Monthly Archives: June 2021

by

Daily Broadside | Marx Followed Rosseau with a Violent Twist

Daily Verse | Psalm 100:1
Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth.

It’s Wednesday and the last day of June, meaning we’ve hit the mid-point of 2021. On the downside, it means we’ve survived only one eighth of Resident Biden’s reign—seven more to go (grrr!). On the upside, we’ve completed one quarter on our way to the 2022 mid-terms. Only three quarters to go until we place a check on the junior commies in the White House. So there’s that.

Yesterday I started what will be a short series of posts (inspired by a chapter in Andrew Breitbart’s Righteous Indignation) in which I want to explain the source of the insanity currently gripping our country. It’s called cultural Marxism, and it has deep roots reaching back to the Enlightenment (or the Age of Reason) from about 1685-1815. If you missed yesterday’s post, you can read it here: CULTURAL MARXISM GOT ITS START IN THE 1700s.

To quickly recap, Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) posited that human beings are basically good but that “society” corrupted them. The overriding concern of his work was,

“to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world where human beings are increasingly dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs. This concern has two dimensions: material and psychological, of which the latter has greater importance. In the modern world, human beings come to derive their very sense of self from the opinion of others, a fact which Rousseau sees as corrosive of freedom and destructive of individual authenticity. In his mature work, he principally explores two routes to achieving and protecting freedom: the first is a political one aimed at constructing political institutions that allow for the co-existence of free and equal citizens in a community where they themselves are sovereign; the second is a project for child development and education that fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest” (emphasis mine).

In Rousseau’s mind, the solution was a new “social contract” based on the “general will” which embodied the entire will of the people (RI, p.108). The idea of changing society interested Karl Marx (1818–1883), who picked up on Rousseau’s philosophy and made it his own.

Marx saw all of history as a series of “class struggles” but, contrary to Rousseau, believed that human nature was formed by the surrounding society. This led him to believe that if “human nature was to be changed, it could be changed only by destroying the surrounding society” (RI, ibid.).

In addition, Marx incorporated Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s dialectic theory into his philosophy. The term “dialectics” means a process of resolving conflict between two opposing sides that results in a “linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later.“

For Marx, that meant that “capitalism carried the seeds of its own destruction—capitalism (thesis) would be faced with the wealth gap that capitalism creates (antithesis), and that wealth gap would be solved by socialism/communism (synthesis)” (RI, ibid.).

In sum, Rousseau believed that men and women were basically good, that society corrupted them, and the solution was to form a different kind of society. Marx picked up where Rosseau left off, believing that society corrupted human nature but that the solution was to destroy the surrounding society. In both cases, Rousseau and Marx believed that the current society had to be replaced, and that “communism” was the solution.

You can see the faintest forms taking shape in their philosophical viewpoints that we recognize today. Tomorrow we’ll take a look at how this thinking came to America.

by

Daily Broadside | Cultural Marxism Got Its Start in the 1700s

Daily Verse | Psalm 97:10
Let those who love the Lord hate evil,
for he guards the lives of his faithful ones
and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Happy Tuesday, my friends. It’s good to be back in the digital saddle after a couple of weeks away from the keyboard. A hearty “THANK YOU!” to my friend, Bruce Gust, at muscularchristianity.com, who admirably filled in for me during my absence. His writing adds a different flavor to daveolsson.com and I’m hoping we’ll hear more from him in the future.

One of the things I’ve learned while blogging is that a lot of my discretionary time is eaten up every evening, which leaves me less time for doing something else that I love—reading. What I love about reading is learning, because learning enlarges knowledge, understanding and imagination.

Parenthetically, that’s why tyrannical regimes always burn books or, in our day, get them cancelled on Amazon. Can’t have the peasants thinking for themselves, can we? Independent thinking poses a threat to the experts with the guns. I encourage anyone with young kids to regularly read to them and, as they get older, to give them books to read on their own and then to discuss what they learned in their reading. Get them thinking independently!

That’s why I made it a point to bring several books with me while vacationing, including a couple of novels, a commentary on the Gospel of John, two political books and three sociology books. No, I didn’t read them all—there was sleeping and beaching to do!—but Andrew Breitbart’s Righteous Indignation proved to be the most potent for me.

