Posts

Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

/in , , , /by

I) Trump / Pence 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II) But What About Trump?

But what about Trump?

Bigot?

Typhoon?

Hates Women, Warmonger?

Hates Veterans?

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

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

III) Combat Veterans

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

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

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

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

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

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

This brings up a good point.

IV) I Voted for Cruz

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

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

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

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

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

He’s a very talented business man.

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

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

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

Think…

V) For the Record

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

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

He’s Rich

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

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

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

Born Into Privilege

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

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

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

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

John McCain and the Military Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

I didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the bottom line:

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

Where does Trump fall in all of this?

Is he wrong?

Yes.

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

Own it.

Apologize.

He has.

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

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

No.

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

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

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

VI) Connecting the Dots

Here’s the bottom line:

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

Why?

Is it because of what he says?

To some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m voting for Trump.

VII) Parting Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alinski disagreed.

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

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

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

VIII) Conclusion

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

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

It’s twisted, but it’s real.

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

I will vote for Donald Trump.

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

Trump’s Lies

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that’s not the case…

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

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

Go God, boo devil!

1) What prompted you to put this project together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) What is “truthful hyperbole?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who defines what’s moral?

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

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

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

Psalm 20:7:

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

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

The Real Contest

/1 Comment/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)

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

To some extent, you can’t help but wonder why? If he’s no longer in office, than there’s no reason to be concerned that his policies will make their way into the public sphere given the fact that he’s no longer in a position of authority.

But there’s more to Trump than just him being a political figure. He represents a different approach to politics that makes some very uneasy because of the way it reveals the lack of ethics and efficiency typical of big government and the Liberal perspective in general.

Ultimately, Trump’s platform translates to a result that’s very difficult to argue with, given the way it serves our country’s best interests. But that doesn’t change the fact that those who dislike him are especially passionate in their disdain and an intelligent conversation can be a real challenge because of the way they’re conditioned to perceive Trump as evil along with anyone who would come to his defense.

And it’s not just Liberals.

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

So, why Trump? Why would anyone support Donald J. Trump?

 Executive Summary

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

 I) God & Politics

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

 II) Your Best Option

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

 III) Who is Your Source?

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

 IV) Trees and Policies

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

I) God and Politics

A) God Cares

Some will insist that God doesn’t care about Politics. Because it doesn’t directly impact a person’s soul and the fact that it can be a very divisive issue to the point where a conversation about Christ becomes difficult due to the way in which political topics can poison a dialogue, the tendency is to avoid it altogether and believe that God is basically indifferent to who gets elected and what goes on in the halls of government. That’s absurd. First of all, it’s God Who establishes kings and those who are in positions of authority (Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13). So, to say that He’s not concerned is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates governments to begin with.

B) God’s Side

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

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

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

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

God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility

If God is Sovereign, what’s the point of voting? If He’s the One Who, “…removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan 2:21), what part, if any, does the Electoral College play in legitimately “selecting” a President if God’s already made His Choice? The world is not a runaway train travelling out of control with nothing other than the forces of chance acting upon it. God is in control and you see that it in Isaiah:

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

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

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

However difficult it may be to reconcile the idea that we are free to choose or that we have a legitimate role to play in a process that God has already completed, it really isn’t that hard when you consider the fact that God is All-Knowing (1 Jn 3:20) and therefore He doesn’t have to guess how we’re going to choose. That’s how our free will and God’s Sovereignty work together. It’s not that God forces us to function in a certain way as much as He knows our thoughts before we’re even aware of them ourselves (Ps 139:1-4) and from that perspective, He is therefore able to Plan while simultaneously empowering us with a legitimate freedom of choice. That’s why it’s important to pray and to engage the world around us because He’s working through our obedience and our point of view to accomplish His Purposes. The fact that we’re saved is a result of God having preordained it (Rom 8:29-30) doesn’t change the fact that He used the choice of another human being to obey their King and communicate the words that needed to be said in order for us to be redeemed (Rom 10:14-15). Dr. John MacArthur does a great job of summarizing that idea in a two minute audio recording that you can listen to by clicking here. The fact that God is in charge is a good thing, given the alternative of a pointless chaos with no rules or processes that can be known and understood. And while the fact that God is in control can seem problematic given the pain He allows the world to choose, it’s His Sovereignty that justifies hope and confidence in the future as well as the trust we can place in His command to pray and to work knowing that it’s His Purposes being accomplished in and through us (Rom 8:26-28; Phil 2:12-13).

