexuality be any different? If we no longer concern ourselves with combining different types of fabric or abstaining from eating certain types of food, why should homosexuality be an issue?

In the New Testament, Jesus addressed the dietary restrictions that had been established through Moses by saying that it wasn’t what went into a man that made him unclean, rather it was what came out of him that reflected the true condition of his heart. Consider the following:

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) (Mk 7:17-20 [see also 1 Tim 4:3-5])

Jesus often qualified the Law by quoting it and then elaborating on it in order for people to get beyond the letter of the Law and instead obey the spirit and the original intent of the Law. That’s what he was getting at in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt 5:17)

Some will mistakenly interpret Jesus’ quoting the Law as His having a disdain for what He had Moses document centuries before in that He would often add some commentary to what was on the books. Here’s the thing: The word, “fulfill” doesn’t mean to fill out, as in to add something that was lacking. Rather, it means to fill up. In other words, the law was perfect in its content and purpose which was to identify sin. Paul states that in Romans 7:12 when he refers to the law as holy, righteous and good. Without the law, we wouldn’t recognize sin for what it is nor could we appreciate the need for a Savior and that was the ultimate purpose of the law.

When Jesus said that He wasn’t seeking to abolish the law, He was highlighting the fact that He was the Savior that law had been pointing to since its conception. He says in Matthew 5:18:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)

In this one verse, you have an amazing collection of Truths that represent the substance of the gospel. When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial part of the Law was fulfilled in that no sacrifices would ever be needed again to atone for sin because Jesus was God’s one time, sacrifice for sin. You see that in 1 Peter 3:18:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Pet 3:18)

The judicial aspect of the law was the way in which God uniquely dealt with Israel (Lev 26:46; Ps 147:19). It’s in the context of this law that you find the dietary restrictions and instructions pertaining to apparel. But when Israel rejected the Messiah and put Him to death, that was the end of Israel’s distinction as “God’s people” and the beginning of the church which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Hence the abrogation of judicial law, not that it was destroyed but fulfilled in Christ.

Take a look at some of what John MacArthur offers in the way of commentary on this issue:

Look at it this way; this is thrilling. Look at the judicial law and all the various rules that governed the behavior of Israel, all their legal codes, all the things they were supposed to do. Leviticus 26:46, “The statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel.”

God made special laws with Israel. In Psalm 147:19, “He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.” In other words, God had peculiar laws for Israel; this is His judicial law which set them apart. They had certain dietary laws, certail laws of dress, of agriculture, laws within their relationships with certain things they had to do. These set them apart.

You say, “How did Jesus fulfill that?” When Jesus died on the cross, that was the final, full rejection by Israel of her Messiah, right? That was it. And that was the end of God dealing with that nation as a nation. The judicial law that He gave to Israel passed away when God no longer dealt with them as a nation anymore and Jesus built His church. Praise God, someday He will go back and redeem that nation again and deal with them again as a nation. But for this time, when Jesus died on the cross, the judicial law came to a screetching halt. There was no more national people of God. There would be a new man, cut out of Jews and Gentiles, that would be called the church. The judicial law came to an end. That’s why Matthew 21:43 says, “Therefore I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you.” (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

The one aspect of God’s Law that still applies, however, is His moral law. Not that we need to concern ourselves with the penalty that comes when you disobey His moral law, but as far as how it defines what is right and what is wrong – that aspect of God’s moral law is still binding. John MacArthur elaborates on that point when he says:

The same thing is said in Romans 6:14, and we could spend forever on this principle. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law.” What does he mean, that you don’t have to do anything any more? Do you not have to live a moral life or obey God? No! What he means is that you are no longer under the power of the penalty of the law. It can’t kill you anymore; you can only die once. That’s all, only once. Christ died on the Cross, and you, by faith, died in Him. That pays the penalty, so in that sense, you are no longer under the law. That is, the law has no power to slay you. The law had a penalty, the wages of sin is death, and Christ took the penalty. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2211/christ-and-the-law-part-3)

The whole judicial system was only good as long as Israel was God’s people. When that was over, the system was over. The ceremonial system was only good until the final sacrifice came, and when it came, then the system was done away. That only leaves one element of God’s law abiding still, and what is that? The moral law. That’s what undergirded everything. That will be with us until we see Him face to face. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

So to imply that the Old Testament laws which no longer apply to the New Testament church include God’s ruling against homosexuality is neither Biblical let alone logical.

