Speaking Up When It Matters

/in , , , /by

It amazes me how some want to believe that you can separate church and state. Our Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in place, not to restrict Christianity’s influence on government, but to prevent the government from influencing Christianity. That was the culture back then and that was the foundation upon which our country was built. Don’t forget that every reference to “Providence” and “Creator” and the “Supreme Judge of the Universe” in the Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George who was, not only King of England, he was also the head of the Anglican Church. He didn’t process those titles as references to a generic “higher power.” He heard them as references to God as He’s revealed in Scripture.

Every form of government is ultimately based on the way that system defines a human being. You are either sorted according to a human convention or you are created in the image of your Heavenly Father.

There’s only two options.

And if you want to argue that there is more than one religion, again, you’ve only got two religions in that every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something to merit the favor of your preferred deity (Gen 3:5). Christianity, on the other hand, says that the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

Ephesians 6:12 says that the “struggle” is always spiritual. When you look at the Democrat talking points, you see things that are contrary to God’s Word and, as a believer, you have a responsibility to point that out (Eph 5:11). You want to do it right (Eph 4:15). No one wants to listen to a jerk. But to remain silent, or to be hesitant, or to be less than substantial in the way you communicate is not piety.

It’s cowardice.

Here’s what I’m thinking…

When Nehemiah was in charge of building the wall, at one point he had the Israelites work with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other (Neh 4:17-19). They weren’t doubting God for His Protection. Rather, they were being wise in the way they were prepared to defend what God had entrusted to them.

As far as “division” or “differences” are concerned, Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 11:19. He mentions how those differences reveal who has God’s approval. In other words, those disparities reveal who it is that’s championing the Truth as opposed to their own preferences.

1 Chron 12:32 describes the men of Issachar as those who, “…understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” Defending the practical and economical wisdom of tariffs, promoting the morality of preventing males from competing in women’s sports, and pointing out how homosexuality represents a lifestyle that is contrary to the way the human species is designed, is not a defense of the gospel, nor does it change the heart of the one who’s determined to be their own bottom line (Jer 17:8-10; Eph 6:12).

But God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1), there’s only two genders (Gen 1:27), homosexuality is a pointless perversion (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27), and Socialism inevitably translates to a violation of 2 Thess 3:10.

People who say, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” are indirectly forcing their beliefs on everyone else because they don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated (2 Cor 4:4). They’re not interested in determining if what you’re saying is True, they just want to get their own way by demonizing you.

Ephesians 4:15 says to, “…speak the truth in love.” If anyone is going to notice that the tomb is empty, you witness needs to be evident in everything you say, think, and do (Col 3:17) and that includes being politically astute and speaking up when it matters.

A Time to Speak

/in , , , /by

I’m seeing several posts coming from well meaning people saying that we need to just love everybody and avoid any kind of confrontation.

Last year, President Trump narrowly missed being assassinated. This after several years of his opponents calling him a Nazi, a fascist, and a threat to democracy.

We need to just pray and not argue…

Where in Scripture does God tell us to be quiet and remain in our prayer closet while everyone else is voting, debating, knocking on doors, and basically pushing back against the narrative that says there is no absolute save the person who stares back at you in the mirror every morning?

This is the time to speak!

Here’s what I see:

First of all, to process Christ’s approach to the cross as our template for the way we confront evil is to forget that Jesus at one point said,

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns. (Lk 22:53).

Jesus’ willingness to be crucified was not meant to be an example for the way we resist evil and fight back against corruption. He had to go to the cross in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled and to pay our debt (Matt 26:54). While there may be a time when Christ asks you to sacrifice yourself, simply laying down and doing nothing in the face of being attacked or not standing up for what’s right, believing that you’re an example of piety, is not an accurate interpretation of the whole of God’s Word.

John the Baptist wound up in prison for rightfully confronting the current administration and calling out Herod as being an immoral dirtbag. Jesus said that no human being was greater than John (Matt 11:9-11; Lk 3:19-20).

How many times in the Old Testament did a prophet confront a king or an entire nation and tell them that they were godless and offensive in the sight of God? Was Nathan vague in the way he spoke to David (2 Sam 12:7)? Did Elisha mince words when he told the king of Israel what was going to happen to him and his wife as a result of doing evil in the sight of God (1 Kings 21:21-24)?

Did David give Goliath a brochure? Did Paul try to be extra sensitive when he spoke to King Agrippa (Acts 26:24-29)?

There’s a difference between righteous indignation and the kind of rage that springs from thinking of no one other than yourself. Ephesians 4:26 says to not let your anger provoke you to the point where you do something wrong. That’s obviously something you want to avoid. Simply exchanging insults on social media is not accomplishing anything.

But at one point, David said…

Do I not hate those who hate you, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. (Ps 139:21)

What David is saying is that he hates the work of sinners, and for good reason. Nothing good comes from those who intentionally try to do the wrong thing. And when you consider the pain and the problems that come from doing the wrong thing, you have every reason to detest that kind of mindset.

But, how do you respond to the “wrong thing?”

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

Expose them!

The person who doesn’t want to be “exposed” is not going to want to listen to you, nor do they want others to listen to you. They will be antagonistic and that kind of reaction is difficult to endure, which is why it’s so important to know what you believe and why you believe it so when it’s time to “expose them,” you sound like you have a point.

It also takes courage. For those who cringe at the thought of being criticized, it’s easy and convenient to retreat behind a biblical sounding excuse to not say or do anything.

That’s not discipleship, that’s cowardice.

What would’ve happened had our founding fathers not stood up to King George?

On one hand, they could’ve referred to Christ’s command to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s as well as the biblical admonishment to obey those in authority (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1).

But rather than base their perspective on a mere portion of Scripture, they looked at God’s Word as a whole and were able to justify separating from England due to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

They stood up and they spoke out.

Your witness means very little if you smile at the things that send a person to hell and endorse the things that put Christ on the cross.

David didn’t just sing, Paul didn’t just write, and Jesus didn’t just pray.

There’s a time to be silent and there’s a time to speak.

This is the time to speak.

A Difficult Truth or a Convenient Lie?

/in , , , /by

 

When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.

All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference. There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.” That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective. Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences. Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.

That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.

The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning. The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, captures that mentality in a presentation she made entitled, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs” featured on ted.com. At one point she says:

We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1

The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.

To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.

Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.

This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.

This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.

Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.

There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)

Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.

That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.

You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.

It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.

However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”

But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.

The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.

The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”

The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”

…true?

The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.

As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.

 

 

1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025

2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025

Half Truths and Loaded Questions

/in , , /by

I) Intro – If You Ask the Wrong Questions…

If you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions and the accuracy of your answers is in direct proportion to the accuracy of your perspective.

