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

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

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

Where Do You Find Truth?

I was encouraged to read an article in the AMAC news daily that chronicles the waning influence of the big media outlets. The author claims that Americans are becoming less likely to believe what they read and see in traditional news sources. This encouraged me because the media have been increasingly in the driver’s seat of public opinion throughout my lifetime, especially since the advent of the Internet. Whether through laziness or intellectual apathy, much of the American public has lost the motivation to consider the source when they evaluate the information that floods their environment. Easy believism has taken the place of intellectual curiosity.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that. Truth itself is no longer considered important; its very existence is questioned by many postmodern philosophers. Absolute truth – one truth that is always and in every situation true – is scoffed at by atheists, agnostics, and even some so-called Christians. In the last half of the twentieth century, situation ethics and values clarification began to be taught at ever lower levels of academia. Long a feature of college lectures, doubt and despair spread as the products of those colleges became the textbook writers and classroom teachers of our elementary-age children. We should not wonder that people will believe whatever they are told; they have no standard by which to judge truth.

Fortunately, Bible-believing Christians (Must I add the qualifier?) are not without defense against purveyors of untruth. It is not a coincidence that Jesus called Himself the Truth, nor that He insisted that the truth sets believers free. Jesus also pointed clearly to the source of truth: “Thy Word is truth.” The Bible, God’s Word, is the repository of truth; all that the Bible asserts as true is in fact true. This does not mean that truth does not exist beyond the pages of Scripture. All truth is God’s truth whether it is doctrinal, biological, astronomical, political, or whatever. Despite repeated claims that science or rationality trumps faith, the Bible has continued to prove true when examined by sincere searchers.

Getting to the truth demands an inquiring mind. Cornelius VanTil is famous for having encouraged believers to view all things through what he called biblical spectacles. He insisted, “The Bible gives us the presuppositions we need to interpret individual facts rightly. It is the spectacles by which we can view all of life rightly.” Presuppositions are the things we bring to our investigations which color our interpretations. If one presupposes that there is no God, and all things exist through time and chance, one sees the universe in a certain way. If, on the other hand, one assumes that the universe was created by a loving, communicating God, things appear quite different.

When Jesus identified God’s Word as the source of truth, He preceded the assertion with a request that the Father would, “Sanctify [His disciples] in the truth.” To sanctify something is to set it apart for a specific purpose. If we are to be living proof that Jesus’ prayer was answered, we must set about mining and distributing truth. We need to put on our biblical spectacles as Van Til would say. We need to follow the advice of the Psalmist and meditate on God’s Word day and night. We need to refuse to be conformed to the world and be transformed by renewing our minds with the Word. We need to set our minds on things above not on things of earth. These acts of sanctification will give us the ability to follow John’s admonition to test everything to determine if it is from God.

I have caused trouble in the past by suggesting that one of America’s major political parties runs closer to the truth than the others. I am going to avoid that assertion today and suggest that concerned Bible believers put on Van Til’s spectacles and determine for themselves whether there is a difference between parties and candidates. We would do well to investigate claims and policies to discern their truthfulness both in relation to facts on the ground as well as Bible principles. America is not a theocracy nor can it be under the dictates of the US Constitution. However, because we are blessed with a representative form of government, Christians can make their wishes known in the voting booth. But our ballots must be thoughtful, enlightened votes, seeking to expand the dominance of truth.

If you believe you are wearing Van Til’s spectacles, and you don’t see the subtle subterfuge, blatant falsehoods, and the constant push to undermine biblical values we are asked to accept today, I suggest that you have your prescription checked. It may be that you need to be renewed in the Spirit of your mind as Paul recommends. Jesus said His words are spirit; that’s the spirit which must control the mind of a believer. I appreciate the way The Message translates Proverbs 12:17, “Truthful witness by a good person clears the air, but liars lay down a smoke screen of deceit.” Modern media is laying down that smoke screen; we need to look for the truthful witness. We need to join Diogenes in his search for an honest man.

