Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part IV

/in , , , /by

Is Homosexuality sinful? There’s some who would insist that it isn’t based on a “trail” of reasons and logic that looks compelling at first, but is revealed as being less than credible once you really pop the hood on Scripture and examine the depth of what God has to say.

Welcome to Part IV!

Objection: The Bible promotes a variety of combinations when it comes to marriage including polygamy and other relationships where the woman is being subjugated and abused.

Overruled: God’s original design in Genesis, which is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, makes it abundantly clear that God’s definition of marriage is one man and one woman. The distortions that man has attempted to assert as acceptable substitutes have never, and will never be, regarded by God as holy, let alone healthy.

Documentation Versus Endorsement (Polygamy)

The problem with this objection is that it assumes that because the Bible chronicles the way in which man fell short of God’s ideal, that his actions are therefore condoned by God. That isn’t the case. Those in the pro-homosexual camp list these, “unions” as being supposedly endorsed in God’s Word:

Biblical Examples of Polygamy
Name Wives Reference
Jacob Leah and Rachel Gen 29:14-30
Gideon many wives Judges 8:30
David many wives 1 Chron 14:3
Solomon hundreds of wives 1 Kings 11:3
Joash Two Wives 2 Chron 24:3
This not a comprehensive list. Rather it shows examples of polygamy among some of the more well known personalities in the Bible.

There are a number of prominent personalities in Scripture who maintained more than one wife. But this wasn’t the original design as dictated by God. When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees in Matthew 19 about the issue of divorce, they were looking for a way to trap him knowing that His response could potentially turn the public against Him in light of the way in which marriage was so commonly practiced and perceived. There were two popular interpretations of the Mosaic Law as documented in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 at that point. One, belonging to the school of Shammai, a well known Jewish scholar of the first century, stated that the phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 declaring that a man could divorce his wife for, “something indecent” referred to adultery. The other school of thought belonging to Hillel, another accomplished Jewish theologian of the first century, believed that, “something indecent” could be something as trivial as a poorly prepared meal.

They were hoping Jesus would side with one of those two camps at which point they could either declare Jesus an opponent of the Law for agreeing with an extremely liberal interpretation of the passage in Deuteronomy, or an enemy of the people because He was threatening a liberty the masses were fond of. Jesus’ response was brilliant. Rather than address those who would attempt to interpret the Law, Jesus instead went to the very beginning, emphasizing how man was created in God’s image and how Holy Matrimony was initially established as one man and one woman united in a bond that was not to be altered or terminated by man (see Gen 2:24 Matt 19:4-6).

When pressed to comment on why Moses had published directions pertaining to divorce, Jesus replied that those directives had been given to Moses by God in order to regulate the damage that had been done to the institution of marriage as a result of the Israelites’ rebellious nature (see Matt 19:8). In that one exchange, Jesus defined any and all unions and / or practices that deviated from God’s original design as being sinful -the only exception being in the instance of adultery. At that point, a person could divorce their adulterous spouse without being condemned. But every other type of divorce along with every humanly concocted version of marriage, be it polygamy or a homosexual union, was defined as sinful and therefore not recognized by Heaven as legitimate, let alone healthy. Polygamy has been a common practice since the days of Genesis. But has been mentioned before, just because the Bible chronicles a particular practice – that doesn’t equate to a Biblical endorsement of that practice.

Joseph Smith & the Mormons

In January of 1838, Oliver Cowdery, one of Joseph Smith’s earliest converts, wrote his brother about a teenager that had spent some time in the Smith household as a servant. Her name was Fanny Alger and Cowdery was convinced that Smith had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her, describing it as the “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his [Smith’s] and Fanny Alger’s.”

Smith didn’t deny the relationship, but refused to define it as adulterous and instead maintained it as a Biblically based example of polygamy. Still the way in which the relationship was veiled by the absence of a formal ceremony and a declaration of her being a “plural wife” only after the relationship was questioned, made it very difficult to regard the relationship as honorable, despite Smith’s attempts to justify it.