To the right you see a series of accusations coming from the mindset of an indignant unbeliever. On the surface, one might stumble a little bit as they attempt to articulate a response. After all, some people who professed Christ as their Savior have justified some heinous acts and perspectives according to a quasi biblical sounding rationale. How do you respond and is it possible to effectively refute the indictments leveled against Christ by unbelievers who are looking to justify their lack of reverence for God?

Absolutely.

Everyone of these questions / indictments can easily be dismantled by recognizing that they’re all designed to shift the burden of responsibility from man to God and in that way insist that God is to be held accountable for the sinful actions of the persons involved.

This is a technique that is fairly common. You see it in other scenarios as well. They’re not legitimate objections as much as they are clever strategies. Consider the following:

Question: How can a loving God send someone to hell?

Answer: How can a rational person say “No” to a loving God?

Question: How can God wipe out an entire people group including women and children?

Answer: How vile was that community that they would warrant God’s wrath to that degree?

Question: Do you think you’re better than me?

Answer: It’s not whether or not I’m a better human being, it’s about whether or not your current situation could be dramatically improved by making different choices.

Question: Doesn’t the Bible say you’re not supposed to judge?

Answer: Doesn’t the Bible say that what you’re doing is wrong?

Question: Do I not have the right to be happy?

Answer: Do you not have the responsibility to be moral?

In each instance you have a tactic being deployed where the focus is redirected from the person being evaluated – be it their character or their actions – to the person doing the evaluation. It’s a brilliant scheme in that, not only are you able to minimize the substance of the offense, but by judiciously selecting your verbiage the accused is now the victim and everyone else that would be critical is now the villain.

This is where you get the intellectual sounding justification for the phrase “hate speech.” This is how unbelievers seek to, not only justify their atheism, but diminish the Presence of God in the marketplace in general. This is how the critics of the gospel are able to remove prayer from schools, manger scenes from public spaces, and our nation’s Christian heritage from academic textbooks.

What makes this issue so crucial is that even the most casual Christian has as their philosophical starting point a respect for the reality and the necessity of Absolutes: The rule of law, a respect for a person’s office, an approach to morality that’s founded on something that transcends cultural norms…

The very essence of our country is based on the fact that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable, human rights.” We justified our independence by appealing to the Absolute of the Divine Imprint that is stamped on each one of us as individuals. When you remove God from the equation, the only absolute that remains is the notion that there are no absolutes and therefore no moral barrier to stand between you and your definition of what is best and reasonable.

There are only two religions in this world: Either God is God or man is god. While it’s possible for a person to be moral apart from God, it is nevertheless their definition of morality that they subscribe to and it is their choice whether they abide by it or not. In short, they are their own absolute.

Political Foundations…

Not all Republicans are born again and not all Democrats are unbelievers. But 69% of atheists identify themselves as Democrats which makes sense given some of the talking points that are championed by the Democrat party:

While some want to insist that this is a purely legislative contest, it’s more than that. This is about the philosophical foundation upon which one builds their convictions pertaining to morality, government, finances – the human experience in general.

When you pop the hood on the debates, the protests, the headlines and the political rhetoric that shapes our culture, it is one’s regard for Divine Absolutes that forms the basis for a person’s convictions.

According to the Pew Research Center, the number of atheists in this country has doubled since 2014. When you look at:

  • the legislation that is being passed
  • the godless practices that are being promoted as acts of moral heroism
  • the increasing amount of violent protesters who force speaking engagements to be cancelled
  • the murder of those who march beneath the Republican banner
  • the public figures who “jokingly” advocate the assassination of the President of the United States

…this is more than just a discussion of one’s metaphysical temperament. This is a contest between those who would retool the moral and spiritual fabric of our country and those who seek to preserve the spiritual foundation upon which we’re built.

And it’s no longer a conversation characterized by respectful dialogue nor is it limited to Executive Orders and the federal government. It is a war between those who insist that man is God and those who maintain that God is God. Either God is the Absolute Who we look to for both policy and salvation or man is the bottom line for this life and the next.

Never before has the tension been more palpable and rarely has the sense of urgency surrounding the ability to defend one’s faith been more intense. This is article will look at some of the half truths and loaded questions circulated by atheists in an attempt to undermine the substance and the advantages represented by the Gospel.

While we will look at the questions in the introductory graphic, let’s start with one question that is often heard: “Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?”

II) Why Does God Allow the Innocent to Suffer?

According to the image you see to the right, God is cruel and indifferent. While He has the ability to step in and protect children who are being beaten by abusive fathers, He doesn’t. Instead, He ignores their pleas and allows them to be emotionally scarred and physically damaged. If God exists at all, He is worse than a joke, He’s despicable.

Going back to the observations made in the Introduction, while it’s a clever strategy it is nevertheless a pointless tactic to try and shift the blame from man to God when it comes to the sinful and heinous acts of humanity. The first question should not be, “Where is God?” The first question should be why is Timmy’s dad beating his son to begin with.

It’s Timmy’s father that needs to be held accountable for what’s happening in the home and not God. Beyond that, however, C.S. Lewis once said, “There is nothing so self defeating as a question that is not fully understood when it is fully posed.” This is an example of a question that is not fully understood in that you’re saying that unless God prevents Timmy’s father from abusing his son, then God is not the Just and Powerful Deity that the Bible proclaims Him to be. He is Just and He is Powerful, but it’s up to mankind to acknowledge Him as such.

God does not force man to comply, He gives him the ability to choose and it’s that freedom of choice that defines the human paradigm. God is not oblivious to Timmy’s situation (Matt 10:29-31) and Timmy’s father will have to answer for the way in which he has treated his son (Ps 94:23; Heb 4:13).

Secondly, while Timmy is obviously being hurt, ultimately the One Who Timmy’s father is sinning against is God (Ps 51:4; Lk 15:18). Here is where the question being asked is revealed as something that goes beyond Timmy’s welfare.

As a human being, Timmy’s dad has the ability to choose whether to honor God or to rebel. It is his job to love and protect his son (Eph 6:4). It is also his choice (Josh 24:15; Gal 5:13). Protecting Timmy, in this instance, means more than God simply preventing Timmy from being hit. It means that He has to alter the terms of the contract that He has made with every human being as far as giving them the option of either loving Him or despising Him. And that’s not going to happen (Gen 2:16-17).

On the surface, that is not an entirely satisfactory answer. Timmy still has scars. It would be great if God stepped in every time something heinous was about to occur:

  • prevent that doctor from performing that abortion
  • stop that individual from getting drunk before he gets into his car
  • change the minds of those two “consenting adults” before they commit adultery

Now you have a situation where some will attempt to qualify when God asserts Himself, but you can’t have it both ways. You’re either a human being with the ability to choose, or you’re a programed organism that’s obligated to comply.