Related posts: True Lies and Lying Truth; Truth Dysphoria; America Held Captive

Biden Attack -- My Response

I promised myself I would not get overly involved in commentary during this political campaign season. But Joe Biden’s unprecedented political attack packaged as a highly dramatized press conference on September 1^st has motivated me to comment. I will try to remain true to the purpose of my blog title and consider primarily why heaven matters in this instance. I have said repeatedly that peoples’ philosophy is relevant to everything they do. If philosophy is the head of the body, politics is one arm; religion is another. To me this means that politics and religion are joined at the head. Unless you imagine some Frankenstein creation of disparate parts, politics and religion flow from the same philosophy in any given individual or institution.

Some may ask why those of us who are heavenly minded should care what worldly minded Joe Biden has to say. I answer it is because the words of the President reveal the Deus ex machina, the real philosophy behind the words. The apparent purpose of his 9/1 speech was to demonize his political opponents whom he vaguely characterized as MAGA Republicans. This term, which he used a half dozen times in his short address, has been adopted by the Democrats to refer to people who supported President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign. Biden said, “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

In an attempt to identify the philosophy which he considered such a threat, Biden said, “It’s not just Trump; it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the [MAGA Republicans] – I’m going to say something: it’s like semi-fascism.” Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime… that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The only part of that definition that fits Trump is “exalts nation.” No one can deny that Trump exalted America; he wanted to make it great again. He was not a racist as some have tried to claim (minorities did better under Trump than any recent administration.) Unlike the Democrats, Trump clearly placed individuals and individual effort at the center of his plan to make America great.

Ironically, the rest of the definition of fascist applies quite nicely to the Democrat philosophy rather than Trump’s and the MAGA Republicans’. Few Presidents have been more “dictatorial” than Biden and Obama. The “severe economic and social regimentation” boiling out of Washington under Democrat administrations is undeniable. As for “forcible suppression of opposition,” just consider the recent weaponization of the IRS (87,000 new, armed agents) and FBI (Mar-a-Lago?), the hijacking of the election system, and the overreach of other non-elected government bodies. The irony of Biden demonizing conservative Americans who want to see Constitutional rights upheld and traditional values embraced is beyond belief. Yet he apparently believes that returning America to its former glory “threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

(Reminder to self: tell the reader why heaven matters in this.)

Among the MAGA Republicans Biden warns against are many conservative Christians who believe the foundation of our republic was laid by men who recognized that our rights and responsibilities were endowed by our Creator God, not a dictatorial government. Those rights and responsibilities were enshrined in our founding documents, particularly the Constitution. Constitutional government as originally conceived was intended to reflect Judeo-Christian values, biblical values. Here we return to the idea that politics and religion are two parts of one whole.

The question becomes how to view our political situation from a heavenly vantage point. In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, He commented that when He returned to His Father, His followers would be left in the world, but they would not be of the world. The Apostle John cautioned against loving the things of the world. Paul insisted that believers must not be conformed to this world if they would be pleasing to God. James went so far as to say we become God’s enemy if we form a friendship with the world. Jesus also warned His disciples that the world would hate them just as it had demonstrated hate for Him.

It is my contention that the attitude, the philosophy behind President Biden’s 9/1 speech represents the worldly hatred Jesus predicted. I am not conflating MAGA Republicans with the Body of Christ. However, as I have said before, the political aims of the Republicans follow the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the founding fathers, whereas the Democrat platform embraces many unbiblical themes. If Biden were calling for debate, that would reflect the attitude envisioned by our political traditions. Instead, Biden has called his opponents fascist terrorists intent on destruction.