Alger would later marry Solomon Custer and raise nine children, leaving her relationship with Smith to be left open to conjecture and speculation.4

Polygamy, that being one husband with two or more wives, is still championed today by a great number of people who passionately cling to a flawed interpretation of God’s Word and will point to several well known Biblical personalities as being examples of God’s favorable disposition towards this practice. Mormons are notorious for engaging in polygamy. Their founder, Joseph Smith, had several, “plural” wives, the first of which was allegedly Fanny Alger. What makes this particular situation problematic is that Smith’s relationship with Alger appeared adulterous in light of there not having been a wedding ceremony which would allow people to recognize Smith’s relationship with Alger as being holy and legally legitimate. In addition, Smith declared Alger a “plural wife” only after the relationship came under scrutiny, hence the ease with which one could point to Smith’s spin on polygamy as being a convenient way to justify extramarital affairs (see sidebar). Still, Smith maintained his innocence and others would follow his example. In the, “Journal of Discourses,” a 26 volume collection of sermons by the early leaders of the Mormon church, Heber C. Kimball, one of the original apostles in the early Latter Day Saint Movement, said:

I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. 3

The problem with that statement is that it ignores Christ’s comments in Matthew 19 – one man, one woman for life. Some will argue that God’s design was intended as a starting point – that other combinations and variations would be considered just as holy once they became possible as a result of more people and more diversity in sexual appetites.

But that’s not an option in light of what Jesus said. By going back to the beginning, He was punctuating the fact that the only union that’s sanctioned in Heaven is the one that God created. Had God intended there to be an option for either divorce or polygamy to exist, He would’ve created, “spares” in order for that dynamic to exist.

Wives & Concubines

For the sake of clarity, it’s healthy to identify the difference between a concubine and a wife, only because some of the more dogmatic proponents of polygamy will reference a particular person as being a polygamist, when in fact he had one wife and a concubine, or perhaps several concubines.

There is a distinction between a concubine and a wife in that the wife was entitled to more in terms of inheritance and overall status. That isn’t to say that a concubine represents a Biblically endorsed substitute for marriage. It is, however, significant in that it shows that even in the midst of a flawed approach to the Divine standard for matrimony, there is still a higher regard for the spouse than there was for the woman who was simply maintained for the sake of bearing children.

The bottom line is that polygamy was introduced into the human equation by man and not by God. To insist that it’s a Divine institution on the same level as the marital relationship He put in place between Adam and Eve that was to serve as a template from that point on is to introduce a Scriptural dynamic that simply isn’t there.

The first time polygamy is mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 4. Lamech, who would later have a son named Noah, was the first man recorded to have more than one wife. Lamech is documented to be an outrageously arrogant and prideful man that boldly proclaimed his independence from God. He was a descendent of Cain and his words and actions indicate his affinity for the same kind of rebellion that inspired Cain to sin against God and kill his own brother. For polygamy to be initiated by one so blatantly opposed to the lordship of his Heavenly Father demonstrates the self serving dynamic that characterizes polygamy in general. It is a deviation from God’s original design, one that was considered serious enough that it justified Christ Himself re-establishing God’s blueprint for one husband and one wife as the only marital relationship considered to be holy.

So, the bottom line is that God’s original design for marriage is the only, “marriage” deemed holy and legitimate. Any relationship that constitutes an edited version of God’s design for Holy Matrimony is neither holy let alone healthy.

A Rapist and His Victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that if a man rapes a woman, he is to pay the father of the victim a fine and then he is to marry the woman he has raped. On the surface ,this seems terribly unfair to the woman, especially if she has no interest in being bound to this man who has violated her. But there’s more to this directive than meets the eye and when you take a moment to study the text as well as the cultural dynamics being addressed, it makes sense. The key is to look at Deuteronomy 22:25. There is a distinction in the way the victim is being described in these two scenarios. In verse 25, you have a woman who is engaged to be married who is now being forced by a rapist to be intimate with him. The verbiage is very clear that she is being forcibly compelled to do what she does not want to do. It’s especially evident in the King James Version:

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. (Dt 22:25 [KJV])

In verses 28-29,however, the victim is described differently:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (Dt 22:28 [KJV])