The great thing about having an option is that when you choose to love God, it is love and the things that God designed to occur within the context of that voluntary relationship between Himself and His Creation can happen (Jn 10:10). But if it’s nothing more than a prearranged commitment, it isn’t love. There’s no relationship, there’s no interaction – there’s no pulse.

But on the other hand, in order for love to be possible, indifference and even hatred have to be viable alternatives. And the greater the distance between you and God, the more likely the thoughts and actions of one who perceives himself as his own absolute stand to become more sinister and damaging.

III) Conclusion

It’s not God’s fault that man chooses to rebel against Him. The questions atheists ask in an attempt to discredit God intentionally sidesteps the human element that is to be held accountable. And even if God were to assert Himself in order to prevent the sinful actions of humanity from occurring, He would have to alter the contract He’s made with the human race that allows love to occur in the context of a choice.

Having that option, while necessary, also allows for the antithesis of reverence and obedience to flourish. In the end, it’s not, “Why doesn’t God do something?” It’s, “Why does mankind choose to loathe his Creator, his Redeemer and his King?” If your evaluation of God assumes the presence of human flaws, then His Actions can never fully resonate as Holy let alone, Just.

The Real Contest

/in , , /by

I don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)

So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight –  how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?“

I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.

More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.

If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.

Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”

Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”

But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.

At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.

Os Guiness

Before moving to the United States in 1984, Os was a freelance reporter with the BBC. Since then he has been a Guest Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies, a Guest Scholar and Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum and the EastWest Institute in New York.

From 1986 to 1989, Os served as Executive Director of the Williamsburg Charter Foundation, a bicentennial celebration of the First Amendment. In this position he helped to draft “The Williamsburg Charter” and later “The Global Charter of Conscience,” which was published at the European Union Parliament in 2012. Os has spoken at dozens of the world’s major universities and spoken widely to political and business conferences on many issues, including religious freedom, across the world.

He was a senior fellow at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is now based in Fairfax County, Virginia where he lives with his wife, Jenny. (read more at RZIM.org)

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

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

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

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1

If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.

If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government.

Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.2

And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”3 

Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.

And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.

The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.

And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.

That is the real contest.

1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017
2. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed March 30, 2025
3. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227&view=1up&seq=489, accessed March 30, 2025)

The Star Spangled Banner

/in , , /by

Ft McHenry – guardian of the Baltimore Port

It’s common knowledge that Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the “Star Spangled Banner.” But what might surprise some is the fact that while it’s normally performed in a very stately fashion, the words come from the mind of someone who was outrageously elated and relieved after seeing the flag of United States still flying over Fort McHenry.

It was 1814. Key was on a diplomatic mission in an effort to secure the release of an elderly physician who had been taken prisoner by the British in the aftermath of them having burned Washington D.C.

This was the War of 1812. Despite having won her independence, America was still be harassed by the British and things came to head after Britain refused to honor America’s maritime rights and cut into her trade as part of supporting its war with France.

It was now two years later and while Key was able to successfully negotiate the release of Dr. William Beanes, he was nevertheless detained in part to ensure that anything he and his colleagues might’ve heard pertaining to the attack on Fort McHenry would not get back to the American military.

For 25 hours the British bombarded the Fort. Had they succeeded, they would’ve been able to secure Baltimore’s harbor which was both a thriving port and a strategic location. While Key wasn’t a prisoner of war, he was still under guard which made the outcome of the battle all the more significant given the way both his fate and the future of his country was tied to what would be visible once the early morning sunrise revealed the status of the fort.

Upon seeing the American flag, “…by the dawn’s early light,” Key was thrilled and inspired. The fort had endured, his country was in tact and he would be released two days later after the British departed.

When you consider the words of the Star Spangled Banner in that context, the lyrics resonate as a real celebration. And not just in the context of a fortunate victory, but as a posture of gratitude for the number of times God has been willing to protect and preserve our nation.

You see that in the fourth verse of Key’s composition:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It’s from that stanza that we get our National Motto.

The National Anthem has been performed in a variety of ways. But regardless of the tempo or the style, it’s the words and their meaning that make it a special piece of music. It’s a reminder that we are more than a secular experiment in politics. We’re a government based on the idea that we are made in the image of God and our future is based on His Blessing and His Protection. Provided we keep that in mind, we will continue to be, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Sanctified Violence

/in , , , /by

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided. Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded.

As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end. Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy.

Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal?

Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

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

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

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence. Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

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

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations. Here we want to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

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

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

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

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right. But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction. For example:

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

The Conquest of the Promised Land

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

Ai

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

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

Five Amorite Kings

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

List of Defeated Kings

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

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

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

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

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

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites. In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as…

Building the Wall

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

Skilled With a Sling

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

Combat Training

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

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

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

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

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

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

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

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

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

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

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

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

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

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

The NIV Text Note reads:

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

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword. The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

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

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

2) Turn the Other Cheek

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

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

…and in Luke:

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

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind. In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack.

Consider Lamentations 3:30:

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

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

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

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be. Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

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

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

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

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

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

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words. First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35). As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures. The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

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

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

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

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow. Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared.

While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished. You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

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

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld. If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment. God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace. A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.” It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.” Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified. For further reading, refer to the links below:

COVID 19 | Q & A

/in , , /by

Below you’ll find a series of questions pertaining to COVID-19. Everything from the vaccine to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are addressed. Any word that’s in bold, in many cases, is a link that will connect you to the resource upon which that statement is based. Enjoy!

What is COVID-19? Is it something that evolved naturally or was it intentionally manufactured?
It originated in the Wuhan Lab in China and was intentionally manufactured as part of “cause of function” research that was indirectly financed by the NIH headed up by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Initially, there was an attempt to prevent any “blame” from being assigned to any one particular institution / effort just because of the devastation this has caused. You can’t afford to be reckless in accusing someone of developing a virus that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. But as it turns out, a recent report revealed that many of the authorities who were asked to conduct a probe as to the origin of COVID-19 had a conflict of interests:

As you may recall, 27 “scientists” sent a letter published in The Lancet in the early days of the pandemic claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) did not originate in a Wuhan laboratory. It turns out that 26 of these scientists had direct ties to the Chinese laboratory in question, rendering their assertions completely unreliable. (thetruedefender.com)

In addition, the molecular composition of the virus itself isn’t something that happens in nature. It has to be engineered. Among the ways that kind of intentionality surfaces is in the context of something called, “Gain of Function” research and the techniques used in that kind of science are very visible in the context of COVID-19:

Writing in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller pointed to two key pieces of evidence to support the claim, which has increasingly gained steam after long being derided as little more than speculation.

