Memorial Day Memories

It is a good thing for people to remember their past, particularly the heroes in that past. Robert B. Charles recently wrote an article recommending a return to faith, family, freedom, and history as the way to regain the cohesion that is missing from American culture. We are divided politically and culturally right down the middle. When we forget, ignore, or rewrite our history as many do today, we cast off one important anchor that should keep our ship safe in the storms of life.

On Memorial Day, we remember the men and women of our armed forces who served to protect our freedom to establish faith and family as we choose. Those who served, and especially those who died in that service deserve our highest honor. Were it not for their sacrifice, we might well be living in a communist ruled country where the rights of faith and family would be controlled by the government. I believe it is partly because we have forgotten or rewritten the history that made America what it is that we now have a large segment of the population who want to impose a communist/socialist type of government on America. It has been wisely said that to forget the past is to doom one to repeat it.

The consequences of forgetting the past are not just political. It is particularly important for Christians to remember the past because we have a solidly historical faith. Our faith is propositional, meaning it is based on a set of propositions or facts which establish its foundations. True Christians believe what is written in the Bible; it is a history of God’s dealing with His creation. Throughout the Scripture, God repeatedly calls His people to remember His works on their behalf and His standards for the maintenance of order. When we take time to remember those who fought for our freedom, if we are honest about God’s sovereignty, we must thank Him for His hand in keeping us free.

For two centuries, the experiment that is American government relied on Judeo-Christian principles for its foundation. This is not meant to suggest that America is a Christian nation; it was originally founded precisely to prevent the government from dictating a certain religion. That said, the founders recognized that absent a moral and religious population, the experiment they began could not succeed. This is a part of the history we have largely forgotten or rewritten in WOKE America.

Many of those who trumpet the separation of church and state have no idea what it means. The Founding Fathers never intended to abandon religion with its moral structures. They envisioned freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Many on the political left today are lobbying for what is essentially a state-imposed religion: secular humanism. When humanism reigns, theism is outlawed. History teaches what this leads to (when history is read correctly). From 1945 to 1989, the Soviet Union demonstrated what happens when a society abandons theism. When humanism reigns, faith, family and freedom collapse.

I don’t want to beatify those who died defending America’s version of freedom. However, the fact that they were willing to give their lives for something they believed in marks them as true heroes. I think it is worth noting that enlistment in our military was drastically reduced during the years when the left controlled the levers of power in Washington. Now that a more traditional, conservative hand is at the controls, applications to serve have soared. Draw your own conclusion from that.

I will admit to being a sappy American patriot. I tear up at the passing of a flag on parade. I stand with my hand over my heart during the National Anthem. I try to say thank you to every veteran I encounter. I don’t do these things because I think America is a Christian nation. I do these things because I believe the American form of government as originally envisioned is the best way for my freedom, faith, and family to prosper. I do these things because I shudder to think what a WOKE version of America would do to those things.

God calls us to remember His deeds, the most important deed of all being Christ’s death on the cross which set us free from the wages of human sin. On a much smaller scale, each death we remember on Memorial Day is a sacrifice on behalf of our freedom. I honor all those men and women who were willing to die to secure my freedom. We must not forget or rewrite the history, either political or religious, that reminds us what our freedom cost. May God bless all those who paid that cost. And may God remind America how blessed she is to live in the freedom they bought.

Related Posts: The Best of Times – The Worst of Times; Obama Isn’t the Problem; Why Not Try Socialism?

The Blessing of Religious Liberty in America

An important lesson from history is lost when we don’t recognize the significance of America’s founding principles. We should not think that America was founded as a Christian nation as some people try to say. However, the founders did look to a unique source for political authority. The Declaration of Independence declares that proper human government stems from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” It was their intention to establish political authority based on Judeo-Christian tradition without establishing state approved church.

What the American founding fathers created was something unknown in human history. All ancient civilizations were theistic, and they believed their gods ruled over their daily lives. If they had a poor harvest, it was because their god was not pleased. If they lost a war, it was their god who was defeated by the rival god. We see vestiges of this in the Old Testament when Israel’s God “defeated” the various Egyptian gods as demonstrated by the ten plagues. We see it again when the Philistines captured the Israelite’s “god” and took the Ark of the Covenant into their temple. If you remember, that didn’t work out too well for their god, Dagon.

At the time of Christ’s advent, the Roman emperor held his position as one of the gods his subjects were required to worship. Political and religious authority were invested in one man. When Christianity spread throughout the empire, a conflict arose because Christians refused to worship the emperor. That issue was solved when Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 380 AD. With the fall of Rome to the Barbarians soon after, the Roman church, led by its pope, inherited both civil and religious authority.

That situation continued throughout Europe almost universally until the Protestant Reformation. The church wasn’t the only thing that got reformed in the sixteenth century; when the Roman church was weakened, local authority rose to fill the vacuum. Many of the European states chose a brand of Protestantism to continue the church/state rule that Rome had modeled for centuries. It was revolt against those state churches that brought many of the first pilgrims to America in the seventeenth century.

In 1776, the descendants of those early pilgrims rejected the right of English rule the colonies in America. While their revolution was not based entirely on religious principles, they realized the need to form a government that would not perpetuate the errors of the Europeans. They did not deny the need for religious principles as a foundation for civil government; they simply wished to prevent the government from insisting on a certain type of religious observance. It was John Adams who said that the experiment he and his peers were embarking on would not succeed without moral and religious citizens.

Now we have come two centuries later to a situation where a faction of government is again trying to dictate a certain type of religion: secular humanism. The proponents of this modern religion may flinch at the assertion that their policies are religious, but the fact remains that the progressive political agenda has all the trappings of religion. They demand adherence to a dogma known as DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion. They espouse critical race theory. They believe they can alter human nature by supporting gender reassignment. They attack traditional family values by approving same-sex marriage. They consider opposition to their mandates to be heresy. They call anyone who differs with them haters.

These practices are reminiscent of the totalitarian religions of the past. They are also in direct conflict with the principles which our founding fathers enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The task facing Christians in America today is not to form a Christian government. That would be Christian Nationalism, and it is not what the founders of this country wanted. What they wanted, and what we must fight for, was identified by Glenn Ellmers in a recent speech at Hillsdale College. “The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history.” Bear in mind that Ellmers considers “nature” to be the creation of God, and its “moral authority” to be Bible based.

It is often said that you can’t legislate morality. While that is true, it does not preclude the establishment of a legal framework that dictates moral boundaries. Legislation that follows the last six of the Ten Commandments, for example, commend moral behaviors and are not unique to Judeo-Christian thinking. Aristotle recommended very similar things, quite apart from any religious framework. You can go as far back as the Code of Hammurabi and find the same injunctions. These things are true and right because they comport with what Ellmers called “the moral authority of nature.”