Proceed to Part II by clicking here…

The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part Two: What About Prayer?

/in , , /by

Dawkins 1 | God 0

Richard Dawkins, in his continued attempt to mock the legitimacy of the Christian faith, references something he refers to as “The Great Prayer Experiment.” He explains…

..the physicist Russell Standard (one of Britain’s three well-known religious scientists, as we shall see) has thrown his weight behind an initiative, funded by – of course – the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health.

Such experiments, if done properly, have to be double blind, and this standard was strictly observed. The patients were assigned, strictly at random, to an experimental group (received prayers) or control group (received no prayers). Neither the patients, nor their doctors or caregivers, nor the experimenters were allowed to know which patients were being prayed for and which patients were controls. Those who did the experimental praying had to know the names of the individuals for whom they were praying  – otherwise, in what sense would they be praying for them rather than for somebody else? But care was taken to tell them on the first name and the initial letter of the surname. Apparently that would be enough to enable God to pinpoint the right hospital bed.

The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous amount of ridicule, and the project duly received it. As far as I know, Bob Newhart didn’t do a sketch about it, but I can distinctly hear his voice:

What’s that you say, Lord? You can’t cure me because I’m a member of the control group?…Oh, I see, my aunt’s prayers aren’t enough. But Lord, Mr Evans in the next door bed…What was that, Lord?…Mr Evans received a thousand prayers per day? But Lord, Mr Evans doesn’t know a thousand people…Oh, the just referred to him as John E. But Lord, how did you know they didn’t mean John Ellsworth?…Oh right, you used your omniscience to work out which John E. they meant…1

The study that Dawkins references was done in 2006. The two groups were further divided into three sub groups:

  • people that knew they were being prayed for
  • people that were being prayed for and did not know it
  • people that received no prayers and didn’t know it

The results of the study were clear cut. There was no difference between those being prayed for and those who were not. There was a difference in the amount of suffering however, in that the people who knew they were being prayed for suffered more than those who weren’t being prayed for and had no clue.

Bottom line: Prayer doesn’t work, God isn’t real and to believe otherwise is either complete stupidity or an example of a blind faith that resolves to believe regardless of the quantifiable evidence that exists to refute it.

Dawkins: 1 | God: 0

A Weak Response

Dawkins cites several theologians who embarrass themselves by attempting to explain the results in the context of how God either uses suffering to accomplish His Purposes or such studies are pointless in that they attempt to quantify God – which you can’t do.

It’s not that they don’t have a point. God does use suffering to strengthen a believer’s faith (Romans 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:3-7). But it also says that you mourn with those who mourn (Rom 12:15). It is encouraging to know that God has a Purpose and He can be trusted when you’re going through a hard time, but you telling someone they should be “happy” when something terrible has happened is not always helpful.

And saying that you can plot the Reality of God on a graph or prove His existence on a calculator is no different than saying you can package love in a shoebox or reproduce peace in a test tube.

God is more than a “result,” just like a person is more than a photograph. Still, you should be able to expect some kind of material evidence to support the validity of the Christian faith and when a clergyman responds to a test like this by saying people should welcome suffering or God can’t be “proven,” their responses sound pretty weak and Dawkins’ argument appears to be all the more compelling.

If God’s real, and prayer supposedly is a person asking God for something, then it follows that, in a study such as this, you should see some kind of evidence that God is at least listening. No? Dawkins concludes by assuming that the “faithful” will soldier on, despite the lack of evidence and proof, and wait it out until they get the result they want.

But Wait

It’s interesting because, while the study Dawkins cites occurred in 2006, there’s an article in Newsmax magazine entitled, “Studies Prove the Healing Power of Prayer” that references several similar studies that produced much different results:

  • The American Journal of Public Health studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years and found that those who attended religious services were 36 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.
  • A study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a significantly increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
  • Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship.
  • The American Society of Hypertension established in 2006 that church-goers have lower blood pressure than non-believers.
  • Scientists have also revealed believers recover from breast cancer quicker than non-believers, have better outcomes from coronary disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and are less likely to have children with meningitis.
  • Research at San Francisco General Hospital looked at the effect of prayer on 393 cardiac patients. Half were prayed for by strangers who had only the patients’ names. Those patients had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia, and needed less drug treatment.They also got better quicker and left the hospital earlier.