The irony, the hypocrisy of Biden’s position is unbelievable. The sanctity of life, law and order, and individual freedom are under attack, but it is not MAGA Republicans on the offensive. As believers, we are pilgrims from another world sent as ambassadors to a foreign country. The language of the New Testament pictures believers as emissaries from a distant king who has taken over the land. As I wrote in “Bringing the Kingdom,” our responsibility as Christians is to represent the values and proclaim the authority of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Even though Jesus defeated our enemies on the Cross of Calvary, we are warned that the enemy still roams about “looking for someone to devour.” The kingdom of Heaven has been initiated, but we are still required to announce and defend its principles until the day of final victory when Jesus returns. We do that work in the world; for that work we will be hated. In America we have enjoyed a great deal of freedom to work in the past. Those days may be behind us. As I have said before, the only way to fight against political evil is to exercise our right to vote. My philosophy says that is our political and religious duty.

Although he was deeply spiritual, no one would consider William Butler Yeats a Christian, yet his poem, “The Second Coming,” seems truly prophetic. Witnessing the turbulence that characterized the early twentieth century, seeing the inevitable implosion of modern society, Yeats penned the famous lines, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” In a clear allusion that Christians recognize as purely biblical, Yeats closes the poem with a question: “The darkness drops again; but now I know / That twenty centuries of stony sleep / Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, / And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

I am not suggesting that Joe Biden is the anti-Christ, nor am I predicting Armageddon. What I am suggesting is that just as John warned first century believers, “even now many antichrists have arisen.” We who serve the Risen King who was cradled in Bethlehem twenty centuries ago must do whatever we can to stand against the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem to be born. Its coming is inevitable, as is our victory. But we cannot be idle. Paul commends us to action: “Wake up, sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. Therefore, consider carefully how you live, not as unwise but as wise, making the most of the time because the days are evil.”

Related posts: Christianity: Religion or Philosophy; Political Christianity; Obama Isn’t the Problem; Islam’s Trojan Horse; Whose War on Women;

Civics Lesson 2021

I have tried to avoid political posts since the 2020 election debacle because the rhetoric became so rancorous and irrational. After the announcements by Senators Hirono and Duckworth yesterday, I have to jump in with a lesson in civics. Senators, like all elected federal officials pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States when they are sworn in. I know that some issues of Constitutional law are debatable, and for that we have a judicial system specifically created for review. Some things are not debatable, having been established and reviewed numerous times. One of these well-supported tenets of our free society is the concept of non-discrimination. The law clearly states, “The laws enforced by EEOC makes [sic] it unlawful for Federal agencies to discriminate against employees and job applicants on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.”

Senators Hirono and Duckworth have stated unequivocally that they will not vote to confirm any of President Biden’s appointments unless they meet their race and gender-based qualifications. This eliminates all straight, white males from consideration. It is unclear where a black man or straight white woman would stand. The disputing Senators, both of Asian extraction, are mainly concerned with the lack of Asian representation in the Biden appointments so far. Also unclear is whether a representative of the LGBTQ community would pass muster if he or she was not Asian. Whatever their parameters, the Senators are announcing their intention to violate federal non-discrimination law.

Some might argue that the President’s appointments are not covered by the federal employment laws; they are not “employed;” they are appointed. Besides being disingenuous, this flies in the face of federal law  forbidding discrimination in appointments as well. I can understand why the Senators’ Democrat peers have not pointed out the inconsistency, no, the illegality of this situation. What troubles me more is that not even any Republicans have voiced concern as of this writing two days later.

Chapter two of the civics lesson regards the “For the People Act” (HR-1) passed by the House and now being debated in the Senate. In this case, at least the Republicans are standing for Constitutional principles. Regardless of what one thinks of the provisions of the bill, it is blatantly unconstitutional. The US Constitution leaves election procedures and protections in the hands of the states. HR-1 passes unprecedented election control to the federal government. The 50-50 tie in the Senate power structure means that if the bill comes to vote, the tie-breaking vote would be Kamala Harris, and no one doubts which way she will vote if asked.