CULTURAL MARXISM

In chapter six Breitbart traces, in the most lucid and easy-to-follow explanation I’ve ever read, the roots and evolution of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism encompasses everything that seems upside-down in America these days, from the anarchy of Antifa to the 1619 Project to BLM to transgenderism—(hey, by the way, did you see that SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a school board’s transgender bathroom ban, effectively making transgender bathroom use the law of the land? Newly minted justice Amy Comey Barrett sided with the libs. Great to have such a staunch Catholic on the court in whom the “dogma lives loudly”!)—to Critical Race Theory (CRT) to tearing down statues to cancel culture to fake personal pronouns to open borders to … you name it, it’s all of a piece.

I knew that cultural Marxism came out of the German Frankfurt School in the mid-1940s, but this chapter, called “Breakthrough,” put all of the pieces together, from the philosophical foundations to the practical outworking that we are experiencing today.

Over the next couple of days, I want to outline it for you, too. I expect that most of us who pay attention to the news are shocked by the flood of insanity that we witness night after night, day after day, from coast to coast. If you want to know why it’s happening, we need to understand what is happening, where it came from, and what, if anything, we might be able to do about it.

So I’ll start with the philosophical underpinnings of cultural Marxism and quote Breitbart where it makes sense (and throughout this series of posts).

THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CULTURAL MARXISM

This is where it all starts. You’ve heard the phrase, “ideas have consequences”? They do indeed, and the ideas that gave birth to cultural Marxism have reverberated down through the centuries. And, I might add, they are straight from the pit of hell.

The seeds of cultural Marxism are found in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), the Swiss-born philosopher, political theorist, composer, novelist, botanist and pioneer of the autobiography. His view of humanity and thus the foundation of his philosophy is that “human beings are good by nature but are rendered corrupt by society.” Rousseau also believed that modern society destroyed the natural state of communism that originally existed in human communities.

Although born in Geneva, Switzerland—the home of John Calvin—Rousseau’s belief that humans are naturally good flies in the face of what the Bible teaches: that mankind is born corrupted and evil.

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”

— Romans 3:10-12

On the other hand, our Founders knew the truth about human nature. Writes Breitbart:

“To sum up, the Founders’ view was this: human nature is variable and requires training in virtue; no government should be given too much power, or the people comprising that government will use the power in the worst ways possible; individual freedom, when used within the boundaries of morality, is the highest good” (p. 107).

Rousseau believed that there needed to be a new “social contract” in which the “general will” of the people prevailed. Modern society itself was the problem. Re-ordering modern society was the solution. Sound familiar?

We’ll look at the next phase of development tomorrow.

by

Don’t Judge!

“Don’t judge!” is a statement that’s heard fairly often when the issue being discussed is a person’s moral behavior. If the individual in question is acting in a manner that violates a Biblical Absolute, however obvious the discrepancy may be, it is trumped with the “Don’t judge” card and the conversation is supposedly concluded.

If the response is challenged, the person saying that they shouldn’t be judged will say that it says in the Bible you’re not supposed to judge and, whether they know it or not, they’re referring to Matthew 7:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 [see also Rom 2:1-29])

But here’s the thing: There’s far more content in this passage than what is reflected by the supposed synopsis represented by the statement, “Don’t judge!” If you stop there, then the end result is a situation where there is no distinguishing between right and wrong, justice goes out the window because there is no crime and there is no difference between that which is honorable and that which is criminal.

But what happens when you take a look at Matthew 7:1-5 the way a reporter might look at it?

  • Who is Jesus talking to?
  • What is He telling them?
  • How does it apply to you and me?

Chances are there’s more to what Christ was saying when you consider those dynamics, yes?

Let’s take a look…

Who Is Jesus Talking To?

Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. In Matthew 5:1, it says that by this point Jesus was well known and crowds would often gather to hear Him teach (see Matt 4:25). He was a dynamic teacher and that coupled with the fact that He was capable of healing people with incurable diseases made Him a phenomenon that drew large groups of people wherever He went.

The makeup of the crowd was primarily Jewish which can be inferred from the geography of the situation. After Christ was tempted, you see Him frequenting the area around the Sea of Galilee where He selected some of His disciples. In Matthew 4:23, it says that He preached and taught throughout Galilee, although His fame spread as far north as Syria and the Decapolis (a group of 10 cities area south of Galilee and east of the Jordan River).