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

The fact that the man replied by saying that he was neither on the side of the Israelites nor the Canaanites was not indicative of God being neutral and detached from the situation. The fact that it was God working through the Israelites that resulted in the successful siege of Jericho demonstrates that God was obviously invested in seeing the city destroyed. The point that was being made is that we don’t need to be asking whether or not God is on our side as much as we need to ensure that we are on God’s side and operating according to His Instructions and overall Purpose.

C) Why Bother?

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

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

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

The fact that our prayers are referenced as an act that makes a difference reinforces the idea that our involvement is both mandated and effective.

II) Your Best Option

A) The Template That Works

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

Those ideals go beyond human preferences or sensible philosophical options and it’s because they’re rooted in a transcendent Absolute that they can be asserted as functional bottom lines. The best qualified candidates for political office are those that possess the talent and the mindset that best facilitate those bottom lines – not just because they’re consistent with a successful history, but because of the way they’re based on Something that transcends human opinion and therefore avoids all of the corruption that characterizes the human condition.

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

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

B) There’s Only Two Religions

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

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

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

Divine Guidance

I am not to be understood to infer that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new Federal Constitution; yet I must own that I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of so much importance to the welfare of millions now in existence, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered  to pass with being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent and beneficent  Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being. 1(Benjamin Franklin) For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.2 (Alexander Hamilton on the ratification of the Constitution) It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution.3 (James Madison) I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament were the effects of a Divine power.4 (Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence)

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

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

C) The General Principles of Christianity

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

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

This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture. However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource. Samuel Adams had this to say:

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

John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:

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

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

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

Christianity or Deism?

Regardless of the volumes of correspondence and documentation that demonstrates the Founders had  a decidedly Christian approach to themselves and the world around them, there is a determined effort on the part of some historians to either eliminate a Biblical influence on the minds of those who crafted our country’s governments entirely, or dilute it with the claim that many of our forefathers were Deists. Deism rejects the Resurrection of Christ. So, from that standpoint, Deism is nothing more than a human philosophy because if Christ is not revered as God Incarnate, then you’re not accepting God’s Word as Absolute Truth and you’re positioning human reason over Divine Revelation. By reducing the Founders’ regard for the Son of God to a noble teacher, the resulting perspective on the Founders’ view of Christianity is far less “spiritual” and substantially more “rational.” The Bible becomes less of an Absolute and more of  a code of ethics than it is anything else and has no real bearing on practical matters and it provides a logical justification for establishing man as his own bottom line. And while “spiritual” verbiage may be utilized from time to time, in the end, God is a literary appliance that’s added for effect as opposed to a transcendent Truth that inspires, evaluates and strengthens the heart of man and the destiny of a nation. There is a problem, however, in concluding that the faith of our Founders was either casual or unorthodox. Contemporary historians and sociologists will often introduce certain assumptions in order to arrive at the situation that best matches their philosophical preferences. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to George Washington as a Christian Deist. A Christian Deist, by definition, doesn’t believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And while Britannica goes on to say that Washington’s family and personal clergy should be given precedence over the,”…opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death,”8 Washington’s adopted daughter, who lived with the General for 20 years, testified in a letter to Jared Sparks, who published an eleven volume work that cataloged the writings of Washington entitled, “The Writings of George Washington,” that Washington was very involved in his local church, his character was Christlike and when he died, it was evident from her standpoint that both Martha and he were confident that he was being welcomed into the arms of His Savior. This is not consistent with the idea that Washington was a Deist. It becomes even more questionable when you look at his prayer journal and see how the idea that he believed Jesus to be Anyone other than the Son of God can be immediately dismissed:

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

While a human being is incapable of fully knowing another person’s faith and their redeemed status in the sight of God, assuming a secular approach to Christ simply because it matches your preferred perspective on the extent to which the Founders invoked and depended on the Savior revealed in Scripture is both academically and practically irresponsible. You see that intellectual recklessness in the example above with George Washington. While Deism was a part of the religious landscape in the 18th century, to assume that it was the preferred creed of the Founders requires an intentional dismissal of the comments and the behavior they exhibited which positioned Christ as Risen and the Bible as Absolute.

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

D) They Weren’t Really Christians…

Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).

In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).

The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd. Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).

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

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

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

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

E) Slave Owners

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

While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress. How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings? 

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

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

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

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

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

The Signers of the Declaration: What Did They Lose?