There isn’t the same element of, “force” in the second scenario and that is significant because the difference in wording signifies that the woman in this case was not an unwilling participant. In verse 25, the man, “forces her and lies with her.” The word, “force” in the Hebrew is “chazaq,” means to prevail and overpower your adversary. In verse 28, he’s described as “laying hold” of the woman. “Laying hold,” in the Hebrew is, “taphas” and it means to “catch” as in to arrest or seize someone. The difference may appear to be nominal, in that there is an aggressive element in both instances, but it’s a distinction nevertheless and therefore is a situation like the one addressed in Exodus 22:16 where the woman has been placed in a compromising position, but not without her consent. “Gils Exposition of the Bible” lays this out in greater detail:

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,…. That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:

and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible [http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries /gills-exposition-of-the-bible/deuteronomy-22-28.html])

You don’t see that difference in other translations in that the word, “seize” is used in verses 25 and 28-29 but once you pop the hood and look at the original Hebrew, the distinction is there and it’s that distinction which allows the directive to make more sense. As far as the way in which the pro-homosexual camp wants to use this verse to cast a shadow of cynicism over the Scriptures that denounce homosexuality and same sex marriage, their logic is again revealed as flawed in that this verse is not adding insult to injury by compelling a victim of a violent crime to marry the guilty party, rather it’s a verse that’s in place in order to discourage sex before marriage. Should two people insist on disobeying God’s law, this Scripture compels them to get married and do things correctly.

Proceed to the final installment, Part V, by clicking here…

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part III

/in , , , /by

Part III of an article designed to answer the question: “Is homosexuality sinful?”

Objection: The Old Testament’s objections pertaining to homosexuality were documented when the earth was still in need of being populated. That’s not the case now, so same sex marriages are permissible. Overruled: The issue isn’t the number of people on the planet, rather it’s the issue of disobeying God’s Instructions (a.k.a. sin).

Sin is against God. The number of people your rebellion affects, while that does matter, is subordinate to the fact that you’ve rebelled against your Heavenly Father. The fact that there were less people in the world when the Pentateuch was written has no bearing on the substance of the moral law that God laid down. If we were to extend the logic of this argument to its inevitable conclusion, then murder wouldn’t be as much of a problem because there are more people today than when God first said, “Thou shalt not kill.” The issue is sin and not the number of people that sin may or may not affect. A great verse to consider when you’re looking for a good example on how to process wrongdoing in general is 2 Samuel 12:13:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam 12:13)

The prophet Nathan had just confronted King David with the fact that he had committed adultery and murder. David killed a man in order to cover up the fact that he had slept with his wife. Bound up within that one scandal, you had two capital offenses (see Lev 20:10; 24:17). Yet, David doesn’t respond according to the way in which a convicted felon might agonize over the manner of justice that’s about to be handed down by the courts, or how his actions affected the surviving family members of his victim. Rather, David responds by acknowledging that his actions, while they are crimes that will be processed and punished by human institutions, they are first and foremost sins against God. However sin pollutes and contaminates an otherwise innocent and healthy situation in a physical sense, it is in the spiritual realm where sin is first registered. Look at these verses:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord. (Gen 13:13)

No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? (Gen 39:9 [Joseph explaining to Potiphar’s wife that the compromise she was encouraging him to make would be registered, not only as a sin against his master, but more importantly, against God.])

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (Ps 51:3-4)

Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. (Lk 15:18 [The confession the Prodigal Son made to his father upon his return.])

Matthew Henry offers some great commentary on this Truth:

That it was committed against God. To him the affront is given, and he is the party wronged. It is his truth that by wilful sin we deny, his conduct that we despise, his command that we disobey, his promise that we distrust, his name that we dishonour, and it is with him that we deal deceitfully and disingenuously. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Psalm 51)

The substance of sin cannot be dismissed by suggesting that because a particular act affected only a few, that it’s no longer categorized as wrongdoing. Granted, the sins of those in Sodom are referenced throughout Scripture as being especially significant in that their acts were not only twisted, they were also blatant (see Is 3:9). And while some want to insist that God loves the sinner and hates the sin, fact is there are some who have worn out their welcome and God allows them to experience the full extent of the consequences their chosen depravity produces (see Ps 11:5; Rom 1:18-32). But the point is that regardless of the intensity of a person’s sin, it is sin and it is an offense against God. The argument that homosexuality is not an issue anymore because an abundance of human offspring is no longer a priority, leaves out the fact that homosexuality is a sin because it is first an affront to God. Whatever dynamics are produced from a human standpoint are secondary to the fact that it is God Who is offended and that is the determining factor. Avoiding sin translates to a quality life Throughout Scripture, you’ve got a formula:

Obedience to God = Blessing | Rebellion Against God = Trouble

First off, if you love God then obedience is expected (see Jn 14:21). Someone who claims to love God, yet maintains a consistent pattern of disobedience to God’s commands falls under the category described in 1 John 3:6:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)

Being obedient isn’t always easy. You see that struggle described in Romans 7 where Paul elaborates on the constant tension that exists between the obvious good represented by being obedient to God’s Leadership and the pointless mirage of seemingly logical and attractive options provided by one’s sinful nature. But while it isn’t easy, it’s more than do-able and the payoff makes the effort more than worth it. The key is to simply let Christ work in and through you:

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ…13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live…(Rom 8:9, 13)

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

To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me. (Col 1:29 [see also Heb 13:20-21])

However attractive or insignificant sin may appear to be, or however trivial a certain sinful behavior seems, it’s counterproductive to the success and prosperity we all long for (see Josh 1:8). So rather than trying to justify it, the smart play is to simply recognize it for what it is and avoid it altogether. To proceed to Part IV click here…

What is That Feeling?

/in , , , /by

What is that “feeling?”

Why do you “feel” a dark presence when you walk into a situation that is celebrating something that God has defined as heinous?

When you’ve got God’s Spirit living in you, it impacts, not only the way you think, but it resonates in that place that constitutes the sum total of who you are (1 Cor 2:12; Eph 1:13-14).

The Bible calls it your heart (see sidebar). It’s more than just your brain or a mere emotion. It’s an awareness that is as unmistakeable as it is substantial.

The Heart

Heart – the inner self that thinks, feels and decides1

The heart is the core of our being, and the Bible sets high importance on keeping our hearts pure…(gotquestions.org)

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. (Prov. 4:23)

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
(Jer 17:9-10)

From within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.
(Mk 7:21-23)

Jesus references it specifically in John 16:

When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (Jn 16:8-11)

In verse 13 of the same chapter, He says:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jn 16:13 [see also Matthew Henry Commentary])

What Does it Look Like?

You can see examples of the way the Spirit guides a person in the way Simeon was “moved by the Spirit” so that he could meet the promised Messiah…

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace. 30 For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” (Lk 2:25-32)

You also see the way the Spirit prevented Paul from making his way into Bythnia…

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (Acts 16:6-7)

No doubt, this gets into subjective territory, but it is real nevertheless.

Observe, It is the great privilege of Christians that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. (Mathew Henry)

Paul talks about us having the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). In Romans, it talks about how the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). So, when you combine the Biblical Realities of God being able to speak through the thoughts you have in your head, as well as the deep seated conviction that the Holy Spirit triggers when God wants to get your attention, you have an empirical basis for the “feeling” you sometimes get when you walk into an environment that doesn’t have God’s approval. Generally speaking, those are not healthy scenarios and you want to remove yourself from that situation, not just because it might make sense to do so, but because you want to be obedient to what God is telling you.

Conviction of sin is one of the rarest things that ever strikes a man. It is the threshold of an understanding of God. Jesus Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came He would convict of sin, and when the Holy Spirit rouses the conscience and brings him into the presence of God, it is not his relationship with men that bothers him, but his relationship with God. (Oswald Chambers)

1. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, p466

Apologizing to a Fool

/in , , , /by

How do you handle someone who insists that you have hurt their feelings, despite the fact that you’ve done nothing wrong?

It seems to me that there’s more to that kind of situation than what some insist is a blanket command to “confess your sins to one another,” in order to fulfill the biblical command to be Christlike.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24)

OK, but if your brother, in this case, is a fool that’s trying to leverage a situation in a way that doesn’t so much help him recover from being wounded, as much as it helps him promote his agenda, that’s not someone who wants an apology, that’s someone who wants power.