The composition of the crowd is significant because in Matthew 9:36, it says that Jesus was filled with compassion when He looked over the crowds because, in addition to the obvious physical needs, He saw a group of people that were spiritually haggard. Matthew Henry in his commentary elaborates on this:

They wanted help for their souls, and had none at hand that was good for any thing. The scribes and Pharisees filled them with vain notions, burthened them with the traditions of the elders, deluded them into many mistakes, while they were not instructed in their duty, nor acquainted with the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law; therefore they fainted; for what spiritual health, and life, and vigour can there be in those souls, that are fed with husks and ashes, instead of the bread of life? (Matthew Henry Commentary [Matt 9:36])

The Jews that gathered to hear Jesus speak were living in a culture that was constantly reminding them of not being able to live up to the standard of God’s Law. The Pharisees were especially adamant and relentless when it came to telling the people that they were way south of the standard that God expected them to live up to. And what made that so heinous was the fact that the Pharisees themselves were hypocrites in that they were unable to live up to the standard that they were using as a basis to condemn others.

What Is Jesus telling them?

When Christ taught, while He taught on a great many things, the centerpiece of His Message was the idea of a new approach to God that was infinitely easier than what man had access to at that time (see Matt 11:30). The Hebrews that Jesus spoke to were aware of a Promise that had been articulated by the prophets centuries earlier, but were unaware of what that Promise would look like. While they were conscious of some specifics, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the presence of the Romans coupled with the previous centuries of foreign oppression had most Hebrews looking for a military figure that would overthrow the current government.

But God had something much bigger in mind.

The Promise of the Messiah provided deliverance from the power of sin and the way in which it governed the lives and destinies of men.

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jer 31:33-34)

When Jesus taught, He used Old Testament verbiage in order to communicate to the Jews the substance of what He was saying. When He said that His yoke was easy and that you would find rest for your souls in Matthew 11:28-30, the Jews heard Jeremiah 6:16. In that moment, they were processing Christ’s platform, not as a poetic collection of words, they heard Jesus stating His being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy!

This “new covenant” was referenced by Jesus at the Last Supper when He presided over the Passover Ceremony and referred to the cup as the “new covenant in my blood (see Luke 22:20).” What He was saying was that His death and subsequent resurrection would atone for the sins of all mankind and thereby forever eliminate the barrier that would otherwise remain in place – a barrier that was only temporarily removed through the old sacrificial system.

It was in the context of this old system that the Pharisees were forever pointing fingers and accusing their communities of wrongdoing while they were guilty of the very same things. And it was this kind hypocrisy that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 7.

But while the Pharisees were guilty of hypocrisy in the way they indicted others for moral infractions that they were guilty of themselves, it wasn’t only the Pharisees that needed to hear Christ’s counsel. We all need to remember that while we are admonished to graciously confront those who are doing wrong, we need to ensure that our corrections are credible by not having to veil the fact that we’re doing the very thing we’re trying to tell someone they shouldn’t be doing.

That’s the first qualifier: Don’t be a hypocrite.

The second thing that He is saying is more easily recognizable when you look at way “The Message” renders the same passage:

Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt? It’s this whole traveling road- show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor. (Matthew 7:1-5 [The Message])

In addition to the issue of hypocrisy is the issue of your tone. Eugene Peterson refers to it as a “critical spirit.”

You see the same thing being addressed in Romans 14:10-12:

So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly—or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit. Read it for yourself in Scripture:  “As I live and breathe,” God says, “every knee will bow before me; Every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.” So tend to your knitting. You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God. (Romans 14:10-12 [The Message])

The bottom line is that we’re all going to be evaluated by God Himself and at that point, no one will be revealed as blameless. So for anyone to have an attitude that says, “I’ve got it all together and the rest of y’all are just trying to catch up!” is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

How Does This Apply to You and Me?

As has already been alluded to, what Jesus was telling His audience applies to you and me as well. Don’t be hypocritical and don’t be a condescending jerk. Both of those dynamics create tension that distracts from the resolution that needs to be pursued. In addition, they also reflect poorly on the God you supposedly represent (see Matt 5:16; Jn 13:34-35).

But here’s the thing: While Jesus is saying to avoid hypocrisy and a foul attitude, He is not saying to refrain from being discerning when it comes to distinguishing the difference between right and wrong.