So, which studies do you believe? And why does Dawkins not acknowledge other similar studies that actually reinforce the utility and the Power of prayer? That’s a question that may not ever get a satisfactory answer, but let’s take a minute and look at Scripture.

In Jesus’ Name

First of all, God is not a vending machine. You don’t simply put in your “prayer coin,” pull a lever and expect Divine machinations come to life, spit out the result you want, in the timeframe you’re expecting.

He’s God, you’re not.

The Bible makes some pretty broad sounding guarantees when it comes to prayer.

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt 7:7-8)

On surface, it looks like if you position your appeal just right, you’re gold! Whatever you want, whatever you need – it’s yours. But look at John 14:

13 And I will do whatever you ask  in my name , so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything  in my name , and I will do it. (Jn 14:13-14)

 “In my Name” is more than just a poetic compliment to your prayer. “In the Name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ Name” invokes a dynamic that establishes the Priority and the Precedence of God. Specifically, His Will:

14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to  his will,  he hears us.15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 Jn 5:13-14)

And that’s not a “hidden clause.” That’s consistent with the kind of approach you would expect in a wise, father figure. A child can approach their Dad for anything they want, but the Dad isn’t going to respond in the affirmative if the child asks for a machine gun. Take a look at Matthew 18:19-20:

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:9-11)

You see where this is all going?

God sees you and your life laid out before Him in a way that’s not limited by the constraints of time and space. He knows what’s best from womb to tomb.

Ask.

Absolutely!

But ask knowing that should He say, “No,” or “Wait,” it’s not Him being cruel and it’s certainly not a prompt to doubt His Reality. Rather, it’s a cue to remember His Sovereignty which is Ultimately founded on an unconditional love and an uncompromising commitment to our welfare.

You Don’t Talk to Your Father That Way

When Satan was attempting to get Jesus to make some compromises, he honed in on, what would naturally be, a logical means by which Christ could recruit the attention and the admiration of those He sought to save by throwing Himself down off the top of the temple and emerge unharmed (Matt 4:5-7). Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16,  saying that you don’t put the Lord your God to the test.

That passage in Deuteronomy is referring the scenario in Exodus when the Israelites were on the march and had come to point where they were without water. Despite very recent demonstrations of God’s Power and Presence in the context of all the miracles He had done in their midst, here they are now asking, point blank, “Is God among us or not? (Ex 17:7)”

Kind of like the study Dawkins wants to use to demonstrate the Reality of God. “You do what I want you to do, when I want you to do it, and I’ll give you a second look…” That doesn’t sound like a reverent request as much as it sounds like a belligerent demand. It’s almost like a child approaching their Dad insisting that unless he gives them that machine gun, they’re going to throw a fit. Things like “You don’t love me!” or “You’re not my real Dad!” are shouted in response to their father’s refusal to meet their demand.

Whether they’re legitimate expressions of indignation or strategic phrases deployed for the purpose of securing a specific outcome, either way, it’s wrong. Especially if what the father is withholding from his child is something that could prove harmful.

Yet, that’s the approach some take with God. It’s not healthy let alone appropriate. You don’t talk to your Father that way. There’s a degree of audacity represented by a human being looking at God and saying, “Oh yeah? Prove it!” Yet, from Dawkins’ perspective, there’s nothing audacious about it because he views humanity as being an absolute in and of themselves.

The cross is foolishness to unbelievers (1 Cor 1:18) and it makes sense. If you’re not convinced that you need forgiveness, then what’s the purpose of a Savior? If you answer to yourself and yourself alone, then the notion of a God is at once ridiculous and intrusive. That was the mindset being addressed by Jesus when He responded to the Pharisees who were demanding a sign by saying, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matt 16:4) It’s similar to the way God responded to Job who, seemingly had every reason to be indignant with God, by saying, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:3)

Do you smell what’s on the stove?

Brace Yourself Like a Man

Consider the created order (Rom 1:20), contemplate the miracle of grace (Rom 5:8). Recognize who and what you are before your King and appreciate the gift that He’s given to you, as far as your ability to ask for things in prayer, (Matt 7:7-12; Heb 4:16).