What we need in our leaders and our laws is respect for some type of moral authority. They don’t have to be “Christian” to meet those criteria. For over two hundred years, America has prospered while remaining tied to that kind of authority. Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs have come to this country and prospered under that kind of authority.  What we have endured for that last few decades is an attempt to abolish any sort of moral authority and the establishment of a kind of moral and even civil anarchy. I do not believe that granting religious freedom goes as far as condoning anarchy – civil or moral.

I believe that John Adams was correct: we cannot survive as a country without moral citizens. You don’t have to be religious to appreciate that need and to fight for it. However, as Christians, we should be “religiously” committed to seeing the tradition of American religious freedom maintained. If the country keeps going in the direction the progressive element in America is headed, our freedom to practice our religion will be outlawed and replaced with the tenets of secular humanism. All that is necessary for that to happen is for “good men to do nothing.”

As they were preparing to enter the Promised Land, Moses told the Israelites, “Observe [God’s laws] carefully, for thus will you give evidence of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations, who will hear of all these statutes and say, ‘This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.’” (Dt. 4:6 NAB) They used to say that about America. Not so much anymore, I think.

Related Posts: Christian Nationalism; How to Pray for America; The Best of Times; The Worst of Times; Diogenes Shrugged; Critical Race Theory

The Best of Times; The Worst of Times

As Charles Dickens put it in the opening lines of Tale of Two Cities, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” The two cities Dickens wrote about were London and Paris during the French Revolution. It is ancient history to most people today, but – read it again – could anything better describe the current condition or our world?

Massive social changes were taking place at the end of the eighteenth century that Dickens chronicled. The western world found itself in the throes of the industrial revolution. The development of a working class not dependent on the nobility created a power struggle never before imagined. Suddenly, it seemed possible that people could have a degree of sovereignty over their own lives. The Catholic church, which had been attempting to assert control over the Holy Roman Empire through centuries of bickering and battles, was losing its hold on Europe. Although the Protestant Reformation had reignited concern for morality somewhat, large numbers of people were driven by base animal passions as the behavior in Dickens’ Paris and London reveals.

There is a fascinating footnote to the French Revolution. Some Bible scholars believe that the 3 ½ year “Reign of Terror” perpetrated by the French rebels is the fulfillment of the great tribulation prophesied in the book of Revelation. Like most attempts to put flesh on the apocalyptic messages of the Bible, there are some dubious leaps to get there, but you can find parallels. The Old and New Testaments are supposedly the two witnesses of God who lay in the streets for the duration. In addition to banning and burning Bibles, the Revolution erased every religious notion they could, going so far as changing the creation-linked seven-day week to a ten-day replacement. Christian statuary was defaced or destroyed, and several figures of Lady Liberty (popularized by artist Eugene Delacroix) were erected throughout Paris. The mighty cathedrals that had stood for centuries as a testimony to Christian beliefs were desecrated.

In short, the French Revolution was an attempt to completely secularize society. Sound familiar? The American Revolution which preceded the French by slightly more than a decade was fueled by different attitudes. The most important difference was drawing its legitimacy from Judeo-Christian principles. The rights of the people enshrined in the US Constitution were thought to be endowed by the Creator. The freedom to practice one’s religion unhindered by a secular government was one keystone of the document. Christian morality and “civil” behavior were expected, a condition that the French obviously dismissed in their version of revolution.

The Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of morality and education in their effort to create a new society. In a letter written to the Massachusetts militia in 1798, President John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  In his book, In Search of the Common Good, Jake Meador says, “Adams meant that ways of living together and organizing society presuppose certain things about people and therefore require certain types of people to function well. We can have great political principles and great policy ideas, but without citizens able to realize those ideas, they won’t get us very far. Thus, one way of tracing [America’s] decline into social breakdown is to ask about what methods and practices we have as a nation for shaping people into humble, wise, responsible citizens.”

Unfortunately, the methods and practices we have in American public education today are producing arrogant, ignorant, and irresponsible citizens. These are the worst of times in academic terms. However, with the readjusted balance of power in Washington accomplished in the 2024 Presidential election, the times may be a-changin’. I believe one of the most important things the new Federal regime can do is get the country back to its roots. We have suffered almost a century of progressive policy that has duped people into thinking that government can care for them better than they can care for themselves. You have only to remember the “Life of Julia” ad campaign during the Obama candidacy to see that. From cradle to grave, it was the government that made Julia’s life prosperous.

That progressive, socialist deception is now embraced by a large percentage of Americans. In November of 2024, a slight majority of Americans begged to differ. You might wonder if this is an appropriate subject for a blog that says heaven matters most. I say it is. In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask our Heavenly Father that His will might come to pass on earth as it is in heaven. I have written about this many times. (See Related Posts) I am not promoting Christian Nationalism or some form of theocracy which progressive detractors imply. I am saying that as Christians in a representative democracy, we have the right (duty) to agitate for a government that aligns with our principles. We know that biblical principles applied socially create the best possible society. But in order for that society to prosper, it is as John Adams said: there must be a moral and religious citizenry.

I have been an advocate of Christian schools since the 1970’s. I spent many years teaching and administrating Christian schools, so I know their potential to produce humble, wise, responsible citizens. I believe public schools could accomplish that if they could rediscover their original obligation. Public education was established to teach readin’, writin’, and ‘rithematic, with a fundamental understanding of history and the ability to think clearly. In these worst of times, schools are failing in all of those assignments. The other thing the old rhyme added was “taught to the tune of a hickory stick.” Having spent much of my working life as a teacher, I know that proper classroom discipline is essential to successful education. Modern academic attitudes toward discipline are foolish. Visit the majority of public-school classrooms today, and you will see the spoiled results of sparing the rod.

I honestly believe that if oversight of local public schools was put back in local hands – I mean parents’ hands – many of our problems would go away. The travesty that is public education in America today must be stopped. Toss out the Chromebooks and core curricula and bring back the primers. Unshackle the teachers and return to reasonable disciplinary measures. Disassemble most of the administrative hierarchy that hobbles good teachers. (There are currently more administrative jobs than teachers in America: building administrative staff, district staff, intermediate district staff, state staff, and federal Department of Education staff.) Use the money saved by cutting administrative jobs to pay appropriate wages to classroom teachers. They hold the future of this country in their hands; they deserve salaries commensurate with their responsibilities.

These things and more are within our reach as concerned Christian citizens. If we continue to sit back and watch, we will witness the demise of America. In November of 2024, I think a door of opportunity was opened. I believe America is in the mood for change. If that doesn’t include dramatically changing public education, we will not have enough humble, wise, responsible citizens to carry on the great American experiment. If you believe it is God’s will that America continues as a beacon of hope in the world, then don’t just pray the Lord’s Prayer – live it. Make this the best of times.

Related Posts: Christian Nationalism;  Why Not Try Socialism; ; Obama Isn’t the Problem; The Dumbing of America; Common Core Commonalities; Intended Consequences; Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking; Teachers or Testing

Doubtful Disputations

What do you do when you begin to doubt a well-considered opinion? Let’s assume that you have invested significant time and trouble to come to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Let’s further assume that you are not alone in your position, but that there are many people who disagree with you. After years of arguing in defense of your view of the issue, you begin to doubt yourself. Honesty and integrity demand that you do something.