In that instance, you want to ensure you’re applying the whole of God’s Word, and not just those portions than can be manipulated in a way where the end result falls short of the Truth.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (Prov 26:4)

If I’m talking to a fool, I’m interacting with a person who’s not hurting as much as they’re hunting for opportunities to conceal their true purpose by posing as someone who’s in pain.

I’m not being Christlike by endorsing a sinful perspective. I’m being complicit, which is neither wise nor obedient.

 

Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?

/in , , , , /by

That was the question on quora. com.

Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.

But this was my response…

It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”

There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).

And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).

One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.

You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.

It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”

Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.

Bad Bunny

/in , , /by

A pastor posted his “struggle” in trying to identify which half time show represented the more Christlike response to the tension created by selecting Bad Bunny as the half time show artist.

This was my response…

Let me get this straight: You’re “struggling” to figure out if the TPUSA half time show option represented more of a Christlike response to the NFL that chose for its half time artist a guy who sings this particular song:

He’s acting like she doesn’t know me (Like she doesn’t know me; no, no, no)
But in my bed, I gave it to her on all fours and in all the positions (In all the positions),
eh I eat her out fully, no one is finding out (JHAYCO)

It’s not that complex. You’ve got a performer who celebrates sexual decadence in his music. That’s not someone I want to listen to and for it to be implied that unless I do listen to it and endorse it as “inclusive,” I’m somehow either a bigot or I’m not especially Christlike, is insane.

And you think because Bad Bunny references the fact that love is superior to hate, that somehow translates to something more aligned with the gospel than Kid Rock’s performance?

Here’s what the Bible says:

First of all, Satan quoted Scripture (Matt 4:5-6). Just because you reference a biblical Truth, unless it’s quoted in its proper context, it’s nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. “Love,” as referenced by folks who see themselves as their own bottom line, are not referring to “love” as its defined in 1 Corinthians 13, in that their idea of love absolutely delights in evil.

The Bible says to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 4). Bad Bunny has denounced the enforcement of immigration law and you can read some more his sexually perverse lyrics by visiting https://www.vibe.com/lists/bad-bunny-songs-translated-into-english/titi-me-pregunto/.

Kid Rock’s performance began with a rehearsal of what he used to be, followed by an extended string section that then segued into a tune where he sang about the transforming Power of Christ.

And you’re trying to figure out which of those most closely aligned with a Christlike perspective?

And let’s end this dilemma about “judging.” Jesus never said not to judge (John 7:24; Eph 5:11). He said not to make things worse by being a hypocrite (Mat 7:3-5). If you were to extend your interpretation of Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, you would be hard pressed to present the gospel because of it being seemingly “wrong” to address someone as a sinner.

You’re not wrong in recognizing that this tension is a spiritual one and it isn’t remedied by an alternative broadcast (Eph 6:12). But we are commanded to be salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and both of those get totally lost when you endorse decadence as a ministry.

The choice was obvious to anyone who’s looking at the Bible as a whole, as opposed to some judiciously selected verses that conveniently allow a person to take a seat rather than taking a stand.

Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist

/in , , , , /by

Jesus wasn’t a Socialist.

At no point does Jesus try to classify people into two categories, as far as those who own the means of production and those who don’t.

That’s the supposed problem that Socialism tries to solve – the idea that rich people are corrupt and poor people are oppressed. To solve that problem, Socialism controls both the supply and the demand and categorizes anyone who would attempt to disagree as being opposed to the concept of sharing and the common good.

The problem is that when you replace personal responsibility with a default corporate endorsement, the end result allows for a toxic level of mismanagement and neglect that leads to poverty and death.

Jesus praised and promoted industry, not subsidies in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30). In the same chapter, He emphasized accountability in the first 13 verses. The book of Proverbs is rife with condemnations of the “sluggard” (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14). 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

Thomas Sowell said that the strongest argument for Socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against Socialism is that it doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher echoed the same sentiment when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you inevitably run out of someone’s else’s money.

Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: Those who want to appear compassionate without having to sacrifice anything, and those who want to be given what they would otherwise have to earn.

Sharing and Compassion are obviously promoted in Scripture. But sharing is not controlling, nor is compassion a subsidy. Both, in the sense that they are commanded in Scripture, are voluntary acts of service and obedience that are ultimately done as a way to honor God, not compulsory gestures of good will designed to empower the government.