Park there for a minute.

It’s a gift!

You need to be careful to process it as something that has been given to you by God and not a license to make demands of God. You don’t talk to your Father that way and should you feel inclined to be a little indignant, remember Who set the planets in motion and initiated the pumping action of your heart.

Most of all, be mindful of the fact that the One you’re getting ready to criticize is the One Who secured a “non-guilty” verdict for you by dying on the cross.

Brace yourself like a man…

A Privilege to be Revered

Perhaps the most succinct refutation of Dawkins’ outlook on prayer in that it is not a practice to be evaluated by man, rather it is a privilege to be revered by man. And to abuse it as a means to test God is to make the focus of your prayer your own arrogance.

In that moment you’re not conversing with the Almighty as much as you’re just talking to hear yourself speak (Matt 6:5-15). Perhaps that’s why He taught us to begin our conversations with Him by saying: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:9-10 [emphasis added]).

Your Kingdom, Your will, because…

You’re God.

Click here to read “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One: FIT.”

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p86-87

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

/in , , , /by

Facts

There are three kinds of “data.” “Facts” “Facts” are accurate statements. Think of them as headlines. For example:

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

Both of these statements are accurate. While we know Christ did, in fact, rise, the Pharisees also paid the guards that were guarding the tomb a large sum of money to back up the story that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt 28:11-15).

What’s significant is that for someone who’s just glossing over the headlines, the verbiage, albeit very brief, can still shape conclusions for those who don’t take the time to consider the full account.

That leads us to the second category:

Information

“Information” is the “facts” in the context of a limited perspective. A journalist could build a compelling yet misleading article by strategically citing the chief priests, the guards who had been bribed and any one of a number of like minded people.

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

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

Information.

Limited perspective.

Finally, the last category of “data” is…

Truth

Truth is an accurate statement that’s been elaborated on in the context of a full perspective. This is the well you want to be drawing your conclusions from. Here is where the right questions are being asked and full disclosure is the norm.

In the absence of “truth,” you risk formulating convictions that are fundamentally flawed. This is why you want to ensure that you’re aggressively and intentionally seeking out the “truth,” and not just the “facts.” You don’t even want to be content with “additional information.” The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Treaty of Tripoli

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

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

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

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

Consider this quote from John Adams:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he fails to reference another statement made by Adams:

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

Facts.

Information.

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

A Toddler and a 285 Pound Benchpress

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

It’s not.
When you’ve got the Holy Spirit living in and through you, you’re not flying solo when you’re confronted with a temptation to make compromises (1 Cor 10:13). When the lights aren’t on (aka, the Holy Spirit is not living in you), you’re approaching temptation the same way a toddler approaches a 285 pound bench press. It’s not going to end well.
But when it’s God’s Strength and His Truth that is allowed to animate your actions and your outlook, you now have more than you need to successfully negotiate the challenge that lies before you.

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

The Book of Proverbs

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

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

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

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

Understand that wisdom, from a biblical standpoint, is more than just knowledge. It’s the “ability to judge correctly and to follow the best course of action, based on knowledge and understanding.”3

While this “ability” is based in part on one’s discipline in the context of academic pursuits, it derives it’s true accuracy and application from an intentional pursuit of God’s Power and Perspective. In short, it’s a Divine Perspective properly applied (1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:29; Jas 1:5-8.

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

And when you’re listening to people like Richard Dawkins, or people who think like him, use the same technique. Recognize the difference between Facts, Information and Truth.

Don’t let a carefully crafted platform based on an intentionally watered down perspective replace the full perspective and the truly accurate convictions that flow from that approach.

Click here to read “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part Two: What About Prayer?”

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

A Position of Strength

/in , , /by

Overcoming Adversity

There was a time I worked for a guy who, although he was good to me, was the kind of character where if you were interested in securing a favorable deal for yourself, you needed to be able to approach him from a position of strength.

At least, that’s what I called it: A “position of strength.” 

By that, I mean that you had to be able to substantiate your terms with something that compelled him to agree to what you’re saying. For example, I want to see my hourly wage increase. If I was going to emerge from his office as a successful negotiator, I needed to be able say something like, “I’ve got another job offer,” or something comparable.

Short of that, he had you in a place where you obligated to accept his deal, which wasn’t always inspiring.