To prevent this, the Senate Republicans have promised to filibuster to stall the vote. The filibuster is one of the arcane procedural rules developed by the Senators to prevent a minority from being swept aside. A filibuster used to mean the opposing Senator had to continue to talk to have the stall remain in place. In the early 1970’s, the Senate adopted a rule allowing multiple bills to be debated at the same time. This made it possible to announce a “filibuster” on one bill while allowing the Senate to continue to do its business on other matters; actual speechifying on the floor of the Senate was no longer required.

Also in the 1970’s, the Senate devised a way to end the filibuster by invoking cloture. Cloture ends all debate on a bill and requires voting within 30 hours of being invoked. The difficulty with cloture is that it requires three-fifths of the Senators or 60 votes to pass. In other words, 10 Senators would have to cross the aisle and vote with the opposition. You will see pigs flying over the Capitol before that will happen in the HR-1 debate, so the Democrat leadership is trying to remove the 60-vote rule to end debate. They want to force “For the People” on the people even though according to polls there is not wide support among the people for its enactment. These are the same type of shenanigans that brought us the debacle known as The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Just as Obamacare was challenged numerous times in the courts, HR-1 will face the same trials if the Democrats are successful in getting it through the Senate. It is unlikely that the bill could survive judicial review due in large part to the fact that President Trump was able to fill numerous seats in the justice system with conservative, strict constructionist jurists. One hopes that the clearly partisan, unconstitutional features of HR-1 will cause it to be struck down in its entirety.

The main tenets of HR-1 are not just unconstitutional; they are unthinkable. The bill prohibits states from requiring identification of voters. It greatly expands mail-in ballots, again with no ID required. It approves third-party “ballot harvesting” which opens the door to all manner of fraud. It seriously limits the ability of certain classes of voters to use absentee ballots, effectively removing deployed military citizens from the voting roles. I don’t want a system where anyone can vote regardless of citizenship or residency. I don’t want a system that will foster opportunities for votes to be manufactured out of thin air with no independent review.

The “For the People Act” should be called “For the Democrats Act” because at the moment, Republicans are solidly against almost all of its provisions. The 2020 presidential election was a preview of what future elections will look like if HR-1 is enacted. Many of the HR-1 provisions were tried in the battleground states where Biden-Harris miraculously garnered large batches of questionable ballots in the late-night hours following the election. The failure of Trump’s legal team to lift the veil on those challenged ballots shows how difficult it will be to ever have a transparent election again. If we lose free and fair elections, we lose everything America stands for. If Senators can defy the law and force unconstitutional procedures on the people, “For the People” becomes a statement of tragic irony.

Related posts: America Held Captive

AMAC 2020 Man of the Year

I have been reading a harmony of the Gospels lately to refocus on the question: what would Jesus do (WWJD)? As I was reading a passage in John’s Gospel this morning, I noticed something interesting. When His enemies revealed their supposed reasons for hating Him, He didn’t correct them. One of the things that troubled the Jews was that they traced Jesus back to Galilee where they assumed He was born. They knew the Scripture foretold the Messiah’s birthplace as Bethlehem, David’s city. It would have been a relatively simple thing for Jesus to correct their misunderstanding; perhaps there would even be census records of His birth since the gospel records that as the reason for Joseph and Mary’s trip there. His stepsiblings might have attested to the Bethlehem birth as well, assuming their parents had shared it with them.

Instead of attempting to correct his detractors, Jesus took an entirely different tack: He pointed to His works and the authority behind His words. The Jews in power would have liked to hear what rabbi Jesus had studied under so that they could assess His trustworthiness. Anyone who possessed the kind of in-depth knowledge of the Scripture that Jesus displayed was assumed to have studied under a known teacher. The simple folk didn’t have deep understanding; they relied on their teachers, the scribes and Pharisees to interpret the Scriptures for them. Jesus sailed directly against that current with His challenging teachings. He claimed His authority to do so came directly from God.