There’s a popular essay that is sometimes published during the fourth of July timeframe that details the sacrifices made by those who signed the Declaration of Independence. It’s inspiring to see what they risked and sobering to see what some actually lost. What’s both frustrating and disconcerting is the way some “fact checkers” seize upon some details of the essay and advance the impression that it’s more of a romantic exaggeration than it is anything else. Anytime you exaggerate, you risk sacrificing the credibility of whatever point you’re trying to make. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were all remarkable men and displayed incredible courage by fixing their signatures to a document they knew could bring about their deaths. You don’t need to embellish the truth. By the same token, you don’t need to point out discrepancies in a way that trivializes the very sacrifices that afford you the right to be critical. For example, in an article published by USAToday entitled, “Fact check: Decades-old essay about Declaration of Independence signatories is partly false,” they make their point with examples from the essay such as this one:

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

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

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

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

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

To say that the essay is wrong because, “But the caveat for both is that these tragedies did not occur because they signed the Declaration. The occurrences were unrelated side effects of the war itself.” is to introduce a standard of scrutiny that’s deployed for the sake of distracting from the truth rather than pointing people to it. The point being made is that Francis Lewis lost his home and his wife in the War for Independence. Whether or not the British knew his name and had targeted him specifically doesn’t change the fact that Lewis’ signature was on the document that had precipitated the war to begin with. So, from that perspective there’s nothing being said that’s inappropriate or dishonest. But this is nevertheless the approach that’s often taken by people who want to distract from the truth of what’s being said in order to make the message they would imply appear more credible.

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

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

F) Sin

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

While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal. In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair.

Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20). The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.

This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person. You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls.

We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness. And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.

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

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

III) Conclusion (Part I)

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth | Part One: Ask the Right Questions

/0 Comments/in , /by

That’s Your Opinion

You can’t expect someone to admit that they’re wrong if they’re unwilling to acknowledge a standard beyond themselves. And because they see themselves as their own absolute, they don’t hear your corrections or criticisms as anything other than a form of oppression. To their way of thinking, you’re not questioning their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

You’re not championing what’s true as much as you’re promoting what you prefer. Should you be a politician,  you’re not a leader as much as you are a fascist and a dictator.

Regardless of how many facts you’ve compiled or however compelling the evidence may be, when there are no standards and only situations in the mind of the person you’re conversing with, your entire platform can be dismissed simply by them saying, “That’s your opinion.”

Christ Asked Them the Right Questions

When confronted with that kind of approach, you want to use the same tactic that Christ used when He was talking with the Pharisees in the way He asked them questions.

  • “Whose image is this…?” (Mk 12:16)
  • “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:9)
  • “If I’m telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (Jn 8:46)

When you ask a question, in that moment, you control the conversation and you compel an answer that prevents certain assumptions from going unchallenged. At the same time, you’re able to ensure certain realities are acknowledged that might otherwise be intentionally ignored. With the right question, you can reveal the Truth as well as those who are opposed to it because of how the only logical answer forces them to admit that they’re wrong.

What qualifies my belief system as both logical and accurate is the extent to which my thought process is consistent with reality. I demonstrate my perspective’s consistency with reality by producing evidence that proves what I believe is correct. That’s how you distinguish a preference from a principle and that is how you reveal someone who doesn’t want to know what’s true as much as they simply want to be told they’re right.

But you can’t always introduce evidence into a conversation because of the way some will try to categorize even the most compelling proof as subjective and therefore no more significant than an irrelevant observation.

But when you ask the right question…

You’re able to proceed directly to that place where there’s either an answer or an excuse.

Conclusion: A Reality Greater Than Themselves

When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was inscribed on Roman currency, He was forcing the Pharisees to acknowledge how God commands obedience to the authorities that He Himself has instituted, while simultaneously articulating the greater Truth of how we are to render obedience and surrender our lives to the the One Whose Image we bear. (Jer 29:4-10; Rom 13:1-14; 1 Pet 2:13-17 [see also Acts 5:29]).

That’s the approach you want to use when it comes to defending your convictions about the Reality of the empty tomb, moral absolutes, the spiritual heritage of our country, and even your political convictions.

1 Peter 3:15 says:

But in your hearts revere 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

Your “answer” needs to include questions that you can ask should you be confronted with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to be confirmed as their own judge and jury. As long as they maintain themselves as the gauge by which the accuracy of all things are measured, the only thing that will allow for the truth to be revealed is a question that cannot be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than themselves.