The bottom line, though, is that you could get what you were hoping for as long as you had that trump card – as long as you were approaching him from a position of strength.

Wouldn’t That Be Sweet?

Negotiating life is similar. Of course, in life you’re not interacting with an individual per se, but if you could, for a moment, envision your need to overcome some kind of adversity as something you could manipulate via an exchange between yourself and this figure who can hypothetically alter your circumstances, you can see how approaching this meeting from a “position of strength” would constitute a huge tactical advantage.

So, just as they’re getting ready to refuse your terms, you could lay that “something” on the table and suddenly your platform is dominant and you emerge with an ideal scenario. Wouldn’t that be sweet?

Obviously, we don’t have access to that kind of life-altering dynamic, but we do have something that often gets overlooked and it does equate to a legitimate “position of strength.” The things that most exasperates us are those things that we can’t control.

It’s part of life.

No matter how you prepare, no matter how you plan, life includes a number of elements that simply cannot be controlled or anticipated. It’s those unexpected setbacks that take the wind out of our sails and that “position of strength” you would theoretically occupy is processed as an impractical pipedream than it is anything else.

But look at your scenario in the light of God’s Truth.

Asserting Some Truth Into Your Situation

It says in the Psalms that all our days were ordained before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:16). There is a plan – there is a purpose that infuses every triumph and every setback with significance and meaning (Eph 2:10; Phil 2:13).

Nothing is random. 

At one point Paul is attempting to get over into Bithynia. He can’t. Who knows what that situation looked like, but according to Scripture, Paul documents it as Divine direction and not a physical obstacle (Acts 16:7).

Do you see that?

How many times have things fallen short of what you were hoping for and your reaction was aimed at the tangible entities that comprised your dilemma? Perhaps it was a person. Maybe your car broke down. Perhaps you were working towards a particular goal and something went south leaving you in a puddle of disappointment and confusion. It’s then when you need to be intentional about asserting some Truth into your situation. Otherwise, you’re prone to linger in that zone characterized by discouragement and even bitterness. 

Take some of the Scriptures that pertain to purpose and lay them down side by side….

• All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)

• A man’s steps are ordered by the LORD; how then can man understand his way? (Prov 20:24)

• And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Rom 8:28)

• For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:10)

• for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. (Phil 2:13)

You see where this is going?

Nothing Random

Remember Simeon? Check out Luke 2:25-32. He’s an older gentleman who has his heart set on seeing the Messiah before he takes his last breath. In verse 27, it says “Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts…” 

I’m not sure what that looked like, as far as being “moved by the Spirit,” but I like to think that it was a series of very practical events that had him thinking he needed to be at the temple. And because it was God pulling the strings, he happened to be there when an obscure couple comes walking out holding the One Who he had been praying to see.

There’s nothing random about our lives. From a human standpoint, we cling to the idea that we are the master or our own fate. Hence, we get the credit when things go well and we bear the blame when things do not.

Certainly we are responsible for our actions, as far as being obedient go God’s commands (Dt 11:1; Jn 14:21). But we are not victims of circumstance, nor are we the reason for our own success. All those things that we can’t control – both the good and the bad – it all culminates in a beautiful exclamation point: God’s in charge!

You’re in a Position of Strength

So, as you’re going about your day, be mindful of the fact that you are in a position of strength. That imaginary person you’re negotiating with in an effort to secure a positive outcome – you have that trump card in that while you don’t know what a day may bring forth, you know Who does. And the Lord makes firm the steps of those who delight in him. (Psalm 37:23).

That’s a position of strength!

Financial Planning When You’re Not, You Don’t, You Can’t, and You Won’t

/in , , /by

A Healthy Desire

On one hand, you’ve got greed and a “love of money.” (1 Tim 6:10) On the other hand, you have a healthy desire to succeed (Josh 1:8) and prosper (1 Chron 4:10).

What distinguishes those two extremes is not always readily apparent. However noble a particular venture or desire may be, apart from being intentional about your relationship with Christ, “compromise” poses as “reasonable” and you’re on your way to something unhealthy (1 Pet 5:8).