For example, take Luke 17:3 where it says:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

In order for your brother’s conduct to register as sin, you have to define it as such. Jesus elaborates on the importance of confronting your brother where his sin is concerned in Matthew 18:15. What’s significant about that text is the fact that it follows the parable of the lost sheep. What’s being communicated here and throughout the Bible is that when you confront someone about something they’ve done wrong, the goal is to encourage them in a way that gets them back on track. Merely condemning their behavior, while that may be necessary, is short of what God wants and expects. Being critical is not necessarily helpful and that’s what Christ is targeting with His comments in Matthew 7. Rebuking someone is ultimately part of a process that is to culminate in that person repenting, avoiding all of the fallout from what their behavior would otherwise have precipitated, and getting on with a morally solid lifestyle.

In other words, the idea is to help and not harm.

That’s why it’s important to follow the steps the Jesus enumerates in Matthew 18 as far as going to your brother privately first, and then with a couple of witnesses and then finally you bring him before the church. At each step, the intervention that is occurring is done in a way that fosters a positive response.

Some won’t listen and will be antagonistic no matter how gracious you may be. It’s then when you have to determine whether or not your brother is open to the Truth and if not, Matthew 7:6 instructs you to not throw your pearls to swine who can’t appreciate it. But that doesn’t mean you give up, you just switch tactics.

You see that illustrated in First Corinthians 5 where the Corinthian church is instructed by Paul to expel a particular believer from the church because of his immoral conduct. It’s not unreasonable to imagine this individual accused the church of being “judgmental,” but this scenario demonstrates the very thing we’re discussing as far as Christ’s instructions in Matthew 7 were never intended to be interpreted as a command to not judge.

You have to judge as part of the process that corrects wrong behavior. In First Corinthians 5, the person is being kicked out of the church because of their apparent refusal to cease their immoral conduct. In Second Corinthians 2:5-11, you see Paul counseling the same church to reaffirm their love for a person who’s been recently disciplined. It may very well be the same person that was documented in First Corinthians 5. But regardless, it shows that wrongful behavior is to be identified and the guilty party is to be disciplined, but always with the goal of restoring that person to a place where they’re honoring God and by so doing, avoiding all of the hurt and damage that goes along with bad behavior.

The Bottom Line – Reprove and Improve

Judging a person is both necessary and helpful when done in a truly Biblical way. The difference between the kind of judging that Jesus refers to in Matthew 7 and the judging that culminated in the happy ending in 2 Corinthians 2 is accomplished by avoiding hypocrisy and maintaining a Christ like attitude.

There’s a word that captures the kind of judging that brings about a good result. That result is “reprove.” You see in 2 Timothy 4:2:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2 [KJV])

Merriam-Webster defines “reprove” as “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” So the motivation behind a reproof is to improve the condition of the person you’re talking to.

The definition of, “reprove” is “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” It’s significant that you find the word “reprove” throughout Scripture and the liberality with which it is used further reinforces the need to correct and the and the necessary approach in order to ensure that the correction lands in a good place.

Consider another place where the word “reprove” is used in Ephesians 5:11:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph 5:11)

Look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this verse:

There are many ways of our being accessary to the sins of others, by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And, if we share with others in their sin, we must expect to share with them in their plagues. Nay, if we thus have fellowship with them, we shall be in the utmost danger of acting as they do ere long. But, rather than have fellowship with them, we must reprove them, implying that if we do not reprove the sins of others we have fellowship with them. We must prudently and in our places witness against the sins of others, and endeavour to convince them of their sinfulness, when we can do it seasonably and pertinently, in our words; but especially by the holiness of our lives, and a religious conversation. Reprove their sins by abounding in the contrary duties.(Matthew Henry Commentary on Ephesians 5:11)

The first highlighted sentence shows how you actually add to the problem by condemning them, as in the kind of judging we’ve been looking at in Matthew 7. Counseling, consent and concealment can all conceivably fit beneath the heading of “fellowship,” so you don’t want to go there either. You don’t want to have any part of those things that brings somebody down, rather you want to “reprove” them effectively by first off ensuring that our own behavior is devoid of the discrepancy we’re pointing out and then address our audience in a way that makes it clear that our priority is their welfare.