The first relates to the nature of gain-of-function research, in which microbiologists tweak a virus’ genome to alter its properties, such as making it more transmissible or more lethal.

Of the 36 possible genome pairings that can produce two arginine amino acids in a row — which results in boosting a virus’ lethality — the one most commonly used in gain-of-function research is CGG-CGG, or double CGG, wrote Quay and Muller. (nypost)

They go on to say that “CGG” is used as frequently as it is because it’s the one scientists have the most experience with and produces the required results. COVID-19 has this pairing which is the least favorite combination in the context of nature. This plus other damning information has lead both Quay and Muller to believe that the belief that the Coronavirus was manufactured is the most plausible theory. And while Dr. Fauci has vehemently denied having had anything to do with it, between 2014 and 2019 the NIH gave 3.1 billion dollars for Bat Research. Of those monies, $599,000.00 was allocated by the Ecohealth Alliance to Wuhan who went on to do “Bat Research” which some say qualifies as “Gain of Function” research. That said, one doesn’t need to do a great deal of mental calisthenics to reach the conclusion that Fauci’s fingerprint is on the Coronavirus, as are the other 27 scientists who insisted that the virus had naturally involved.
<

Is it deadly? Is it something to be afraid of?
Yes, it can be lethal. But the vast majority of those who struggle have a suppressed immune system. Consequently, it should not be perceived as a cause for panic given that 98 out of 100 will recover with no side affects.

Statistically you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck than you do COVID-19. This is based on a recent report that had the fatality rate between .5 and 1%.

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

The chances of your dying in a car crash is .97%. Bear in mind, too, that 94% of COVID-19 deaths had contributing conditions. A study done in April of last year suggested that up to 50% of the American population had already contracted the virus and recovered from it. In addition, today a combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans. The reason our society is prone to see COVID as a sinister threat is because of the way the media has engaged in a non-stop campaign of death tolls and new cases while simultaneously remaining silent on recovery rates and effective therapeutics.

Does it justify economic shutdowns  and cancelling any kind of public event?
Economic Shutdowns are neither practical nor sustainable. In addition, the hypocrisy that’s been demonstrated in targeting “which” events need to be cancelled make it apparent that the bottom line isn’t so much about “medical science” as much as it’s about “political gain.”

First of all, even those who would argue that a shutdown is appropriate, it’s not sustainable. At some point, you have to fund research and you can’t do that without an economy to support it. An article published in April of last year confirms this with an article entitled, “COVID-19 Confirms It: Dems Don’t Understand Economics.”

Democrats seem to think government is the source of wealth, that it can create “high-paying” green jobs out of nothing, provide affordable, health care for all, and finance K-PhD educations. Yet government produces nothing. It can only redistribute what others have made. And there are limits to that practice, another constant Democrats can’t fathom.

In addition to that article underscoring the obvious need for a strong economic foundation to fund research, medicine, food and respirators, you also have this dynamic…

From Sen. Bernie Sanders demanding that a coronavirus vaccine be free for all and that “profiteering” from it cannot be tolerated, to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who said “if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy,” when he ordered the state to shut down, Democrats are demonstrating they don’t know how an economy works. This is as dangerous as it is maddening. (Issues & Insights)

So even if economic shutdowns were appropriate, they can’t be done in perpetuity. At some point, the humanitarian aspects of a strong economy have to be in place – a fact that some of the strongest advocates of masks, vaccines, social distancing and limited crowd capacity refuse to acknowledge. In addition, one can’t help but become both suspicious and cynical when the outcry against public gatherings is vocal and aggressive when the topic is Public Worship but mild when it comes to BLM Riots or Caesar’s Palace.

Are masks effective?
Masks are not effective in preventing a person from contracting the virus. Period.

In a tweet that was later published in boredpanda.com, Leora Horwitz, a doctor and director at the Center for Healthcare Innovation, insisted that typical mask that most believe to be an effective deterrent is actually a very weak if not a totally irrelevant form of protection. Reason being is that in order to protect yourself from a virus, the seal around your mouth and every other open cavity of your body has to be virtually air tight. If you are a carrier, the mask is helpful in that it can contain the dispersion of mucus when you sneeze. Other than that, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, the protection that it offers is minimal and therefore ineffective.

Why are hospitals overrun if there’s a 98% recovery rate?
Hospitals are short staffed and the majority of those who are occupying a bed in a hospital currently are either asymptomatic or have a very mild case of COVID-19.

Two reasons: First of all, you’ve already got a shortage of medical staff to service the overcrowded hospitals. Their ranks are now being reduced even more because of the way nurses are noticing some within the medical community hesitating as to the safety of the vaccines…

While at least one media outlet referred to those medical professionals who refuse to take the vaccines as “unlikely” to be hesitant because of their knowledge and medical training, several nurses interviewed by The Epoch Times said it’s their scientific training that gives them pause.

The nurse in Washington said there’s “a lot of distrust of the vaccine and the media narrative ‘safe and effective.’”

“There are a lot of credible doctors out there,” she said, “and they’re being shunned” by the medical community because they oppose the mRNA shots.

Another registered nurse, in Virginia, said she chose to give notice to her employer rather than be compelled to take the vaccine.

“This is a new type of vaccine—an mRNA vaccine that has never been used on humans before,” she told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity. “It’s different from any of the other vaccines.”

“I am not against vaccines,” she said. “I encourage people to get vaccines that have been studied for years. I don’t think I’m being hypocritical by saying I’m pro-vaccine, but not pro this vaccine.”

Like Thorpe, the nurse said COVID-19 vaccine mandates will make the shortage of health care workers much worse. (epochtimes)

So, number one, you have a shortage of medical staff. The other piece, though, is that while hospitals are overcrowded, according to a recent study, most of the patients are asymptomatic or have a very nominal case of COVID.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. (theatlantic)

So, you have two factors happening simultaneously: Hospital staff is dwindling and while the hospital population is increasing, it’s ranks are primarily people who have mild symptoms if they have symptoms at all.

Is the Vaccine Safe?
Most have taken it without any major side effects. But as of September 2021, over 12,000 people have died as a result of complications from the vaccine.

The fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been FDA approved suggests a substantial margin of safety. But more than one physician has risked their reputation and their livelihood to say that the evaluations were irresponsible and the end result is anything but conclusive. This comes from “America’s Frontline Doctors…” LOS ANGELES, CA – America’s Frontline Doctors released the following statement today in response to the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine:

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

“Vaccine efficacy versus the current Delta strain is inferior to safe, effective treatments the doctors of ALFDS are recommending and would never have qualified for Emergency Use Authorization.