In my case, because I present myself as a teacher, it is important that I get things right before I state my opinion. I have written about this several times. (See Related Posts) The Bible warns against becoming a teacher because of the higher standard of judgment they will face. For this reason, I make it my sincere goal to base all my public opinions on the truth of Scripture. The problem is that some of my detractors say the same thing. Recently, a friend and former pastor with whom I shared significant agreement on most issues has begun to retreat from some of his previous positions.  Because he is well-educated and very well-versed in the Bible, he has caused me to reexamine some of my positions.

While I think my friend is moving away from biblical truth in some of his realignments, he has given me reasons to reevaluate others of my own firm convictions. The issue that troubles me most is the proper attitude toward illegal immigrants. In the 2024 Presidential election, this issue was number one in the minds of many voters. My stated opinion on the issue has caused some people to call it xenophobic. While I don't hate immigrants, caring for the less fortunate happens to rank near the top of biblical commands for believers. It would seem that there are few things more important to God than how His people treat the poor.

Most illegal immigrants are the poorest among us since they have left all their worldly possessions behind and come here with empty pockets. I have argued in the past that the church is unarguably called to meet the needs of these people. Both corporately and individually, Christians are under obligation to feed the hungry whenever they are capable. There are two things that complicate this issue in our present state of affairs. One is the legal status of the hungry people we face. Alongside the command to feed the hungry is the one to obey and honor those in authority over us. If we harbor and feed lawbreakers, are we honoring the will of our authorities?

Some may argue that it is acceptable to defy the government if they are asking us to violate Scriptural principles. They may say that turning our backs on these needy immigrants on account of their illegal status would violate the command to meet their needs. This brings another biblical principle to light: Paul recommended that the Thessalonians ignore the needs of some people who were refusing to work to feed themselves. He told them if they would not work, they should not eat. The majority of immigrants coming here were not starving at home; they come because they think they will find better circumstances here. If they are starving here, it is by their own choice.

The second complication to a biblical response to illegal immigrants is the impracticality of thinking that I am responsible to feed every hungry person I meet. If I did that, I would soon be among the hungry myself having given away all my sustenance. Unless I have been granted the widow’s bottomless food source, I can’t believe God would have me do that. Yet this is what some would have us do on a national level. As I wrote in “Man the Lifeboats,” unrestricted immigration will eventually the sink American ship, and then no one will be eating. We are also called by Scripture to be good stewards of what God has given us. If we crash our national economy by attempting to feed and house every needy person who comes here, we will have shown ourselves to be unwise stewards.

I believe there is biblical justification for maintaining national borders and thereby limiting immigration. The creation of cultural and the resulting national boundaries began at the tower of Babel. God instituted cultural differences for His own purposes. In the Apostle Paul’s address to the Athenian philosophers, he validated the concept of nation/states by saying that throughout history, God perpetuated their existence. That they would continue to exist is proven by the prophetic announcements that the gospel would be delivered to every nation, tribe, and tongue. While the body of Christ is trans-national, there is no indication in Scripture that the arrival of the gospel would dissolve national identities.

That being true, it is difficult to find biblical justification for the argument that the United States of America is wrong to establish borders and institute criteria for citizenship within those borders. It follows that citizens have rights and privileges that flow from the laws that govern them. Conversely, non-citizens who enter the country illegally have no reason to expect the same treatment. In fact, what they should expect is to be deported as lawbreakers. America is a rich country, but we are not rich enough to support every person who crosses the border and demands care.

I suggested in “A Christian Response to Immigration” that putting this on a personal level makes it easier to accept. If someone burst into my home and demanded that I feed and house him, my first inclination would not be to accede to his demands. Unless he was armed and threatening great bodily harm, I would escort him back out the door. The spirit of charity might lead me to recommend a nearby food bank or homeless shelter, but I don’t believe Christian charity demands that I allow people to steal from me whether they are hungry or not.

Someone might bring up Jesus’ admonition to give the shirt off our back to anyone who asks for our coat. Keep in mind, Jesus was fond of using hyperbole to make a point. (Pluck out your eye or chop off your hand if they cause you to sin.) I believe in this case Jesus’ words must be balanced by Paul’s teaching that charitable giving must be heartfelt and not done out of compulsion. I believe the end of the matter is this: as a nation we have a right and a duty to restrict entrance to the United States and to remove those who violate those restrictions. At the same time, we must pray for wisdom as our local church leaders determine how to address the issue, and individually, we must ask for the Spirit to prompt us when it is His will to give.  I can say that without doubt, but I know it won’t settle the dispute.

Related Posts: Examining Christian Charity; Pilgrim’s Progression; Conspiracy Theory Part II; Loving Biblically; The Importance of Being Right;

How to Pray for America

When I wrote “I Pray for America,” the Biden administration had recently taken over. I had expressed my opinion previously in “America Held Captive” that religious freedom and fiscal responsibility were going to be under attack by the Biden administration. It didn’t take a prophetic gift to see that, and I think my fears have been proven justifiable. We are not better off now than we were when Biden/Harris took office either financially or with respect to Christian freedom. The question we now face is whether there will be improvement under Trump/Vance.

I don’t want what I say here to be thought of as purely political, unless you understand “political” the way I described it in “Christianity: Religion or Philosophy.” As I wrote then, politics is a branch of philosophy in that it is a practical expression our worldview. If we hold a Christian worldview, our political views must be influenced by a biblical understanding. There is another reason why discussing politics can be justified as a matter of heavenly concern: Paul commands prayer for our civil leaders. We pray most effectively when we pray specifically. To do that, we must be informed; hence, political discussion

I believe prayer for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance should be on two levels. The first level is the same as for any human being: prayer for their relationship with God. While I won’t hide the fact that I am pleased with the results of the 2024 election, I am not under the delusion that either of these men is my brand of Christian, or if they qualify for the label at all. I am not falling into the trap of dredging up Trump’s past failings. That avenue leads to the mistaken assumption that men are saved by their works. They are not. Salvation is through Christ alone by faith alone; worthy behavior comes as a result of belief. Unworthy behavior is the sad result of being human and does not disqualify one from salvation. If it did, none would be saved.

That said, believers should be praying for the sincere conversion and establishment of Donald Trump and J. D. Vance in a form of biblical Christianity. As I said above, I’m not sure either of these men qualify for that distinction. Both talk the talk, but I am not in favor of either of their versions of faith. Trump’s former spiritual advisor, Paula White, is a charismatic prosperity preacher who has demonstrated all the worst traits of that ilk. I’m not saying you cannot find Jesus listening to the health-and-wealth gospel; I just think it puts too much emphasis on material things. This will sound odd, but I think the shallow depth of Trump’s faith (if it exists) will keep him from the most unbiblical aspects White’s theology.