Look at Galatians 6:1:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. (Gal 6:1 [ESV])

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbor? (Jas 4:11-12)

In order to restore somebody, you first need to establish that they need to be restored which inevitably is going to involve telling them that they’re wrong in what they’re doing. It’s not being judgmental, like what Christ elaborated on in Matthew 7, provided you’re not guilty of hypocrisy or an inappropriately critical attitude.

It’s much like seeing a friend yours driving down the road doing 90 in a 35. You call them on their cell phone and you tell them, “Be careful! You’re speeding and somebody might get hurt.” That works! What doesn’t work is when you call them on their cell as you’re speeding past them telling them they shouldn’t speed and you’re going to give them a ticket.

First off, you’re not the one to give them a ticket, which is the dynamic being referred to in James 4:11- 12. The fact that you’re actually faster than they are, as you’re telling them they should slow down, is the hypocrisy piece referred to by Jesus in Matthew 7:4-5. Should your tone of voice be condescending and overly critical, that’s the nonsense Paul talks about in Romans 14:10-11.

So don’t judge in the context of being hypocritical or posing as the Magistrate that issues the actual ticket. But do embrace those opportunities that God gives you to come alongside someone and help them recognize the error of their ways.

Look at James 5:20:

20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:20)

That’s what we’re going for: The wellbeing of the person we’re correcting, both in a temporary and an eternal sense.

So do judge (Jn 7:24), as far as exercising your God given responsibility to look out for the welfare of others, but don’t judge in a way that comes across as hypocritical and condescending. And remember that your goal is to draw them closer to Christ, not to merely point out the error of their ways. By making that your starting point and your goal, you are then offering a reproof rather than what is perceived as a condemnation and that reflects well both on you and the One you serve.

by

American Concrete

However sound your reasoning may be when it comes to conversations pertaining to politics and culture, inevitably it goes back to a comment that John Adams made when he said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right.

The Rule of Law and Moral Absolutes have no substance if your philosophical paradigm is based on the notion that you are your own bottom line. In that light, however effective we may labor to be, as far as being knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to championing the Conservative Christian mindset in the context of current events, our primary duty and our most effective strategy is to pray according to 2 Chronicles 7:14.

Maintaining the idea that sin is “private,” is a misnomer. You can think of it as the flow of traffic.

When Adam and Eve chose to take a bite of that apple, they tapped their brakes and everyone behind them was compelled to slow down (Rom 5:12). If a couple chooses to live together rather than getting married, they affect the perspective of those who observe what they see on the surface and adopt a potentially unhealthy regard for the problems represented by “playing house” rather than building one (Matt 7:24; 1 Cor 6:18). And when you get into behaviors such as adultery and homosexuality, at that point, you’re not just tapping the brakes, you’re holding them down, traffic gets seriously backed up and the collective result is a breakdown of the family and ultimately society in general.

We are all the sum total of our education and life experiences. Every bit of that occurred within an environment that either provided a rock solid foundation upon which we were allowed to grow and flourish, or an unstable base that fostered uncertainty and failure.

Sexual infractions are not merely rebellious targets of pleasure. They devour the strength and the integrity of what a family is and how it’s supposed to function according to God’s Design.

The more deterioration the institution of the family is subjected to, the more damage is being done to people who may look fine on the surface, but are dealing with some gaping holes in their psychological and spiritual makeup.

And the ramifications are dramatic.

But it’s not just, “sex.” It’s sin in general. Even lying can have a mammoth impact. The Watergate Scandal started off as a single lie that had to be covered up with more and more deceit until it finally erupted into a national scandal that resulted in many doubting the integrity of institutions that, up to that point, were considered trustworthy.

Watergate changed our culture and it introduced a level of cynicism that continues to this day.

Sin is not a private matter. It affects those around you just like the way you affect the flow of traffic on a busy road with the way you drive.

And the results can be disastrous.

I see on various websites rhetorical questions coming from Liberals asking how anyone could support President Trump or why someone would question the validity of the Socialist approach to government?

I’ve seen on social media websites a myriad of threads commenting on Homosexuality and other behaviors that are specifically labeled by God as utterly toxic, saying that these lifestyles are justified by a person’s right to be happy and regardless of how you feel, if their behavior is not directly affecting you, than what business is it of yours?