“Pfizer unblinded their trial after a few months and gave the product to all, eliminating the placebo arm, making this trial all but useless.

“The vaccine panelists within FDA have numerous financial and other conflicts of interest, and the FDA itself receives industry funding. For example, recent FDA Commissioner Hahn just accepted a job with the financiers of Moderna. This decision also violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that requires open forums.

“This exposes the FDA as a rubber stamp for Big Pharma and the Biden administration. AFLDS is considering filing for a Temporary Restraining Order lawsuit based on the FACA violation.” (America’s Frontline Doctors)

As far as there being documented evidence of people experiencing adverse affects to the vaccine, there is a federal repository that captures that data. However, because it’s an open site, some of the information can be less than trustworthy because different people have different definitions of what constitutes an “adverse affect.” Consequently, critics are quick to criticize it as an unreliable source of information. Still, when you look at Pfizer’s Fact Sheet, that is the site they recommend you go to in order to document your situation. In addition, they provide their own site to document adverse affects. Given the fact that you can hold neither your employer, the FDA or any of the companies that are producing the vaccine accountable for any adverse affects, there’s really very little one can do to compel any kind of legal accountability. Hence, however subjective the resource(s) may be, they nevertheless are one of the few barometers available to measure the side affects of the vaccine and, as of September 3, 2012, the site has recorded over 13,000 people who have died as a result of the vaccine.

Is the Vaccine Effective?
The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the virus, it merely mitigates the symptoms.

The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the disease, nor does it eliminate the possibility of dying as a result of the virus. A recent Pfizer study revealed that after six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, there were 15 deaths in the vaccinated group and 14 in the unvaccinated group. Overall, it’s much like aspirin alleviates the nagging pain of a headache. This is why you’re still being asked to wear a mask and, in some cases, you’re seeing vaccinated people contract the virus. So, no, the vaccine is not effective, at least as far as eliminating any possibility of getting the virus. Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier has gone as far as to say that the vaccine is actually a detriment and is aiding in producing the variants that we’re having to contend with.

What is Ivermectin and Does Hydroxychloroquine Work?
Ivermectin Won the Nobel Prize in 2015 and it, along with Hydroxychloroquine, are proven medications that help a person recover from COVID-19.

Ivermectin was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2015 for the way it was refactored in a way that helped human beings battle parasitic diseases. Rolling Stone published an article that suggested hospitals were being overrun by individuals who were taking the drug and suffering severe consequences. The story was later retracted, but it nevertheless did what it was intended to do, as far as convincing public opinion that any kind of therapeutic is safe let alone effective. Fact is, there have been a number of studies and several compelling testimonies from doctors and patients both who’ve experienced the efficacy of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. To minimize them let alone demonize or restrict those who use them as therapeutics is neither responsible let alone healthy. Pfizer and Big Pharma are currently working on a pill to be taken as a preventive measure against COVID. Many of its active ingredients are found in… Ivermectin.

Does President Biden have the authority to mandate vaccines?
No. He cannot mandate a vaccine. The fact that he probably knew that before he addressed the nation begs the question why he would go ahead and say such a thing.

Multiple states are pushing back on what President Biden wants to present as strong leadership in the face of a crisis. The problem is, his administration admitted months ago that the Federal government didn’t have the authority to mandate vaccines let alone masks.

In December of 2020, Biden said that vaccine mandates should not be mandatory. This despite that now some of the same people are insisting that the President is within his jurisdiction, thus mortgaging their credibility along with his. But that was before Afghanistan, the Keystone Pipeline, unhindered illegal immigration and an insane level of spending that inspires a great deal of doubt as to the character and the ability of President Biden to lead, let alone, think. But most are rightfully recognizing it as an unconstitutional effort to mandate a choice that should be left up to the individual.

Jonathan W. Emord is a constitutional law attorney and author of The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present (2021). He recently wrote a piece in townhall.com that documented several of the legal pillars that President Biden is attempting to ignore that make his mandate bogus.

Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment.

Federal and non-federal employees who have natural immunity from prior infection may well sue under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, arguing that there is no rational basis for them to be coerced into vaccination or weekly testing because they already have a fulsome immunity, equal to or greater than the vaccinated.  

Moreover, they cannot carry the virus to transmit to others.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. 

UnderJacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht v. King (1922), the authority to compel vaccination is a police power reserved to the states.  There is no comparable power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, and none that permits the Executive Branch to compel employers to coerce employees into vaccination or weekly testing as a condition of employment.

Separation of Powers Doctrine.  

The President’s vaccine mandate exceeds the power of the Executive under the Constitution.  It invades the exclusive law-making province of the Congress of the United States.  Thus, it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  His mandate is sweeping, not only affecting federal government employees but all companies that employ 100 or more, and all employees of those companies.  It is unprecedented.  For the first time, a President has used executive power to impose a national mandate requiring medical treatment and testing. 

He goes into more detail and the article is a good read. The bottom line is that President Biden had to know before he made his pronouncement that his legal footing was non-existent. The fact that didn’t stop in makes the final question all the more significant…

Is there anyone who benefits from keeping this virus “alive?”
It is a Political and Cultural weapon being used as part of the Liberal “Mickey Hood” approach to manipulating public opinion.

COVID-19 allowed for a more prolific use of Absentee Ballots and facilitated the self-inflicted destruction of our nation’s economy – a gesture that we’re now realizing had little to no effect  It has politicized medicine and enhanced the size of our population that knows it makes more money staying at home and collecting a government subsidy than it does applying for a job. In short, it’s the party that stands to gain the most by keeping COVID-19 a crisis in the mind of the everyday citizen because of the way it can be used to distract and manipulate the consciousness of a free people. I won’t tell you which party, just do the math. The previously cited article by Jonathan Emord offers this perspective in terms of the current, “emergency…”

  • First, most affected by the mandate are either in a low-risk category (are young and healthy workers) or have had the virus and, thus, have a fulsome immunity.
  • Second, there are many who pose no risk of transmission because they work remotely from home.  Indeed, remote work is an accommodation employers could provide in many instances and thereby avoid the very risks the mandate is supposed to guard against.
  • Third, there are far fewer deaths presently than at the peak of the pandemic in December 2020. Infections appear to be plateauing, the pandemic waning.
  • Fourth, the government misrepresents the extent of actual immunity in the overall population (the addition of those vaccinated and those who have natural immunity).  Indeed, the Biden Administration won’t acknowledge natural immunity as a factor.  Combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans.
  • Fifth, no serious investment or promotion of numerous very effective therapeutics has been made that could reduce help hospitalizations and hasten recovery, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Not only is it time to get back to work, it’s time to get back who and what we are as a nation. We are no longer restricted to a lone congregation of health “experts” when it comes to the way we perceive COVID-19 – what it is, who’s responsible and how we should react.