I am going to make an analogy that will be upsetting to anyone who does not read very carefully. (Perhaps even some careful readers will choose to be upset.) Let me be clear: I am not making a comparison between two men; I am saying that circumstances the two men faced were strikingly similar. For example, Donald Trump’s detractors tried every possible type of attack against him from the moment he announced his candidacy for President. The early attacks focused on the fact that he had no political experience. He had not been trained, as it were, in the ins and outs of Washington. Trump countered with the explanation that he had proven very successful at running big businesses, and he rightly suggested that there is no bigger business in the United States than the federal government.

The Left discounted Trump’s comparison of government with business, yet when he was ultimately elected in 2016, he proceeded to become the best friend business had had since Ronald Reagan. He secured massive tax relief, rolled back stifling regulations, and the country saw an unprecedented recovery from the Obama recession with increasing employment, new business start-ups and rising personal income. Inflation-adjusted wage growth averaged $3.20 under President Obama’s administration; in three years, Trump’s number was $6.90. His conviction that helping business helped everyone proved correct.

In the same way that Jesus’ detractors tried to keep the people bound under failed religious traditions, Trump’s enemies continued to insist that the only way to improve the lot of the people was with larger, more intrusive government. President Trump denied this flatly; he was “politically incorrect” in many of his published pronouncements while his policies proved to be correct politically and economically. Jesus also used rhetoric that was uncomforting to His enemies, but which carried the ring of truth and results of eternal significance. Both stood up to their detractors and continued to do what they knew was the right thing to do.

Jesus enemies accused Him of not following their interpretation of the Law. He rightly demonstrated that their law had been subjected to so much revision over the years that it no longer represented the will of the Father in Heaven. The Left tried to apply their revisionist view of the Constitution as an attack on President Trump. He steadfastly stuck to the strict constructionist view that most closely follows the intent of the Founding Fathers. President Trump repaired much of the damage that had been done by the previous administration to the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourth Amendments. He also placed judges on the federal courts who would protect our Constitutional rights for years to come.

Jesus was regularly upbraided for His failure to follow accepted social customs. His willingness to associate with prostitutes and other sinners brought loud accusations of His lack of suitability as the Messiah. He was even branded as demon possessed. His enemies could not have imagined a more despicable person. In Trump’s case, some of his behavior prior to taking office was despicable. It is my opinion that since we don’t elect a Messiah but a President, some personal failings can be overlooked if they don’t reflect on the man’s ability to do his job. The hypocrisy of the Left in accusing Trump of things that they regularly let slide in their chosen ones reveals their true intentions. They don’t care how one behaves as long as he is following their playbook. That echoes what the Pharisees thought about Jesus.

One last point of comparison strikes me: Donald Trump took some of the most vitriolic beatings in the press of any President in recent memory. The Left didn’t stop at attacking him personally; they attacked his wife (a most gracious first lady) and his children. The mud slinging and conspiratorial strategies they used throughout Trump’s Presidency were absorbed by the man who only occasionally responded with late-night Tweets or a few speeches he made in his defense. When it came to the most egregious slight of all, the obvious attempts to alter 2020 election results, he stepped down graciously when it became clear that the system was so artfully rigged against him.

I am not trying to make Donald Trump out to be Christ; nor am I suggesting that losing a presidential election is on a par with being crucified. However, metaphorically speaking, President Trump was crucified almost daily for four years. The ridiculous impeachment after he was already out of office shows how hateful his enemies had become. I stand with the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) in their naming of Donald Trump as the 2020 man of the year. If you believe in the sovereignty of God, you may agree with AMAC’s closing statement in the article explaining their choice: “Donald Trump’s role as President of the United States of America is nothing short of God using him for His glory and His good.”

God uses every human being for His purposes, good men and bad. Consider Pharaoh or Caiaphas alongside Moses and Jesus. It is my hope that the “death” of the Trump presidency will have a similar effect on the people of the United States as the death of their Savior had on the Jews. It wasn’t until after Jesus died that some of God’s people realized what they had missed. Donald Trump had many character flaws that disqualify him from full-fledged WWJD alignment to be sure, but his unrelenting efforts to make America great again must be recognized. He was the best ally conservative Christians have had in Washington in many years. I pray that 2022 will bring the first wave of revival to be followed by a tsunami in 2024.