These topics are not merely “moral” or “political” in a general sense. If your perspective on a particular issue runs contrary to what God has expressly documented in His Word, than you’re contesting God Himself and not just the School Board or the Supreme Court. In other words, many of the personalities you encounter who proudly fly the flag of liberal convictions are philosophically invested in a platform that maintains mankind as his own absolute which makes this a spiritual battle and not a mere debate.

That doesn’t mean every Republican is always right and every Democrat is always wrong. Nor does it mean that Trump is a saint and Biden is a reprobate. What it does mean is that you have to kick the tires and determine whether or not God has a particular take on the issue at hand and support those whose platform is consistent with Biblical Absolutes and be ready to explain, not just the theological merits of the direction you’re advocating, but the practical benefits as well (1 Pet 3:15).

And you don’t want to be fixated on just “winning” the argument as much as you want to be promoting what’s True.

The biggest problem with our country right now is not how we’re “divided” or “domestic terrorism.” Our biggest obstacle is our failure to take sin seriously.

But here’s the kicker…

You can’t expect to significantly influence those who approach themselves and the world around them who maintain an indifferent attitude towards the empty tomb (2 Cor 4:4). If the issue bleeds into a spiritual sphere (which it inevitably does [Eph 6:12]), than while you do have the responsibility of being aware and accurate (1 Chron 12:32), in order to be effective, you’re going to need some Holy Ghost Rocket Sauce if you’re going to make a difference and not just an appearance (Prov 25:11; Is 55:10-11; Matt 10:20).

And while the Bible may or may not resonate as an objective Authority in the mind of your audience, you can point to our nation’s heritage as it’s documented in our national archives and imprinted in our capitol’s architecture.

Here is a portion of “American Concrete…“

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

  • The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
  • The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1 Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

  • the context of that comment
  • the character of the person speaking
  • the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

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 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

To read, “American Concrete” in its entirety, click here…

by

Ten Questions for Atheists

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience.

In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life. Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1 He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record.

“Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation. The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions.

Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions?

Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences.

What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science?

Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought:

I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction.

I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time.

And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

by

When Politicians Become Theologians

When politicians begin to position themselves as society’s theologians, at that point politics is no longer a spiritually neutral arena and the question isn’t whether or not the church is becoming too political. Rather, it’s to what extent is the government attempting to replace the Bible. 

That’s why it’s not only appropriate, but it’s absolute necessary for believers to step up and voice their support for those candidates that champion a platform that’s in line with Scripture. Otherwise, you’re leaving the door of the fence open and all kinds of pain, hurt and corruption make their way on to the property and the only ones that are happy about it are those that walk up to God every morning as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of their chair. 

Regulating the outward expression of one’s faith to taking care of widows and orphans is to qualify God’s command to influence our world according to singular gestures as opposed to a comprehensive ministry. The fact is, we’re supposed to help all those who are in need. But you fail those same people by obligating them to contend with a sinister society as opposed to a godly one by remaining silent when it comes to the way they’re governed (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2), educated (Dt 6:5-9; 2 Tim 2:15) and informed (1 Thess 5:21). In short, looking after the downtrodden includes the improvement of the world they’re living in and not just the house they’re sleeping in. 

The ideal that is America is worth protecting and promoting. It’s unique among all other nations in that our approach to government is based on Divine Absolutes. It’s that premise that attracts people from all over the globe to our shores whether they’re able to articulate that reality or not. Dismissing any kind of passion or resolve when it comes to the maintenance of who and what we are as far as the motto on our coinage as “white nationalism” is irresponsible, ignorant and downright wicked. 

When you place the Liberty Bell alongside the Iwo Jima Memorial, the graves at Gettysburg, and the Vietnam Wall, you’re not looking at a paradigm that was created to promote a specific race. You’re looking at a biblically based ideal that was designed to promote all races because of the way all races are created equal under God. The personalities that have used an American flag to facilitate an evil agenda are not representative of what we are as a country. The baggage and sin they bring to the table is theirs alone and not a systemic anomaly let alone a national transgression. To believe otherwise is to embrace a campaign that seeks to portray America according to the faults of some of the fools we have within our ranks in order to usher in a godless philosophy that is as toxic as it is treacherous. 