Vance, on the other hand, has a depth of faith that is both sincere and troubling. He was raised in a nominally Christian atmosphere, but he admits that it was not overly religious. He recently “converted” to Catholicism, saying that it most clearly represented his idea of what a Christian should be and do. His personal brand of Catholicism is not appreciated by orthodox Catholics, however. I think he can best be described as an intellectual Catholic, as shown by his adoption of St. Augustine as his patron saint. Vance sees Augustine’s City of God as a manifesto for proper government. Put this alongside his acceptance of the Catholic error of works salvation mediated by an earthly priesthood, and you have reason to doubt the biblical authenticity of the VP-elect’s faith.

The other thing about Vance that troubles me is that he married a practicing Hindu and credits her as a spiritual guide in his conversion to Catholicism. That may sound strange unless you understand the typical Hindu attitude toward religion in general. While Christianity is exclusive – salvation in no name but Jesus – Hinduism is inclusive believing there are many paths to spiritual enlightenment. It would seem that Vance embraces that view which leads me to doubt the validity of his profession of Christian faith. No one has biblical doctrine down perfectly (not even me), but to deny the exclusivity of biblical faith puts the entirety of that person’s faith in question.

That was a long explanation for my first reason to pray for our new leaders: they both need a clearer understanding of biblical Christian faith. The second reason to pray is what Paul said: that we might be allowed to live in peaceful godliness and dignity. Paul wrote this admonition when the leaders to which he referred were among the worst imaginable. Christians were being martyred all across the Roman Empire. It is obvious that the Apostle did not mean to reserve this type of prayer for believing leaders only. Far from it. He encourages prayer for civil leaders so that life on earth might be more pleasant. He also agrees with Peter, James, and John that suffering and trials will certainly come to Christians in spite of their prayers. As their lives prove, life is not always pleasant.

I want to close with one more thought: we should not imagine that we are electing pastors when we vote for our leaders. It is incumbent upon all Christians to live by biblical standards; it is wonderful if we can elect Christians to public office. However, it is not necessary that our leaders meet every biblical criterion for their personal behavior. The best we can hope for is that they will introduce policies that align with Judeo-Christian standards, and that they will defend the Constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Despite my misgivings about their personal faith, I believe Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will govern more in that direction than a Harris/Waltz administration would have. And I will continue my daily prayers as Paul recommended. Please consider doing the same.

Related Posts: I Pray for America; America Held Captive; Christianity: Religion or Philosophy; Christians Are Responsible to be Politially Engaged; Honor the King

Political Exhaustion

Robert B. Charles made an insightful point in his post in the AMAC newsletter after the 2024 Presidential election, “Prepare for Emotional Exhaustion.” His main point was that after fighting long and hard on whichever team you play for, post-election catharsis is inevitable – exhaustion. I am certainly tired of the political ads that filled the airwaves for the last several months. They seem so pointless to me. I don’t know anyone who makes a voting decision based on advertising. Thoughtful people have better ways to examine the candidates and form an opinion. This was especially true this season because one party repeatedly made numerous false, defamatory accusations and the candidate was usually unable to articulate a cogent position on anything. I am particularly tired of that!

But it was Charles last point that really struck me. He wrote, “In this case, the election was brutal, arguably off-base, historically out of line with American politics.” Brutal: repeated impeachment threats, multiple lawsuits, and two assassination attempts against Donald Trump are definitely “off-base.” Like out of the ballpark off-base. He said they were “out of line with American politics,” but I have to disagree, sadly. Politics in this country has become increasingly partisan and divisive. Part of the reason for this, in my opinion, is the emotional factor being employed: scaring seniors with false threats to their Social Security, making pro-choice voters think abortion would be criminalized (as perhaps it should be), predicting huge increases in the cost of living all played on emotion rather than offering rational policy solutions.

I am aware that as far back as the election of George Washington, candidates tossed political firecrackers at one another. It seems that now they are using hand grenades and IED’s. When anyone calls their opponent Hitler for nothing worse than a policy disagreement, we have gone a step too far. When one party’s supporters attempt to assassinate their opponent, we have abandoned the American way of free expression of political ideas in the most egregious way. And when a candidate tells someone at her rally that the Christian message on a sign shows that the person is at the wrong rally, religious freedom is also being attacked, and a philosophical viewpoint is being proclaimed.

As Christians, we don’t have to insist on electing only fellow believers. What we must insist on is that any candidate we consider voting for cherishes freedom of religious expression. I have written previously that religious freedom is under attack by the progressives in this country. I have warned as Martin Niemöller did during WWII that if we don’t speak out against religious discrimination now, we will eventually forfeit the right to speak at all. There are already signs that the silencing process has begun.

It is now considered hate speech and punishable criminal behavior to use the wrong pronoun in reference to a person suffering from gender dysphoria in many public schools. Many employers threaten termination of persons who express religious opinions that are not appreciated by a fellow employee. The right to stand on a public sidewalk a respectable distance from an abortion clinic and protest the murder of the unborn is a chargeable offense. Wearing a tee shirt with a religious message to a public school will almost certainly get the student sent home, and discipline up to expulsion is not unusual. Need I continue?

The damage that the progressives are inflicting on the First Amendment is not their only attack. Second and Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled on a daily basis. Their explanation for these infringements reveals a fundamental difference in the Constitutional views of the two political parties. Most Democrats believe the Constitution must be continually revised to account for changes in cultural norms and expectations. Most Republican jurists hold the view that the document that governs us was written in such a way that all eventualities can be judged by its historical form. The way this works out is the Democrats are constantly reinventing meaning while the Republicans seek to understand the original meaning of the Founding Fathers.

The Bible teaches us to obey the law, submit to earthly authority, honor those to whom honor is due, and pay our taxes, etc. Despite all the naysayers, America was founded on Judea-Christian values. Those values are enshrined in our Constitution. Rewriting it or ignoring it when it restricts some newly discovered freedom (like freedom to murder innocents) is precisely what the progressives want. As Christians, we ought to be deeply concerned when the foundations of the Founding Fathers are being dynamited. I believe we elected a protector of religious freedom yesterday. If you were praying for that eventuality, don’t stop praying now. Like Robert B. Charles said, you may be exhausted, but I say you need to stay alert and keep praying because the roaring lion hasn’t been caged – he might be fettered, but his reach is still extensive. As the song says, “We are strongest when we are on our knees.”

Related posts: And Freedom for All; How to Boil a Frog; What Price Freedom?; What Does it Mean to be an American?; Strict Obedience

Vote! Please!

After all the rancor surrounding the 2020 Presidential election, I vowed to concentrate my writing on general Christian living and Bible teaching. However, today, three days before the 2024 election, I feel I have to say something. Every national election is important to a degree, but this one will have monumental consequences for everyone, not just Christians.