December 6, 2020

In the weeks and months leading up to December 7, 1941, there was a battle going on in Washington DC. The opposing sides were called the Hawks and the Doves; they were also called interventionists and isolationists. The battleground up to that point had been ideological. All-out war had been raging on both sides of the world: Europe was falling under the blitzkrieg of Hitler, and Japan had begun grabbing territory in a number of places. The battle in Washington was between those who thought America needed to get involved in Europe and those who thought not.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was leading the Hawks; he saw the wisdom of helping our allies in Europe both to protect them and to stop Hitler before He spread his mayhem to our shores. On December 6, the Japanese and Americans were in a heated negotiation in which the Japanese were looking for assurances from the US government that continued Japanese expansion in the Pacific would not be opposed by the US. Japan was promising the US that they had no designs on anything close to Hawaii, let alone our West Coast. Because the Hawks wanted to step in to help fight Hitler, they were desperate for a way to avoid a war on two fronts. They were willing to let Japan have a few islands in the South Pacific and some territory on the continent of Asia if they wanted to take it.

The Doves believed that neither the Pacific nor the European wars were any of our business. They may not have approved of some of Hitler’s policies (some of which were not yet known), but they pointed to lucrative business arrangements currently in place with many German companies. To declare war on Germany would not only cut off profitable trade with them; it would inevitably cost millions of dollars the US could ill afford as we were just climbing out of the worst depression the country had ever seen. The Doves were just as anxious as the Hawks to see some arrangement made with the Japanese but for different reasons. None of them cared if the little Emperor of a tiny island far away wanted to expand his territory, and they never imagined he had the military might or the temerity to attack the US.

The US Constitution and sound economic thinking were on the side of the Doves. From an emotional point of view, history may also have played to their hand. WWI had cost countless lives and dollars, and no one wanted to see a repeat performance of that costly event. President Wilson’s team had gotten around the Constitutional problem of using the US military for purposes other than strictly protecting our borders; the Doves did not want to see that card played again. The problem was then and is now that the President holds the trump card: only he can declare war. Congress must eventually approve funding, but the country can become deeply committed with just a declaration from the White House.

As everyone knows, all bets were off on December 7. Japan surprised both Hawk and Dove (though some were suspicious beforehand) by attacking Pearl Harbor. The December 8 declaration of war against Japan moved the Axis powers to declare war on the US. By December 11 the US answered in kind. WWII was now our war too. Some would say, macabre and it sounds, that the war was good for America; it lifted us out of the depression and set us up for the greatest period of growth industrially and economically the world had ever seen.

After we returned victorious, we kept the factories cranking and became the world’s most rabid consumer nation. While wonderful economically, consumerism is not necessarily an unmixed blessing. The social and cultural changes brought on by the war cannot be overstated. Women were suddenly incorporated into the workforce and became a necessary cog in the economic engine. This changed both corporate and family dynamics. While it is true that many women stayed home raising Boomer babies during the fifties, by the sixties the need to choose between career and homemaking drove more and more women into full-time employment.

The baby boom came to a screeching halt when birth control became not only readily available but nearly a necessity. The decoupling of sex from procreation also instigated the expansion of free love without biological consequences. Abortion on demand legalized by Roe v. Wade in 1973 encouraged the woman’s rights movement and further destroyed the meaning of “family.” In order to maintain the lifestyle that had become expected, two incomes were required. The “latchkey child” was born.

The industrial/technological race that had begun with the war effort continued and a little-known organization called DARPA (primarily a military outfit) brought the world-wide-web into being. Once computers and the Internet because ubiquitous, all our social structures changed dramatically. Children became attached to blinking screens and stopped reading. Social “networks” took the place of face-to-face relationships for young and old alike. Cybercrime developed encompassing everything from industrial espionage to pornography. The world grew very small.