According to What You Prefer

/in , , , /by
A question on Quora came up that asked how you can support President Trump as a Christian.
As you can imagine, there are people, both unbelievers and believers, who are hell bent on insisting that you can’t call yourself a Christian if you support President Trump.
I weighed in because I believe in the empty tomb. And I also believe that you don’t necessarily support a personality as much as you support the policies that he champions.
But that doesn’t register with some people. They’re determined to believe that anyone with a manner and a past that doesn’t line up with what they would prefer is not only unsuitable for any leadership position, but anyone who supports such an individual is obviously not a believer.
Here’s the last response I got:
…the Word of God says friendship with the world is enmity with God! That we’re either hot or cold, lukewarm individuals He said He’d spit them out! There is no way ANY child of the Holy and Righteous God can support DJT and what he’s doing and how he’s doing it! He is like his father the devil and is doing his father’s bidding! And I don’t use the word Christian anymore because some have just muddled it up😟! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Here’s how I responded:
Remember how Jesus was tempted? Satan actually quoted Scripture, but he took it out of its original context. My relationship with Christ is based on the empty tomb, not the way I vote (Rom 10:9–10).
That’s the first thing…
Secondly, I don’t support adultery or vulgarity. But that didn’t stop me from serving in the Marine Corps or pursuing a career as a national recording artist or being employed in general. If you extend your rationale to it’s inevitable conclusion, you don’t have a mission field, you have a support group (1 Cor 5:9–10).
Third, my support of President Trump is based on his policies, not his theology. King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).
Fourth, if you refuse to engage the world as it is and support those who God is using, despite their manner or their past, you’re not being Christlike, you’re being disobedient. (Mk 9:39–40; 1 Cor 5:9–10). What makes sin heinous is not so much the sin, as much as it’s Who you’re sinning against. From that standpoint, if we use your approach, no one is qualified to lead. And I’m not saying that you excuse bad behavior by saying “We’re all sinners.” I’m saying you don’t dismiss however God is working simply because it’s not packaged according to what you prefer.

Broaden Your Base

/in /by

If you’re a hockey fan at all, you may have heard about the “bongo anthem” – a unique version of the National Anthem sung by Bruce Gust, a nine year veteran of the USMC and a former national recording artist. While it’s been referenced in multiple news outlets, it got yet another boost recently on ESPN’s TikTok channel where in the space of only 3 days, it got over 3 million views.

As it turns out, Bruce has got an interesting resume that includes having sung and played with a band that broke the Country Music Top 40, in addition to having served in the USMC for nine years, five of which were as a Drum Instructor at the Armed Forces School of Music. He credits his career path to a piece of advice he got from a retired Marine Corps Major when he was getting ready to graduate High School…

High School Graduation

Eastman Community Music School – Eastman School of MusicYears ago, when I was getting ready to graduate High School, I sat down with a retired Marine Corp Major who gave me some counsel as I was attempting to navigate my options after graduation. He suggested that I “broaden my base.” He went on to explain that when you broaden your base, you’re making choices that afford you more opportunities, rather than those d

ecisions that unnecessarily regulate you to a limited number of options.

I decided to enlist in the Marine Corps. My rationale at the time was I wanted to serve, given my Dad’s recommendation, and I was determined to go to college – an aspiration I figured the military could help finance in some way, though I wasn’t completely sure what major I wanted to pursue. It was an audition for the Marine Corps band program, however, that initiated a professional trajectory that truly “broadened my base.”

I had been attending the Eastman School of Music Preparatory Department (now the Eastman Community School), studying under Ruth Cahn, one of the principle percussionists with the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. Under her guidance, I was exposed to mallet percussion as well as orchestral snare. That, coupled with my involvement with my High School’s music program positioned me in a way that made me a strong candidate for training as a military musician.

The Marine Corps

I went to Parris Island and from there reported to the Armed Forces School of Music (Modern Drummer did an article about the School while I was an Instructor there). I spent two years in Hawaii and then came back to the School and became a Drum Instructor.