It’s time to get back to work!

Do The Math

/in , /by

Given the way in which the number of new cases and the ever increasing death toll of the Coronavirus are being constantly promoted, it becomes very easy to believe that the only way in which we’ll ever completely beat this thing is to hide our faces and close our doors. The problem, however, is that there’s other credible authorities weighing in on this approach with a completely different perspective – and they’ve got both the credentials the studies to prove their point.

First and foremost, we are the only country in the West who are not opening up their schools in the Fall. Dr Scott Atlas is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy. He had this to say…

“You either believe in the science or you say you believe in the science and act contrary to science. The science says — and this is data from Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, the U.K., Australia, Canada, Ireland, everywhere in the world, Germany, everywhere in the western world has shown that children do not transmit significantly to adults, even their own parents, and that teachers are not at higher risk of getting a disease like this disease from children. You either believe the science or not. You can’t insist you believe in the science and then act contrary to science. And, by the way, like I said, we are the only country not opening schools. This is absurd” (to read more about this, click here)

As far as the numbers of new cases, this all stems from the surge in tests that are being done. While that may sound like a logical reason to be concerned, bear in mind that in Florida the number of testing errors ranges from countless testing sites dubiously reporting 100% positive cases as well as scenarios where what was originally reported as a 98% was actually 9.4%. If that sounds suspicious, it should.

Finally, however you want to “lean,” in terms of caution as opposed to fear, the one thing that you should keep in mind is that you have a greater chance of dying in a car wreck than you do from COVID-19. This is based on a recent report that had the fatality between .5 and 1%.

The chances of your dying in a car crash is .97%.

Pause for a moment.

Some have accused those who would see life return to normal as being guilty of a disposition that would, “...trade the elderly for the economy.” If that logic were sound and we would limit any activity that poses a comparable amount of risk, then we could just as easily say that anytime we’re getting into a car with our family we are sacrificing the lives or our children for a quick mode of transportation.

There is a nonsensical approach being deployed when it comes to COVID-19 and several examples of corruption in the way statistics are being calculated.

Do the math…

The Black Robe Regiment

/in , , , /by

Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibly wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.

His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.

Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.

At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”

He begins by saying…

It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.1

He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.

In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, until those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.2

You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.

For example, John Leach was imprisoned for sending to Patriot forces information pertaining to the disposition of British troops. He recorded some of his experiences while in prison in a Journal that’s preserved in the “New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865.”On June 30, he talks about a comment made by one of his British jailers…

June 30, 1775. Friday, Continued in the same confinement; and Saturday, Major harry Rooke took a Book of Religion from Mr Joseph Otis, the Gaol keeper, who told him the Book belonged to some of the Charlestown prisoners, taken at Bunker\’s Hill fight, and was given them by a Clergyman of the Town. He carried it to show General Gage, and then brought back, and said, “It is your G–d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins this Country; Damn your Religion.” I would only add this remark, that this Pious officer holds his commission by a Sacramental Injuection, from his most Sacred Majesty King George the 3d.3

You can also see the prominence of Christianity and even how certain denominations were regarded with a special sense of disdain by the British when you consider the diary of Thomas Hutchinson.

Thomas Hutchinson was the Governor over Massachusetts appointed by King George. He recorded a conversation he had with the monarch in July of 1774.

This would’ve been in the aftermath of “The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774” that were enacted as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These were incendiary moves on the part on the part of King George that would result in galvanizing the colonies even further in their resolve to separate from England.

Among the things represented in the new legislation was the replacement of the Massachusetts Council with officials appointed by the crown rather than it being an elected body. You can hear King George questioning the way in which this new group of leaders was being received in the conversation he was having with his Governor.

He begins by asking what sort of doctrine is being preached in the colonies…

King George: I have heard, Mr H., that your ministers preach that, for the sake of promoting liberty or the public good, say immorality or less evil may be tolerated?
Hutchinson: I don’t know, sir, that such doctrine has ever been preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been publicly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call themselves sober men, that the good of the public is above all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be obtained by other means.
King George: That’s a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr H., what is your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the Council? Will it be agreeeable to the people and will the new appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?
Hutchinson: I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform myself who they are. I came to town late last evening, and have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice that has been made.
❶ King George: Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable persons should be appointed.
❷ Hutchinson: The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of England; what are Congregationalists. If the Council shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it will make the change more disagreeable.
❸ King George: Why are they not Presbyterians?
❹ Hutchinson: There are a very few churches which call themselves Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.
Lord Dunmore: The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England, Congregationalist, or rather Independents.
King George: Pray, what were your ancestors, Mr. H.?
Hutchinson: In general, sir, Dissenters.
King George: Where do you attend?
Hutchinson: With both, sir. Sometimes at your Majesty’s chapel, but more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very worthy minister, a friend to government, who constantly prays for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.
King George: What is his name?
Hutchinson: Doctor Pemberton.
King George: I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good man. Who is minister at the chapel?
❺ Hutchinson: The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who frequently inclulates upon his hearers due subjection to the government and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it; and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short prayer before the sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and for the Chief Ruler in the Province. 4

❶ Here is where King George is inquiring about the Massachusetts Council that used to be an elected body that has now been replaced with people who’ve been appointed by the crown.

❷ The “Dissenters from the Church of England,” in this context, refers to the Congregationalists who were loyal to the crown and had not repudiated the Church of England. These were the posterity of the early Pilgrims who had settled in the New World in the early seventeenth century.Lead by William Bradford in 1620, the Pilgrims, also called “Separatists,” were resolved to worship in a manner consistent with the Scriptures as opposed to the institutionalized church created by Henry VIII in order to secure a divorce the Pope was unwilling to grant him.

The Puritans were similar to the Separatists, but instead of wanting to break completely from the Church of England, they wanted to merely purify it. They arrived in the New World in 1630 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony just south of Plymouth Rock.By the 18th century, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had combined to form the Congregationalists. But while they were now functioning under one denominational heading, you still had two distinct groups that were defined by their allegiance to the king.Published in 1907, “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution,” written by James H. Stark, references this dynamic.

The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years\’ existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution.5

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why King George and his Governor could feel somewhat confident that they were drawing from an amicable group of people by defaulting to a specific “type” of Congregationalist. Doctrinally, they were not altogether consistent with the Anglican church, but they were at least somewhat sympathetic to their English Sovereign.