If you are like me, you are so DONE with political advertising. I wouldn’t be as fried if the candidates were actually outlining their policies; they could even differentiate their views from their opponents, and I wouldn’t mind as much. Unfortunately, neither party is spelling out much of what they plan to do in any detail. In my market (Arizona) the only issue that seems to matter to the Democrats is abortion. They are making outrageous claims to frighten pro-choice voters onto their side. If you read my blog during the last election, you know that I cannot abide the Democrat position that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. It is seldom wise to vote on a single issue for something as wide-ranging as presidential authority, but I would be remiss if I didn’t say that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for murder.

Polls indicate that there are two main issues voters in this election care most about: the economy and the border. By “economy” I suspect that most people mean inflation. A true measure of prices for things everyone needs to live has gone up between 17% and 20% over the last four years. If you didn’t know this, you must not do the shopping in your house. Harris has said that there are no Biden policies she wound change. You have to decide if that is good for your budget or not. One thing is certain: we cannot afford to bring unlimited numbers of immigrants into this country and give them financial help when we are already struggling under significant inflation and tremendous national debt. (For more on that, read “Man the Lifeboats.”)

Unbridled immigration is a more complex problem than just its economic effect, and the positions of the two parties are clear to anyone who listens. Most of Trump’s immigration policies were reversed by Biden as soon as he took office. He installed Harris as his border czar, and the disaster that ensued is undeniable. The most frightening thing about their current position on immigration is their insistence that non-citizens (illegal aliens) be allowed to vote. This strikes at the heart of our representative government. Only legal stakeholders should have a say in government policies. True, the Democrats are making illegal aliens stakeholders by granting them living assistance of every kind. But to my mind, that just doubles down on the original mistake of letting so many come across the border. They become guaranteed Democrat voters to keep their gravy train running.

Another issue that is flooding the airwaves in my area concerns Social Security positions. The Democrat ads shamelessly mislead seniors by claiming that Trump would cut their retirement benefits. It is true that Trump (and most Republicans) realize that if something isn’t done to reform Social Security, it will implode in the near future. However, to scare seniors now collecting benefits by suggesting that Trump would reduce their checks is a bald-faced lie. None of his policies that I am aware of affect current beneficiaries. His plan would raise the age of initial eligibility and offer a hybrid investment plan with individual control of one’s own money. The kind of changes Republicans are suggesting are necessary to save Social Security for the long run. The Democrats have no such plan. (For more on my take on SS, see “Social Insecurity”)

Finally, independent, non-biased accounting estimates that the goodies Harris promises if she is elected would inflate the national debt by trillions of dollars. If you don’t understand why the national debt is your problem, read “Imaginary Money.” Using a household budget as an analogy, our current situation is like having so much debt that you have to pay every penny you earn to cover the interest – just the interest; you would not be paying one penny on the principle, and there would be no money for food, fuel, clothing, and anything else that you need to survive. It is a sad commentary on the intelligence of American voters that we have come to this untenable position. Our entire system is hanging by a thread, and Harris wants to add more weight to the burden.

Many people were dissatisfied with Trump as a person back in 2016 and 2020. They wouldn’t vote for him because they didn’t like him. As I wrote then, the Presidential election is not a popularity contest: I like her better than him (Nah-nah). On one important level, the United States is the world’s largest business entity. Donald Trump has proven to be a very successful businessman. His term in office gave ample evidence that his expertise transfers to his position as President. He also professes faith in God, and he would never tell someone at his rally (as Harris did) that they were in the wrong place because they were supporting Christian values. If enough conservative voters abstain because they don’t “like” Trump, they will assure the election of Kamala Harris.

This short piece will not likely change many votes. Many people have already voted early, and those who have not yet cast their ballot will probably not be convinced to change. My only hope is that I may encourage someone to vote – either way – so that our next President represents the citizens properly. By that I mean properly elected by a majority of informed, legal citizens. The next four years will be radically influenced by who wins the top of the ticket.

Related posts: Vote Anyway; Politics Stinks; Honor the King; The Circle of Well-being

Reaping the Whirlwind

I wrote in “Today’s Chaldean Chastisement” that I thought it possible that God was using Iran (modern-day Chaldeans) to punish America for her sins. Later, in “Who are the Other Gods” I explained that God has been dealing with other nations besides Israel since the beginning. Because of God’s obvious global interest, I can’t help but wonder how America plays in the grand scheme of things. I know that God’s chosen people are no longer a national entity; they are a spiritual congregation from all nations. Yet what would God think of a nation so clearly founded on His biblical principles going the way of ancient Israel?

These passages from Hosea struck me as particularly pertinent:

Indeed, they sow the wind

and reap the whirlwind. (8:7)

 

The days of punishment have come;

the days of retribution have come.

Let [God’s people] recognize it!

The prophet is a fool,

and the inspired man is insane,

because of the magnitude

of your iniquity and hostility. (9:7)

 

You have plowed wickedness and reaped injustice;

you have eaten the fruit of lies

Because you have trusted in your own way. (10:13)

 

But you must return to your God.

Maintain love and justice,

and always put your hope in God. (12:6)

 

The book of Hosea closes with these words:

 

Let whoever is wise understand these things,

and whoever is insightful recognize them.

For the ways of the Lord are right,

and the righteous walk in them,

but the rebellious stumble in them. (14:9)

 

I am not suggesting that the judgment God brought on the nations in Old Testament times is directly applicable to America. However, we hear the Lord say, “I am Yahweh; I do not change.” In the fourth chapter of Amos, God lists all the disasters He brought on Israel; He ends each with the line: “Yet you did not return to me.” The implication is obvious yet chilling. God wreaked havoc to cause Israel to repent. The prophets assure God’s unrepentant people that He will show mercy if they return to Him. They did not. They paid the price He promised.

 

R.C. Sproul writes in The Holiness of God: “Far from being a history of a harsh God, the Old Testament is the record of a God who is patient in the extreme. The Old Testament is the history of a persistently hard-necked people who rebel time after time against God. The people became slaves in a foreign land. They cried out to God. God heard their groans and moved to redeem them. He parted the Red Sea to let them out of bondage. They responded by worshiping a gold cow.”

Summing up God’s plans for the infant nation of Israel, Moses warned: “After the Lord your God has driven [the nations] out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land.”

Commenting on this passage Sproul writes: “God reminds Israel that it is not because of their righteousness that He will defeat the Canaanites. He wanted to make that point clear. Israel might have been tempted to jump to the conclusion that God was ‘on their side’ because they were better than pagan nations. God’s announcement made that inference impossible. Since it is our tendency to take grace for granted, my guess is that God found it necessary from time to time to remind Israel that grace must never be assumed. On rare but dramatic occasions He showed the dreadful power of His justice. He killed Nadab and Abihu. He killed Uzzah. He commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites. It is like He was saying, ‘Be careful. While you enjoy the benefits of my grace, don’t forget my justice. Don’t forget the gravity of sin. Remember that I am holy.’”