As a drummer in the military, you are required to be able to function in a variety of playing situations. In the morning, you may do a colors ceremony, where you’ll be playing rudimental snare. Later that day, you’ll be in a concert band rehearsal where you’re playing bells, orchestral snare, and timpani. Later that night, you’re behind the kit playing selections that require a familiarity with swing, and several latin styles.

In addition, in order to graduate from the School of Music, you have to successfully complete courses in Theory and Ear Training. As a non-commissioned officer, the Intermediate Course takes that same training a step further and you’re now learning traditional harmony and how to arrange for a stage band. And this is on top of qualifying with your rifle and keeping your physique in line with military physical fitness requirements.
It’s a phenomenal program and several drumming icons including Steve Gadd and Billy Cobham are among those who have served as military musicians.
As an instructor, you have to be able to teach and lead by example. All of what’s expected in your students has to be personified in both your appearance and your ability to demonstrate the skills they need to learn. It’s both an inspiring and sobering responsibility and provides a huge incentive to be more than just adequate.
It was while I was serving as a Drum Instructor that I finished my degree in Business Management by attending night school – a program I began while stationed at Pearl Harbor. Now I’m practicing more than I might otherwise and my study habits are more focused in part because of the way the Marine Corps emphasizes discipline.
I was about a year away from my discharge that I was introduced to Norman Miller who used me on a project featuring his wife, Sheila Walsh, a successful Contemporary Christian Music artist, who was co-hosting the 700 Club with Pat Robertson at the time. That lead to me being his drummer for another project he produced called the Young Messiah Tour, which featured an entire roster of Contemporary Christian music icons.

Handel's Young Messiah - Handel's Young Messiah - Amazon.com Music
So, what began in Boot Camp was now a chance to tour as a college graduate with people whose albums I owned. After the tour, I moved to Nashville. I joined Two Rivers Baptist Church and it was in the context of playing in the church orchestra that I met some talented musicians who were looking to start a country band.

Western Flyer

Together we formed the band, “Western Flyer.” Initially, I was a little hesitant, however, having cut my teeth on Jazz Fusion. I had been part of Jazz Trio that played music by Spyro Gyra, David Sanborn, Jeff Lorber, and others. And while I had played and sang in a band in Virginia that played Top 40, Country Music was not part of my musical vocabulary and singing parts was uncharted territory.

But instead of restricting my opportunities to only those styles that resonated as familiar, I again chose to “broaden my base.” As it turned out, although we were categorized as a country band, we all had influences that extended beyond a singular genre. Instead of being compelled to follow a conventional template, I was encouraged to apply concepts I had gleaned from some of Dave Weckl’s instructional content to our title cut. It was Steve Gadd’s approach to “Friends” by Chick Corea that informed my approach to another one of the selections on our first album. In addition, it was the Ear Training I learned at the School of Music that helped me get up to speed when it came to singing harmony.

Western Flyer would tour all over the country. We were featured on national television and my engagement to my future bride was announced in Country Weekly magazine. But, while it’s tempting to think that a record deal translates to a career, that’s not always the case. Regardless of how many arenas you play, or how popular your songs are on the radio, the business side of it can sometimes override your aspirations and you wind up having to reinvent yourself in order to pay your bills.

It’s here where the counsel of that Marine Corps major would surface once again. While being a former national recording artist is a prestigious credential, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee you opportunities as a studio musician or even a position as a touring drummer. But instead of resolving to define myself exclusive according to my drum kit, I chose to “broaden my base.”

More Opportunities

I became a Corporate Trainer and taught myself web programming. I then expanded my portfolio to the point where I would secure a position as a full-time web developer.

Simultaneously, I wrote a book on how to play the drums. That translated to clinics that occurred throughout the country. I made my activity known to Pintech, Peavey, and Taye Drums and they responded by providing the necessary gear to perform at these events. And by drawing from my training in Arranging, theory, and chord progression at the School of Music, I created a play-along series based on arrangements of hymns designed to feature the drummer.

Given my military background and a commitment to fitness, I got certified as a Group Fitness Instructor and developed an audio workout system featuring…drums! You can see it at https://loosecannonfitness.com/

Lasting Impressions: Thank You, Benjamin Franklin!The NHL performance that has since gone viral was the result of a conversation with the mother of one of my drum students who happened to work as part of the Nashville Predators who was able to contact me with the right people who then got me on the ice.