As far as Hutchinson’s reference to the Episcopalians, while they did not formally organize until 1780, during the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, they were considered the American version of the Church of England. While there were exceptions, an Episcopalian’s loyalty to the crown was more pronounced then their Congregationalist counterpart and certainly more  intense than what you saw in the various sects that sprung up in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. You see this in the way many Episcopalians felt obliged to flee America after the Revolutionary War, including the Episcopalian minister referenced by Hutchinson in his conversation with King George.

In 1662, the Common Book of Prayer was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text.”

The fact that Hutchinson states that staffing the new Massachusetts Council with Episcopalians would’ve been “more disagreeable,” is indicative of the way ardent Patriots viewed Episcopalians with suspicion. Hence the choice of those coming from the Congregationalist group would be a more strategic option.

❸ To understand King George’s comment, you have to go back to the sixteenth century and look at the way in which the crown had exacted legislation that compelled a uniform approach to Christ that ultimately violated the Word of God.

Act of Uniformity

In 1558, Queen Elizabeth, as part of trying to eliminate the tensions between Catholicism and the Protestant mindset, she introduced legislation that dictated the way in which people were to pray and worship. It was called, “The Act of Uniformity” and it included a revised “Book of Common Prayer” which outlined how services were to be conducted as well as the verbiage of the prayers that were to be said everyday (click here to see the prayer that was to be repeated every morning). In addition, it made it a punishable offense to not attend Anglican services once a week.

In 1662, it was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text” (see sidebar). This resulted in over 2,000 ministers being ejected from their pastorate in what was called, “The Great Ejection. Many of those that were forcibly displaced were Presbyterians who made their way to the New World.

Thoroughly Protestant

While the Church of England represents a hybrid combination of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines, Presbyterians, on the hand, are thoroughly Protestant. From the perspective of the monarchy, they were positively toxic in part because of the way in which they recognized how the church was being manipulated by various sovereigns to perpetuate their power.

Elizabeth not unreasonably believed that the maintenance of the Episcopacy was necessary to the continuance of Royalty. She knew that the church of Geneva, which the Puritans declared to be their model, was not only essentially republican, but could not be perfectly established except in a republic...6

The Church of Geneva was founded in 1536 during the Protestant Reformation. It represented the central location of Protestant thought. As a Presbyterian, while you were not Puritanical in your doctrine, you nevertheless shared with some of your Puritan counterparts an unwillingness to allow a monarch to dictate your conscience in the way you worshipped, how you were to set up your church leadership or the way you ministered to others.

And while the Presbyterian denomination is a separate group of believers who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines, including, in some circles, a Calvinistic approach to predestination, in many instances when you hear an 18th century Englishman refer to a “Presbyterian,” it was a reference to anyone who recognized the discrepancy between engaging your faith according to a biblically based paradigm as opposed to a government imposed infrastructure.

This is where much of the real tension surfaced.

Church Government

In addition to the fact that all men are created equal (Gen1:26; Prov 2:22; Gal 3:28) thus invalidating the Divine Right of Kings, a large part of the Presbyterian doctrine pertained to church government. Churches were to be governed by elected elders not Anglican Bishops. By attempting to impose a crown appointed hierarchy to rule over the spiritual affairs of a Presbyterian who believed that leadership should be based on a biblically founded approach, England violated an Absolute documented in Scripture. As a result, Presbyterians were only too willing to oppose the established order and because of the presence they commanded in New England, the Revolution was often referred to as something inspired by a Presbyterian perspective.

Chief Instigators

You see this dynamic reflected in a pamphlet written by Joseph Galloway, who was a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He opposed the Revolution and fled to England. He believed that the Revolution was a religious quarrel instigated by Congregationalists and Presbyterians…

But they did not stop there: The principal matter recommended by the faction in New England, was a union of the congregational and presbyterian interests throughout the Colonies…Thus the Presbyterians in the southern colonies, who, while unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, were raised into weight and consequence; and a dangerous combination of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to those of the established Church and Government, was formed.7

Dr. Albert S. Bolles in his history of the Province and State of Pennsylvania from 1609 to 1790 reinforces that by elaborating on the enemy’s regard for Presbyterian clergy…

English Translation: “In this building formerly York Hotel on September 3, 1783 David Hartley, on behalf of the King of England, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, on behalf of the United States of America, signed the Final Treaty of Peace recognizing the independence of the United States.”

To the Presbyterian clergy the enemy felt an especial anitpathy. There were accounted the ringleaders of the rebellion. For them there was often not so much safety in their own dwellings as in the camp. When their people were scattered, or if it was no longer safe to reside among them, the only atlernative was to flee or join the army, and this alternative was often presented. Not unfrequently the duty of the chaplain or the pastor exposed him to dangers as great as those which the common soldier was called to meet. There was risk of person, sometimes capture, and sometimes loss of life.8

David Hartley was Britain\’s Minister Plenipotentiary. He had full diplomatic powers and represented the crown when he signed the Treaty of Paris with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and several others in 1783. Hartley and Franklin were good friends and Hartley frequently spoke against the Revolution in Parliment. After Cornwallis\’ surrender at Yorktown, it was Hartley and Franklin that composed the Treaty of Paris.On February 3rd, 1779, Franklin responded to Hartley who had written a letter proposing that the United States end their alliance with France. At one point, he says:

The long, Steady, & kind regard you have shown for the Welfare of America, by the whole Tenour of your Conduct in Parliament, satisfies me, that this Proposition never took its Rise with you, but has been suggested from some other Quarter; and that your Excess of humanity, your Love of Peace, & your fears for us that the Destruction we are threatened with, will certainly be effected, have thrown a Mist before your Eyes, which hindred you from seeing the Malignity, and Mischief of it.— We know that your King hates whigs and Presbyterians; that he thirsts for our Blood; of which he has already drank large Draughts; that his servile imprincipled Ministers are ready to execute the wickedest of his Orders, and his venal Parliament equally ready to vote them just.9

Franklin doesn’t attempt any restraint or indulgence in describing King George or those members of Parliament who viewed America with disdain. The fact that he begins his description with the way in which King George hated Presbyterians demonstrates the way in which the monarchy associated the Revolution with a Christian perspective.

At the Highest Levels of Government

Members of Parliament were being informed from a variety of sources as to the nature of the American rebellion being founded on a religious premise.