Moreover, the term “white nationalism” reduces the substance of what generations of statesmen and soldiers have sacrificed their lives for to something self serving and vulgar. Not only is it outrageously disrespectful, it ignores the obvious manner in which our Constitution facilitates the rights that are ours according to Scripture. Where there is room for improvement, that space is built into its design. You don’t evaluate it according to the character flaws of those that wrote it as much as you evaluate it according to its substance and those who are critical of if forget that their criticism is allowed because of the rights guaranteed by the very document they supposedly despise. 

Bottom line: Believers are the keepers of the philosophical and spiritual foundation upon which our nation is built. To say that God doesn’t particularly care about politics or that Christ followers are allowing themselves to be distracted when investing any time and energy into governmental affairs forget the way in which God works through rulers and elected officials to either prosper a nation or run it into the ground. Our obedience makes a difference. To withdraw from the conversation – to be ignorant or apathetic – is to be disobedient and it’s not enough to merely informed, you have to be wise.

by

You Have to Talk to Thomas

Fact from Fiction

Apart from first hand knowledge, everything we know about the world is based on what we’ve been told.

Provided your resources are credible, you’re on solid ground in the way you formulate your convictions.

But when there’s more than one perspective being circulated and it all seems to be based on something authoritative, what might otherwise be a consensus is now a disparate group of passionate voices all convinced that they’re right and everyone else is just trying to catch up.

In such a situation, it’s difficult to separate fact from fiction and what’s true becomes defined more by one’s philosophical preferences than actual events and whole conversations.

In the end, the truth is going to be defined by evaluating all the facts. That, as opposed to scenarios where the commentator is manipulating just some of the facts.

Take, for example, the Resurrection of Christ.

Personality vs Platform

You could talk to Pilate and get one perspective. You could talk with John and get something entirely different. If those two individuals are your only sources of information, in the absence of something undeniable, you will be drawn to the personality championing the platform more so than the platform itself.

But at some point, you have to talk to Thomas.

Pilate sentenced Jesus to death, John saw Him die but it was Thomas who refused to believe anything as nonsensical as Jesus having come back to life unless…

…unless he was able to physically touch where the spikes had gone through His wrists and put his hand into the wound created by the spear that had punctured His side.

The NIV Text Note for this particular verses says, “Hardheaded skepticism can scarcely go further than this.”1

Unless you talk to Thomas, or at least objectively consider his experience, your take on Jesus having conquered death is going to be based more on what you want to believe than what’s actually the case.

You have to talk to Thomas.

Whether it’s COVID-19 or Donald Trump

And the same thing applies to similar situations where you have a variety of viewpoints. Whether it’s COVID-19 or Donald Trump, you have to consider all of the players involved and give extra consideration to the one that represents, not just an eyewitness, but someone whose testimony makes no sense apart from it being absolutely true.

And when you encounter a differing viewpoint who would accuse you of being biased in an effort to make their perspective appear more credible, figure out who the “Thomas” is, make sure you’re familiar with what “Thomas” said, and then say to your opponent…

You have to talk to Thomas.

1. NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1637

by - 2 Comments

There is no Referee

download

The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee.

There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions. But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical.

But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.

by

God Cares About Politics

To say that God isn’t interested in politics represents a twisted interpretation of Scripture.

God works through human institutions and authorities to accomplish His Purposes. You see that in the way He hardened Pharaoh’s heart to facilitate the Exodus (Ex 4:21). He used King Cyrus to give the Israelites the legislative green light they needed in order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem (Ez 1:2-4) . He used Quirinius to institute a census that would bring Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (Lk 2:1-3), He used taxes to illustrate how we are to allocate our sense of duty and responsibility (Matt 22:21).

The Old Testament devotes four books to chronicle the actions of all the kings of Israel, we’re commanded to pray for kings and those in positions of authority that we might live peaceful and godly lives (1 Tim 2:1-3) , He stresses the importance of godly leadership by highlighting how citizens beneath the tyrannical boot of a wicked ruler are miserable (Prov 29:2). He commends godly leadership , He despises evil rulers (1 Sam 15:11), He hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1) and He encourages political involvement (Ex 3:10-12; 2 Chron 7:14; Neh 2:4-6; Acts 23:11). Furthermore, “…there are 642 verses that refer to law, laws and lawlessness. There are 211 verses that refer to judgment, judges, and judging, and 561 verses that speak about justice. There are 195 verses that talk about courts, 301 verses that talk about ruling and rulers, and 100 verses that speak of governing and government.1

Just prior to the Battle of Jericho, Joshua comes upon an imposing individual standing in front of him with his sword drawn. Joshua asks, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man replied, “Neither,” and went on to say that he was the commander of the Lord’s armies.