It is not unusual to hear someone suggest that God has blessed America uniquely because of her initial founding on biblical principles. Like Sproul says of ancient Israel, we too might imagine God is “on our side” because of a special relationship. I don’t pretend to know what God’s mind is toward America. I do know without doubt what His mind is toward evil, and America is descending further and further into a dark abyss of immorality. I am certain the principle of reaping what you sow is universal. I would not be surprised to learn that God applies it to nations as well as individuals.

Someone might be tempted to say that all this “Bible stuff” is irrelevant to the present world situation. I disagree. C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “[those] who did the most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next.” Thinking of the next world (the new earth where righteousness dwells), setting our minds on things above (where Christ sits enthroned above the nations), praying that God’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven – these are the actions that are most needful. We are ambassadors from another kingdom, the Kingdom of the Holy God; let’s be about the King’s business.

Related posts: Bringing the Kingdom; Today’s Chaldean Chastisement; Who Are the Other Gods?; Light Shining in Darkness; Read This or Die

Vengeance is Sweet

We all know the verse, “Vengeance is mine the; I will repay says the Lord.” Moses knew it too; so did David. The verse we often quote is in Romans twelve, but Paul is rehearsing his Old Testament. The concept first appeared in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 (verse 35). David picks up the theme in several of his psalms which Bible scholars classify as imprecatory psalms. The word imprecatory describes the act of invoking evil or cursing. You may be shocked to find that David regularly asked God to curse his enemies. At first it seems out of character for “a man after God’s own heart.” But it is not – not if you understand God’s heart.

When Moses introduced the idea, he was in the midst of telling the Children of Israel about the nature of God’s judgment. He told them that Yahweh would protect them by wreaking havoc on the nations that opposed them. It is fascinating to me that God says He is judging the nations because they didn’t remain faithful but followed other gods – demons actually – instead of Him. The implication is that the nations had the option to follow Yahweh but turned away. The Psalmist underscores this saying, “He rules forever by his might; he keeps his eye on the nations. The rebellious should not exalt themselves. Because they did “exalt themselves,” God chose Israel to demonstrate what His people were supposed to look like. We know they failed miserably, but God never abandoned them completely; there was always a remnant He saved.

We also know now, on this side of the cross, why God kept His people around: they were going to fulfill His promise to Adam and Eve. He would crush the head of the Serpent who led them astray. It seems that the Serpent also led the nations astray. We might not remember that every nation was descended from Noah and his sons. It was after the flood when God divided the nations and then chose Abraham to be the father of His chosen people. My point is that the nations knew who God was; their ancestors were all saved by the same ark. At some point they forgot Who saved them and went after other gods.

I am not going to suggest that we have to justify anything God does or even understand it necessarily. What I am saying is that the nations deserved what they got because they turned their backs on God. This explains the cryptic remark God made to Abraham: He couldn’t let him have the promised land because, “The iniquity of the Amorites [was] not yet fulfilled.” The Amorites is a catch-all term for the nations. God wasn’t ready to destroy them yet in Abraham’s day. He wanted them to be fully iniquitous before He executed justice on them.

If you look closely at Old Testament history, the nations are all over it. God forbade the Israelites from destroying Moab when they conquered the promised land. It could be that God needed Moab to be around years later so a Moabite girl named Ruth could become the great-grandmother of King David, the promised one. God left the Philistines unconquered so they could test the faithfulness of His people. God let the nation of Assyria thrive so they could take captive the ten tribes who rebelled against God’s chosen dynasty and worshipped other gods. Later God let the powerhouse Babylon do the same with the remaining Israelites to punish them for turning from Him. And don’t forget what Peter said in the first gospel sermon: God used evil men, men of His own people, to goad the nation of Rome into crucifying their Savior.

I may offend some people with what I am about to say, but I believe it needs to be said. God still controls “the nations.” I have no trouble believing that He would use nations to discipline His people, the church. After the tragedy of 9/11, a conservative leader suggested that perhaps God was using the jihad to chastise a wayward people. I can’t say I know that for sure. What I can say is that the church in America has large factions that are slipping more and more into apostasy. The faithful believers in this country are not holding up their end of the representative government they are blessed with. (See The Faithful Have Vanished.)

I truly believe that if we understood the dire threat to Christianity posed by the progressive movement in America, we would storm the voting booths in every election to change the leadership. It is not just our right as citizens; it is our duty as the faithful children of God. All the children of Israel had to do to reinstate God’s blessing was to smash their idols and worship the one true God. There are idols among us in this country. (I have named them.) We need to do some smashing of our own. We need to beg God for vengeance on our enemies. Strange as it sounds, that’s biblical. And it would be sweet.

Related posts: Idol Worship; Keep Yourselves From Idols; Storming the Gates

A Christian Response to the Immigration Problem

 Several years ago, I wrote a piece called “Man the Lifeboats.” At the time, the situation at our border with Mexico was going from bad to worse. Since that time, the policies of the current administration in Washington have multiplied the problems exponentially. When I originally wrote the article, I was accused of being xenophobic – that I hated foreigners. That was not true then, and it is not true now. I love with the love of Christ all people regardless of their ethnic or national origin. This means I care about how they are treated. I sympathize with people who due to political or economic conditions find it difficult to stay where they are. I just don’t know the best way to show that love and sympathy.

A few months ago, Phillip Yancey wrote about a church near the southern border that was attempting to put a face and hands on the Jesus who loves the people who are streaming into America illegally. I wrote a response to Yancey in which I agreed in principle but disagreed with his conclusions. Since then, I have been struggling to come up with a Christian solution to the immigration problem. There is no dispute that individual Christians are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless when possible. The greater problem is how a secular government can do its duty to its citizens while providing something like Christian charity to the immigrants.

My suggestions address several aspects of the problem. First, we must close the border. Completely. This is a primary role of American government according to our Constitution: protect its citizens by maintaining border control. Without borders, a country is simply a land mass and not a nation. With uncontrolled immigration, real enemies and essential threats to our way of life will flood the country. Read the statistics; they already have. Set aside the criminals and terrorists for a moment. The innocent families that flock to our country for a taste of the American dream are causing a tremendous strain on an already busted budget. As I wrote in “Man the Lifeboats,” we cannot rescue every person in the world who wants to come here. If we try, we will sink our own boat. It is the responsibility of our federal government to assure that that does not happen.

Once we slam the door on illegal immigration, we must apply the immigration laws that are on the books. We welcome anyone who comes here legally. We apply due diligence to assure that they are not going to bring us grief if we let them in. Yes, I know the wait to enter legally is up to ten years in some cases. There is a reason for that: we can only absorb a limited number of new people at a time. This allows the immigrant to become a productive member of society, thereby contributing to his own welfare. When immigration is allowed to flow unrestricted as it has for the past several years, our support systems are overwhelmed with people who are providing nothing to maintain the system. Legal citizens are then forced to provide support through their taxes. Many citizens resent that; it smacks of taxation without representation. Sounds like the patriot’s cry of 1776.