Your Signature

Many of those who pick up a drumstick see their musical fulfillment defined according to a very narrow collection of criteria. They will, in some cases, make unhealthy sacrifices in pursuit of a goal that sometimes proves either illusive or less than satisfying.

But there’s a prize to be won that provides a level of fulfillment that doesn’t depend on circumstances and opportunities that one can’t always control. It’s both accessible and motivating and it all comes down to “broadening your base.”

Benjamin Franklin was an incredibly accomplished individual. He signed the Declaration of Independence, he was a part of the Constitutional Convention, and he was there to sign the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, he invented the Franklin Stove, he was revered throughout the world as the one who developed the lighting rod. He invented the Public Library, the postal service, and organized the very first volunteer Fire Department. Given all these accomplishments, it’s interesting to note that he often signed his name, “B. Franklin, Printer.”

As musicians, we are similar. We have the capacity to contribute in ways that go beyond a solitary passion, yet maintain a signature that acknowledges our favored pursuit. Consider some of the most successful musicians. In many cases, not only are they singers or instrumentalists, they’re also entrepreneurs that maintain successful business ventures. They don’t see multiple obligations as distractions. Rather, they see them as additions to a platform characterized by healthy priorities and a variety of professional accomplishments.

They have “broadened their base.”

When you do that, you’re not longer restricted in seeing your craft as either a full-time effort or a side hustle. Rather, you see yourself as a conglomeration of skills and talents that, taken together, translate to a full color resume and the opportunities that result.

The SIC-ness of the Left

/in , , /by

There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.

But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.

They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.

Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.

When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.

Buckle up!

I Am My Own Absolute

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

It breaks down into three main poisons:

Three Poisons

Truth

Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.

People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.

Right

A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.

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

The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.

That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.

Victim

A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

S.I.C

People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.

Rules for Radicals

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…

Stupid (They’re not qualified)

Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Immoral (They can’t be trusted)

Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.

Criminal (They can’t be supported)

The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.

Untouchable

Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

Joseph Goebbels was a National Socialist politician and propagandist. He held several roles in the Nazi Party. He served as Nazi Party chief for Greater Berlin from 1926 until 1945. From 1930 until 1945 he was head of propaganda (Reichspropagandaleiter) for the Nazi Party. In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, a position he held until 1945. Goebbels was an unconditional follower of Hitler and a radical antisemite. (Holocaust Encyclopedia).

This is a portion of a speech he made to an audience gathered in Nuremberg in 1934 where he talked about the power and the influence of propaganda…

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about German soldiers chopping off children’s hands and crucifying women to realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense. (Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934)

This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.

What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).

Ask the Right Questions

Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.

There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.

Simply ask the right questions.

Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.

When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.

You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.

Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.

Illegal Immigration
Question Answer
Who said the following: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama in a speech given in 2005 (Obama’s 2005 remarks reflect strong stance on controlling immigration. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history (abcnews.com)
Who said this: “I think if they committed a crime, deport them immediately! No questions asked…” Hillary Clinton, 2008
Which administration has deported the most illegal immigrants? Obama or Trump? The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in the 20th century. According to the Department of Homeland Security, that number was around 3 million. The Trump Administration has deported only 675,000. 2.2 million have self-deported.

For more info on the way the Democrat party has changed their attitude towards illegal immigrants, Nicole Russell from USA Today wrote a great piece which you can access by clicking here.
Is entering the country illegally a crime, or is just a civil infraction? Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. (American Immigration Council).

However…

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien)

While it is possible to apply for naturalization, that only can be done if you initially entered the US legally. Should you try to leave the US and re-enter according to Immigration Law, you’re barred from doing so for a period of at least 3 years. If you try to re-enter illegally, that is considered a felony.

But an illegal immigrant engaged in criminal activity is to be immediately deported with no questions asked.
Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.(Prov 9:8)
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov 18:12)
Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe. (Prov 28:26)
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. (Ecc 4:5)
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. (Ecc 7:6)

While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.

In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).

Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…

The Truth…