Some use this passage to suggest that God is indifferent to Politics – that the discussions, divisions and elections that dominate the headlines irrelevant when compared to more lofty, theological concerns. But that’s not the case. The angel was not relaying Divine indifference to the upcoming battle, he was reminding Joshua that this was God’s campaign and as such they could be confident of a victory. But because it was God’s battle, they couldn’t look upon it as a mere military action and their heart and their minds had to be focused on Him.

God cares about Politics.

Warnings and Rewards

Dishonest scales” are referenced in Proverbs 11:1. That’s referring to cheaters and liars. He hates them.

He hates them.

He also says this the monarchs reigning in Judah:

“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Lord says to you, house of David: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. (Jer 21:11-12)

To whom much is given, much will be required (Matt 20:25-28; Lk 12:48; 1 Pet 5:1-3). If God places you in a position of authority, you are accountable to God for the way you lead. Your honesty (Prov 12:22), humility (Jn 19:11) and compassion (Is 1:17, 23) are crucial to the way you administer the affairs of those in your charge.

God cares about Politics.

I Will Bless Those Who Bless You

And here’s something else to bear in mind while we’re talking about it:

The nation is like a mighty lion; When it is sleeping, no one dares wake it. Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.” (Num24:9 [see also Gen 12:3])

Just prior to the Battle of Jericho, Joshua comes upon an imposing individual standing in front of him with his sword drawn. Joshua asks, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man replied, “Neither,” and went on to say that he was the commander of the Lord’s armies.

Some use this passage to suggest that God is indifferent to Politics – that the discussions, divisions and elections that dominate the headlines irrelevant when compared to more lofty, theological concerns. But that’s not the case. The angel was not relaying Divine indifference to the upcoming battle, he was reminding Joshua that this was God’s campaign and as such they could be confident of a victory. But because it was God’s battle, they couldn’t look upon it as a mere military action and their heart and their minds had to be focused on Him.

Palestine is giddy that Biden has won. And before you begin to think that the PLO represents an honorable cause, understand that in the aftermath of WWII, the UN set up a territory that was supposed to be two separate nations: An independent Arab state and an independent Israeli state. Six days after this arrangement was made, war broke out which was initiated by the Arab world and the hostilities have endured since.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that doesn’t respect Israel’s right to exist. And while the majority of their efforts are directed towards Israel, they are part of a network that is undeniably opposed to any supporter of Israel, including the US. Click here to learn more.

The US, under Trump, has been supportive of Israel. Biden and his like minded compatriots are not. In fact, Obama sent 221 billion dollars to the PLO during his last hours as President.

Now, however you want to process all this is up to you. But don’t think for a minute that God is somehow detached from politics and encourages neutrality. It’s not so much what side God is on, it’s whether or not the nation in question is on God’s side. It’s that nation that thrives and regardless of how stately or crass the leadership may appear on the surface, it’s their actions that reveal, not only their personal disposition, but the collective perspective of the country that voted them into office.

Conclusion

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.

1. “First Person: Does God Care About Politics”, David Shelley, August 30, 2010, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/first-person-does-god-care-about-politics/, accessed March 30, 2021

by

Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ – an Example of Fake News

Arguing with a liberal is difficult for several reasons, but among them is the fact that they’re determined to believe the kind of journalism that you would expect from a Pharisee reporting on the death and resurrection of Christ.

You can be ethical without being completely honest and you can be honest without telling the whole truth. Add to that the way in which you can imply a lack of credibility by using select words to describe a particular “eyewitness,” and you can shape public opinion without ever having to overtly lie or being accused of failing to cover “both sides” of the issue.

As an example, consider, “Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ…”

All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was anything more than a charismatic anomaly. We sat down with several high ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts.

pharisee

From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was. Thankfully there were steady and committed hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors.

“We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”

“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”

Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus.

“I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”

Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65).

“It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once.  Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more and you need to move on.”

When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”

Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-18; 1 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.

“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).”

“But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”

Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?

“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”