But assuming you’re on top of your spiritual game, you’re quest for more in the way of material resources is not so much about satisfying a selfish agenda as much as it’s a desire to bless others. Perhaps you want to alleviate someone else’s angst over a financial burden, maybe you just want to surprise someone with an unexpected blessing. Whatever the reason, it’s an honorable one, but regardless of how hard you work, how hard you pray, your hand keeps getting slapped by different forms of discouragement. Whatever “financial planning” you would like to do, you can’t, because you’re not, you won’t,  and you don’t.

You’re Not, You Don’t, You Can’t and You Won’t

You’re not, you don’t, you can’t and you won’t… It’s not a negative disposition, it’s not a lack of confidence. It’s a fact.

  • I’m not qualified
  • I don’t have the platform I need
  • I can’t make someone give me more money
  • I won’t ever get beyond my current situation

And being a person of faith, you’re more than willing to believe that God can completely transform your situation. But that can make it even more exasperating in that He’s not responding and your situation, rather than being remedied, continues to drag on and on.

Brace Yourself Like a Man

It’s interesting  that when God finally responded to Job’s plea for some kind of explanation as far as why he was being allowed to suffer the way he was, God didn’t start by apologizing nor did He let Job in on the conversation with Satan that had set the stage for the disasters that Job would have to contend with. Instead, God’s first comment to Job was:

“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:2-4)

In the verses that follow God’s introductory statement in Job 38:2-4, He enumerates various examples of His Absolute Authority in the context of creation. His Attributes are so obvious and so overwhelming that Job, who is still in the throws of physical pain and emotional despair, does a complete one eighty. However “deserving” he felt a moment ago, as far as some kind of rational explanation for everything he’s had to endure, he enthusiastically embraces the opportunity to simply revere his King.

He goes as far as to say “I repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6) He says that because he’s awestruck by the Grandeur or God. The instant God appears, His Perfection effortlessly overwhelms whatever indictments Job had prepared and the only thing that registers as present and worthy of consideration is God Himself.

A Position of Strength

It’s imperative to realize that Job’s response is not fearful, nor is he begrudgingly  admitting a subordinate position relative to God’s Omnipotence. Confronted with a clear view of God’s Reality, He figuratively runs to God’s Throne and drinks in every drop of Substance and Glory that emanates from it. And while it may not change Job’s situation, it completely changes Job. Rather then feeling like a hopeless victim of unfortunate circumstances, he’s now on his feet and facing his situation from a position of strength.

By reminding Job of Who it is that commands every nuance of creation, Job is able to perceive the true nature of his status. It is neither random nor is it intimidating when viewed from the perspective that recognizes God’s unchanging commitment to his welfare and the subsequent sense of Purpose that now characterizes every aspect of his dilemma.

Psalm 16

David’s being pursued Saul who’s determined to kill him. Things were looking especially bleak in that Saul was closing in and David’s options were nonexistent. That is the setting for Psalm 16. At one point, he says:

The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; surely I have a delightful inheritance. (Psalm 16:6)

 Strange verbiage, considering it’s coming from someone being hunted and on the threshold of complete destruction. David would be delivered and he would go on to great things. But the point here is that David penned this Psalm at a point where he could say with confidence: “I’m not, I don’t, I can’t and I won’t.”

But David was also aware of the fact that his plight was not based solely on what he could see or what he could control. He knew that, not only God CAN deliver, but He IS in the process of doing that presently.

That’s the Truth that needs to be recognized.

God hears and God answers. There’s no disconnect and there’s no delay. His response is exactly what it needs to be in order for His Purposes to be accomplished.

And while His Purposes don’t always include the immediate relief you’re hoping for, the fact of the matter is, you’re being heard and your situation is being addressed. You can, you are, you will and you do.

You can, you are, you will and you do.

Job’s pain did not go away in Job 38 and David was still several chapters removed from becoming king of Israel as God had promised. But in both instances, they experienced the same strength that you and I have access to right now. The perspective that gives meaning and purpose to the pain, the mindset that’s founded on God’s Awareness and Power and the disposition that’s authentically optimistic because of Who it is that’s Ultimately in charge.

It’s the basis for the contentment that Paul refers to in Philippians 4:13 and it’s the Truth that gives us what we need to not only endure, but to excel and to grow into the enhanced character that God has designed us to become.

You’re not, you don’t, you can’t and you won’t…?

No.

You are, you can, you will and you do.