Here ends the history lesson as I recall it; I may be off on a detail or two, but I stand by the general drift. Now the WHAMM. The world began a radical transformation on December 7, 1941. No one can say what might have happened had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor or had we not joined the battle in Europe. Perhaps we would have come to our present state without the explosive pressure of the military/industrial complex fueled by WWII. The fact is we got where we are in the same way a frog gets boiled: put him in cold water and turn up the heat; he will boil to death.

As Christians, we should be mourning many of the changes that happened since December 6, 1941. As Christians, we should be watching what is happening in our country today. I believe a Biden presidency will mark a declaration of war on the America that has existed for approximately three centuries. I believe Joe Biden will be a puppet for the forces of progressive ideology that want to fundamentally change America. If you think I am crazy, I think you aren’t paying attention. The progressive wing of the Democrat party is in control; they are saying openly that they want America to be dramatically different from what it is today.

Except for their policy on immigration, which sincere Christians might debate, the Democrat platform is largely unbiblical; parts of it are anti-Christian. As bad as that sounds to me, it is not un-American (except the anti-Christian part); the US is not a Christian nation. We are not governed by a theocracy, nor do I want that. What I want is for Christians to wake up and realize that the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation is being excavated out from under us. If that is what the majority of Americans want, then that’s what we’ll get.

I don’t think a properly educated majority would want it though. I’m not even sure a majority of those who voted legally in the last election want it. However, because the last generation of school children were not taught history, and because they had moral relativism crammed down their throats, a great many people who are old enough to vote think they want what the progressives are selling. Add to that number the sizeable apathetic portion of the “moral majority” as it was once called, and you have the reason for our current situation.

There may be no way to avoid a Biden presidency. If the Senate falls into Democrat hands as well as the White House, the damage to the America I love will be substantial over the next four years. Obama had a pretty good run at progressive hope and change during his eight years, but much of that was undone by President Trump. Biden’s gang will start hacking away again with even more power if the Senate is theirs, but that too could be countered if a conservative administration follows in four or even eight years. Maybe the radical Democrat policies will scare enough people into voting them out in 2024; maybe not. I know God is in control, but so did some of the Israelites who ended up in Babylon for seventy years; they sat by the river and mourned their loss. I hope I don’t have to join them.

Related posts: Obama Is Not The Problem; And Freedom for All; The Right to Bear Crosses; America Held Captive

Herd Immunity or Incredulity: Raising the Herd Intellect

 If you have been reading my posts lately, you know I have been expressing amazement that our situation regarding COVID 19 has so quickly reached the point of mass hysteria. I won’t repeat all the statistics here. You can read the details in the previous articles which I linked at the end of this post. I will summarize. Although I am certain the number is inflated due to political and financial reasons I explained in earlier posts, I will use the number currently being published (200,000) as deaths from COVID 19 in this one calculation. This number means 1 death from COVID 19 for every 1,650 people given 330M population for the United States.

Even that number is not a good representation of what is happening to the general population because as of the latest statistics I have, 75% of all COVID 19 deaths are among the elderly in nursing or assisted living homes. 94% of those people had other health issues which would have caused their demise in a relatively short time. This means that the mortality rate for COVID 19 among otherwise healthy individuals is so small as to be almost insignificant. Yet we have trashed the economy, wrecked the education system and thrown the general population into a panic.

As bad as all that is, there is something else that no one is talking about. We hear daily about the tens of thousands of new COVID 19 cases being reported. What we are not hearing is that the vast majority of those reported infections are without symptoms or with very slight flu-like conditions. Here’s the story no one is telling: those tens of thousands who get infected every day without serious complications will develop natural antibodies that make them immune to the virus. This is known as herd immunity. Our current policies dealing with COVID 19 are actually thwarting the advance of herd immunity and prolonging the suffering.