Third, we must deal firmly but fairly with the millions who have entered illegally. As much as I might like to say throw them all out, Christian charity demands a more nuanced approach. At the very least, sanctuary cities must be eliminated. For cities who want to defy federal law, all federal programs must be withdrawn. This is common sense and abides by the biblical standard of reward and punishment. The New Testament clearly promotes individual submission to authority; the same principle must apply to groups of individuals who identify as a city. Fair is fair.

Next, we must transport any illegal entrants we can identify back to the place they fled, unless it can be proven that dire harm will come to them by that action. There may be diplomatic or fiscal measures that can be taken to encourage the cooperation of those countries who may deny access to the information we need. The carrot or the stick method is usually effective in tough situations. It is difficult if not impossible to estimate how many illegals are actually in need of asylum, but I believe the few who qualify can be found, and the rest can be repatriated. As an alternative, adult illegals could be offered a path to citizenship by serving in a branch of our military for four years active and two years reserve. Honorable discharges could be given the opportunity to become citizens.

My next suggestion is unfair to those who are waiting to enter the country legally, but I think it reflects a Christian attitude. If a person or family has been in the US for a considerable time (5 years? 10 years?), they should be given the opportunity to apply for citizenship if they have no criminal record, and if they are gainfully employed and self-supporting. Before allowing them to apply for citizenship, an arrangement must be made to pay their back taxes and their Social Security and Medicare contributions since many will not have had a Social Security number – at least not a legal one. If those conditions are not met, they too must be repatriated.

I realize that sending people back to where they came from will be a difficult and costly process. I suspect it will cost less to fly a family home than to feed, clothe and house them for a year. More importantly, if allowed to stay, the family would burden our economy for many years. Ultimately, it is not about what it costs but what we gain. Some might say this sounds un-Christian or at best unfair. I do not believe it is either one. However, if adopted, it should eventually have the effect of stemming the flow of immigrants. If they realize that the door is closed and people are being sent back, fewer will try to break in.

Make this personal. If a stranger walked up to your house, broke open your door and demanded that you feed, clothe, and house him, what would you say? When you discovered that his extended family numbered in the hundreds, and he had given them directions to your house, what would you do? Does your Christian duty require you to accede to his demands and turn over your home and your bankbook to him? I think not. The Fourth Amendment promises security in our persons and dwellings. You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize that criminal trespass is not acceptable. The Fourth Amendment simply echoes what the Bible teaches: God’s people have a right to private property. Violation of that right was dealt with seriously in the Mosaic law and reinforced in the New Testament.

Finally, my last suggestion has to do with individuals, not the government. Any Christian who is serious about helping the less fortunate – in this country or elsewhere – has the responsibility to give of their resources either directly or vicariously through any one of many Christian organizations that are fulfilling the biblical command to help the poor. Buy a bunch of thrift-store blankets and make a bagful of sandwiches and go to the homeless in your town. Be Jesus to them. If that is not practical for you, write a check every month to a charity that is doing God’s work. If every Christian did this, the plight of the poor and destitute would be improved worldwide. That is my Christian response to the immigration problem. If you like it, you have my permission to send copies of this article to your US Congresspersons.

Related posts: Examining Christian Charity; Loving Biblically

Examining Christian Charity

Phillip Yancey recently wrote about a church near the Mexican border that is making an effort to serve the hundreds of people who cross into the United States without permission. The article is written in such a way as to elicit sympathy and compassion for the plight of the immigrants. It also applauds the work of the church. I get that. As Yancey encourages these emotions, he makes a statement that is either naïve or ignorant. He says, “We did not find, out there on our side of the wall, terrorists or drug dealers carting in loads of fentanyl with the intent to kill off America’s young. We didn’t find communists or thieves or rapists. We met ordinary human beings from distant lands who had sacrificed everything for an impossible journey, driven by an instinct for survival and the promise of a better life in the Promised Land—America.”

First, America is not “the Promised Land.” It is disingenuous to imply that God’s promise of land for Abraham is being fulfilled in America. Yancey is a capable theologian, so I know he doesn’t believe that. America is a place where two hundred years of Judeo-Christian principles of morality and industry have forged a better place than almost anywhere else in the world. For most of those years, immigrants came to America legally through the front door. We are a nation built by immigrants who were seeking a better life. They made one. The scene has changed, however. Today’s immigrants want the benefits American success has made available without doing the hard work to earn them; worse, they refuse to enter the country right way.

The second thing Yancey says that is misleading is that he didn’t see any “terrorists… drug dealers… communists or thieves or rapists.” Unless he has supernatural powers, he can’t know what was in the minds and hearts of those he saw. I know he was using a literary device to make a point: even terrorists are people. What his comment implies is that we should close our eyes to the flood of those who do wish us harm for the sake of Christian charity. That attitude is precisely what has put us in the horrible situation we are in at the border. The current administration in Washington has not only put on blinders; they have put out the welcome mat.

Forget Christian charity for a moment; common sense says we cannot continue to welcome millions of people into our country when they are going to immediately fall into our generous welfare safety net. Our multi-trillion-dollar debt should be enough evidence that our system is broken. Allowing a few million more people to drain the system can have only one result. I wrote “Man the Lifeboats” several years ago. What I said then is even more poignant now. If we keep rescuing people from the seas of trouble in their homelands, we will sink our own boat. (For an honest look at the current situation on the border, see “An Immigration Crisis Beyond Imagining” in Hillsdale College Imprimis.)

You don’t have to live on the southern border to face this same conundrum. There are people who already live in America who wish to take advantage of American generousity. They seem to prey on Christian charity (the foundation of our welfare system) at every level. COVID revealed a large segment of our population who would gladly stay home from work if the government would support them. There are still those who would rather ask for money from their neighbors than to get a job to earn what they need. I crash head-on to this dilemma when I see a panhandler on the corner or the neighbor kid begging for money. When does Christian charity become enablement?

Paul counselled the Thessalonians that if some people would not work, they should not eat. As far back as Solomon, the Bible encourages work as a necessary part of living. Yes, the Scripture also recommends helping widows and orphans, but the implication there is that they cannot feed themselves. It does not seem that Christian charity will always mean giving physical support. Maybe it can mean denying support so that the intended recipient will be motivated to help himself. It is not loving to keep a person dependent upon others when they are capable of fending for themselves. Nor does it seem incumbent upon Christians to foster behavior that will ultimately collapse our economy. Then we will all be hungry. Who will feed us then?

Related Posts: Pilgrim’s Progression; Conspiracy Theory, Part II

When in Rome, Do What the Bereans Do

I saw a Bible tie-in today I hadn’t noticed before. When studying the Scripture, it is interesting to know what Moses or Jesus or Paul did, but it is more valuable to know how their actions tie into our present lives as believers. When I read through Acts seventeen this morning, I noticed that the unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica used the Roman law to accuse Paul. In verses seven and thirteen, they said Paul was teaching what was contrary to the decrees of Caesar.