Andrew Hamond was a captain in the British Navy. In a letter dated August 5, 1776, to Hans Stanley, a British Diplomat who sat in the House of Commons, he mentions that while there are some within the colonies who are loyal to the crown, there are nevertheless deep religious convictions running thoughout that, in some cases, are thoroughly determined to gain their independence:

It seems that they have long had divisions among them on religious accounts, and the Churchmen are clearly of opinion that it is the Presbyterians that have brought about this revolt, and aim at getting the government of America into their hands. 10

William Jones of Nayland was a distinguished theologian and a prolific writer. In 1776 he wrote an essay entitled, “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776” in which he addresses what he believes to be the principle driving force of the American Revolution:

And having nothing now to oppose but the Hanover family on the throne, they have at last taken up arms against that, and will carry on a war against the authority, the commerce, and the honour of this country, as long as they have the means of rebellion in their hands; for this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641; and accordingly the first firing against that King’s troops was from a Masschusset meeting-house. 11

The Presbyterian was considered to be one of the chief instigators of the War for Independence, hence King George\’s comment to Hutchinson when he was asking if the Congregationalists being considered were of the Presbyterian stripe.

❹ The Presbyterian Church was started by John Knox in Scotland. It’s presence in the vocabulary being used by those in Parliament wasn’t so much a reference to doctrine as much as it was a referral to the way in which a biblically based argument was being used by “Presbyterians” to justify severing ties with England.

You see this explained by John Adams in a letter he wrote to Hezekiah Niles, who was the editor and publisher of the Niles’ Weekly Register from 1811-1836 and before that was the editor of the Baltimore Evening Post.

In his letter, Adams refers to Dr. Jonathan Mayhew who was one of the earliest ministers to object to the idea that it was a Christian’s duty to suffer beneath the administration of a tyrant. Rather, according to Mayhew, it was the Christian’s obligation to resist (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p39).

In addition to being an articulate speaker, Mayhew was also a prolific writer. At one point, he wrote a lengthy exposition entitled, “Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospels in Foreign Parts.” This was a rebuke directed towards the Church of England, who, under the auspices of witnessing to unchurched peoples, were using their charter to enforce an Anglican approach to one’s relationship with Christ and church government.

This was, again, an extension of the “Act of Uniformity” referenced earlier. Because it struck at the way in which the Church was to be set up according to a biblical model as opposed to a state sanctioned hierarch, the “Presbyterian” dynamic was considered by the Church of England to be a problem that needed to be rooted out.

Mayhew’s addresses this in Section XIV which is entitled, “That the Society have long had a formal design to root out Presbyterianism, &c. and to establishing both Episcopacy and Bishops in the colonies: In pursuance of which favorite project, they have in a great measure neglected the important ends of their institution.”

However this may or may not resonate as a serious issue in the mind of a 21st century layperson, in the eighteenth century when Christianity was more than just a token tradition, it had monumental ramifications which Adams explains…

Rev Henry Caner

He was a devoted Loyalist, and when it was evident he could no longer be useful in Boston, he went with the British troops to Halifax. In one of the record books of King’s Chapel, Dr. Caner made the following entry:

“An unnatural rebellion of the colonies against his Majesty’s government obliged the loyal part of his subjects to evacuate their dwellings and substance and take refuge in Halifax, London and elsewhere;[348] by which means the public worship at King’s Chapel became suspended, and it is likely to remain so until it shall please God, in the course of his providence, to change the hearts of the rebels, or give success to his Majesty’s arms for suppressing the rebellion.

Two boxes of church plate and a silver christening basin were left in the hands of the Rev. Dr. Breynton at Halifax, to be delivered to me or my order, agreeable to his note receipt in my hands.”

After being a rector in Boston for twenty-eight years this aged clergyman was driven from his home and native land. Dr. Caner’s escape from Boston is thus described by himself in a letter dated Halifax, May 10, 1776:

“As to the clergy of Boston, indeed they have for eleven months past been exposed to difficulty and distress in every shape; and as to myself, having determined to maintain my post as long as possible, I continued to officiate to the small remains of my parishioners, though without support, till the 10th of March, when I suddenly and unexpectedly received notice that the King’s troops would immediately evacuate the town. It is not easy to paint the distress and confusion of the inhabitants on the occasion. I had but six or seven hours allowed to prepare for this measure, being obliged to embark the same day for Halifax, where we arrived the first of April. This sudden movement prevented me from saving my books, furniture, or any part of my interest, except bedding, wearing apparel, and a little provision for my small family during the passage…” (The Loyalists of Massachusetts

If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It Spread an Universal Alarm against the Authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops and Diocesses and Churches, and Priests and Tythes, were to be imposed upon Us by Parliament. It was known that neither King nor Ministry nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could Tax Us they could establish the Church of England with all its Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tythes, and prohibit all other Churches as Conventicles and Sepism Shops.12

What Adams is saying is that the Revolution was more than just an agitated populace wanting a more just representation in Parliament. The Church of England was using its politically based essence to impose the authority of English Rule on all things pertaining to church and beyond. In addition, it insisted than any other denomination was unlawful (Conventicles) and sick (Sepism Shops). And this included Presbyterians.

❺ Dr Henry Caner represents a great illustration of how certain Episcopalians were considered Tories because of their commitment to the Church of England. Like many of his Episcopal contemporaries, Caner felt compelled to leave the country and flee to England in order to avoid any fallout from having remained loyal to the crown (see sidebar). (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39316/39316-h/39316-h.htm#Footnote_70_70)

The bottom line is that “religion,” specifically Christianity, was not only the philosophical foundation upon which our Founders based their justification for separating from England, it was also the way in which a flawed approach to Scripture was being used by the Church of England to enforce a political agenda.

It was the American clergy during this time – the “Black Robe Regiment” – that placed these Realities before their engaged congregations and in so doing provided the needed resolve, endurance and courage to stand up against tyranny and defeat what was a fundamentally flawed approach to government.

1. “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
2. Ibid
3. “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865“, David Clapp and Son, Boston, MS, 1865,  “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775″p 256
4. “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson: Captain-General and Governor in Chief of His Late Majesty\’s Province of Massachusetts Bay in North America”, S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, England, 1883-1886, p167-169
5. “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution“, James H. Stark, W. B. Clarke Co, Boston, MA., 1807, p8
6. “Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth: Or, Sketches of Life From the Bye-Ways of History“, Benedictine Brethren of Glendalogh, edited by William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. ETC, Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, England, 1842,  p82
7. “Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion”, Page 54. Joseph Galloway, London: G. Wilkie, 1780. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (81)
8. “Pennsylvania Province and State: A History from 1609 to 1790“, Albert S. Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY, 1899, p417
9. “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin”, “Letter in Answer to the Proposition of quitting the Alliance of France”,  Vol 28 https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp, accessed April 14, 2023
10. “Naval Documents of the American Revolution“, Volume VI, edited by William James Morgan, Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1972, p 68
11. “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776,” The Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. William Jones, 12 vols. (London, 1801), Vol. 12, p 356
12. “From John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, 13 February 1818”, “National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854, accessed April 22, 2023