It is ironic that the Jews would use that approach since God’s first commandment was to have no other gods before Him. That would seem to put them in a position contrary to the decrees of Caesar as well. It is true that there were times in Roman/Jewish relations that Rome allowed the Jews to practice their religion, but it is disingenuous to try to use the Roman law to indict someone with whom they disagreed. The Jews in Corinth tried the same tactic, and the authority there saw through their hypocrisy and summarily dismissed them.

Here's the tie-in. There is a cult of secular humanism in America that is trying to use the law to squelch Christian beliefs and practices. Sometimes they twist an existing law to serve their purpose. They did this years ago when they banned Bible reading and prayer in public schools. They claimed such activities violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Ironically, their actions violated the free expression clause of the same Amendment. At our country’s beginning, the freedom to practice one’s religion in public or in private was one of the pillars of the Founding Fathers' beliefs. They were rebelling against the state sponsored religions in the countries many of them had fled. Allowing free expression is not the same as establishing a state religion.

When the secular humanists cannot use an existing law to promote their agenda, they write new ones. Much of the cancel culture we are forced to live under today is based on regulations that were invented to protect imaginary victims – victims who are practicing things that the Scripture forbids. For example, same sex marriage, transgenderism, and all sorts of sexual perversion is now protected by law. Worse, these things are being promoted in popular media and in the public schools at ridiculously young ages.

Sadly, secular humanists are not the only people using their brand of religion to promote an unbiblical agenda. Entire denominations of formerly orthodox Christians have come under the spell of the secular humanist teachings. They have chosen to abandon Scripture and ordain homosexual ministers and bless same sex marriages. Individuals from these apostate churches openly support politicians who lobby for free access to abortion and attack conservatives who attempt to limit or eliminate it.

Unbelievers everywhere are dictating what Christians can and cannot do by twisting or enacting laws that support their views. The media is full of stories of Christians being dragged to court just like the Jews did to Paul. Sometimes we get a judge who, like the proconsul in Athens, sees through their schemes. More often, Christians are forbidden to practice biblical behavior because of some new “offended” class of citizens. This is especially egregious when those who call themselves Christians support that kind of travesty.

We will find ourselves in disobedience to the Word if when in Rome we do as the Romans do. We need to adopt the stance of the Bereans in Acts 17. They listened to Paul, and despite the accusations of the unbelieving Jews, they searched the Scriptures to see what was true. When the Islamic radicals attacked in 2001, many Christians wondered if it was an act of judgment by God. I wondered similarly when I wrote “Today’s Chaldean Chastisement” about the COVID 19 pandemic. At the very least, we must keep our own behavior in line with Scripture. Whenever possible, I believe we do our fellow citizens a favor by attempting to stay true to the principles on which our country was founded. Remember: everyone in Judah suffered when God exiled them to Babylon. We could use a few people like Moses’ friend Phinehas. If we keep acting like Romans instead of Bereans, we will not escape the potential judgment that may be coming sooner rather than later.

Related posts: Today’s Chaldean Chastisement; The Winnowing Fork of God; Paging Phinehas Eleazar

Wise Up, America

 If you read this blog regularly, you know I have begun to consider God’s judgment of Israel as a warning for America. In the same way that humans need a sense of self to be fully human, a culture needs touchstones, markers, perhaps a history to remain vital. If America were a person, we would be in the midst of an identity crisis right now. That may be the best explanation for what is happening to America: we are losing a sense of who we are. In the two- and one-half centuries since the nation’s founding, there have been many dramatic changes. Although some of the changes were by choice, many were the inevitable result of societal pressures that stemmed from global human development.

The industrial revolution was just getting in first gear when the colonists decided to break the bonds of imperialism and strive for independence from England. The first couple generations of independent Americans saw the country move from primarily agrarian to early industrial, especially in the northern states. The war between the States proved the supremacy of the industrial over the agrarian society—among other things. As people moved farther from the land that supplied their basic necessities – food, water, shelter – they became less dependent on individual effort and more dependent on a societal system to provide for them. Instead of being the producers of their needs, they became the beneficiaries of the collective efforts of many people. In effect, they became cogs in a giant, constantly growing machine without which they could not survive.

Alongside this societal development, a revolution of sorts was taking place in theological circles as well. Many of the variants of orthodoxy which still exist today had their beginnings before the young nation had its hundredth birthday. The earlier reformation that had split Christendom into Protestants and Catholics was being repeated, this time splintering the existing protestants into further sub-groupings. The global disappointment that infected the church in the aftermath of the First World War led many theologians to rethink their concepts of God and society.

Probably the most damaging result was what has come to be called theological liberalism and included various degrees of doubt about the validity and authority of the Bible. There are few things that incur the wrath of God as surely as misusing the office of His prophets. When people in Old Testament Israel claimed to speak for God but had no connection or authority to do so, God became irate. This situation was at the core of why first Israel then Judah were allowed by God to be taken captive and removed from the land of promise.

I am not equating America with Israel; God no longer deals with a nation as His own. In this age, God deals with a church universal and with people individually. Even so, America once had a grounding in the Scriptures, laws that reflected Judeo-Christian principles, and churches that preached the Word of God. Over the course of the last century, America has lost its foundation, repudiated Christian principles as law, and become infested with churches that deny critical elements of the Word. If the majority of its citizens wish to live in a pagan society, America’s representative form of government makes that possible. If the church is willing to accept false prophets, that is a more serious matter.

If God chooses to deal with nations as He has done in the past, America is in trouble. In the following excerpt from Jeremian 23:15-39, I have substituted preacher for prophet, which is an acceptable translation of the Hebrew concept.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Do not listen to the words of the [preachers] who are [preaching] to you… Behold, I am against the [preachers],’ declares the Lord, ‘who use their tongues and declare, “The Lord declares”… ‘They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination not from the mouth of the Lord… Therefore behold, I will surely forget you and cast you away from My presence, along with the city which I gave you and your fathers.’”

Again, I repeat: the city given to the fathers was the biblical promised land. It is not America. But applying the principle of God’s judgment of apostate Israel to the church in America is valid. The church, the bride of Christ is going to be presented “without spot or blemish.” I believe God will do whatever is necessary to bring that to pass. America never was a Christian nation in the biblical sense; we never had a theocracy where God ruled directly. However, there was a time when you could detect a biblical foundation to most of the laws and practices of this nation.

In the same way that America has drifted away from her founding principles, the church has drifted away from preaching the whole Word of God. America is in the midst of an identity crisis; scarier still, so is the church. As a nation, we may never again find our identity in the community spirit and respect for individual effort found in the former agrarian society. Unless you are one of the few farmers left in America, that is lost. In the church we have our identity in, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.” I pray with Paul that we may, “Let the word of Christ dwell in [us] richly, teaching and admonishing one another with all wisdom.” The Psalmist says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” America needs to wise up.

Related posts: What’s the Deal With Nineveh; America Held Captive; Today’s Chaldean Chastisement; The Winnowing Fork of God