As I have said before, I don’t mean to sound crass or unsympathetic. I mourn with those who mourn the deaths of their elderly parents or grandparents. I am sympathetic toward those who have lost loved ones in any generation. It may sound like an oxymoron, but death is an inevitable part of life. Ever since we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, people have been dying from disease. That’s part of the curse we bear because of sin; not personal sin, but corporate sin resulting from our being human beings in the line of Adam.

I believe we would be better off if we dropped all the COVID 19 restrictions except those that apply to any flu season: be sensible, wash your hands, cough into your sleeve, etc. If we open back up for business (and school) as usual, herd immunity would eventually render COVID 19 as harmless as SARS or Swine Flu or H1N1 bubonic plague. I cannot do that myself; neither can you alone. However, if herd rationality were to catch on, herd immunity would save the day. Will you spread this message?

Related articles: “Join the Lemmings, Anyone?” “The Angel Says… Fear Not” “The Emperor Has No Clothes” “The Winnowing Fork of God” “2020 COVID Easter” “Finding God in COVID 19”

Truth Matters

I have been re-reading Francis Schaeffer’s The God Who is There for the third or fourth time. Schaeffer is without doubt the foremost Christian thinker of the twentieth century. He carefully chronicles the descent of modern thinking into ultimate despair. Philosophy, art, music and finally even theology fell prey to the crushing loss of rationality. When people decided that God was not there, they tried in vain to create a system that could explain the universe and the human condition using only reason. That failed, leaving them nothing but despair. They decided that truth did not exist or was simply a construct of each individual.

Faith that had once anchored human thinking to a God who is there became irrational belief in something non-existent. Without a sure foundation on which to place faith, modern man had nothing left but faith in faith – a faith that somehow the universe would make sense of itself. Modern Western thinking became almost identical to ancient Eastern pantheistic monism, meaning that the universe was the source of life, mind, and even god with a small “g.”

Schaeffer correctly understood that if as Christians we don’t recognize the depth of despair of modern thinkers, if we don’t realize that they have abandoned hope in absolute truth, we will never be able to communicate the gospel to them. The evidence of their despair and truthlessness is present across all aspects of Western culture. In large measure, art has become meaningless blobs of color; music has become cacophonous, unharmonious noise; and sadly, even theology has lost connection with the truth of the Word and in its place trumpets a social justice platform without sin, miracle or redemption through the Cross.

Specific examples of this abound. From the 1960’s onward, sexual intercourse became uncoupled from procreation making the social, practical bonds of marriage as useless as the Bible truth on which chastity is based. In the 1970’s a movement began which has become a virtual tidal wave of sub-cultural pressure to remove the stigma from homosexual relationships thereby legitimizing single-gender parenting in contradiction to the Scriptural wisdom inherent in the mother/father union for raising a family. In the 1990’s political progressives picked up the mantra of their early twentieth century predecessors and began pushing a form of socialism that in all previous iterations had produced humanistic, anti-religious societies which failed miserably.

The challenge for Christians is to find a way to reintroduce truth, even the concept that absolute truth exists, into a cultural milieu that completely discounts the one thing that could rescue them from their despair. Because moderns deny the existence of truth, they can swallow whatever babble comes from their chosen spokespeople: academics steeped in post-modern humanism, talking heads in the “news” media, TV and movie stars, and ridiculously overpaid athlete-entertainers. It doesn’t matter that none of these people has any basis in reality for their opinions; they are self-validating because there is no measure by which to contradict them if truth does not exist.

Unfortunately for modern thinkers, the desire for truth remains deep within the human soul. Solomon called it eternity in their hearts. Augustine spoke of a restlessness that only God could satisfy. So even while they deny the truth that could provide relief from despair, they often live in a way that contradicts their stated position. They cannot live their humanistic philosophy consistently. Schaeffer pointed out that there was one thing that often revealed the inconsistency of their lives: love. While claiming that everything was meaningless, they clung to the meaning of love for someone they held dear.

Even though they spoke to a radically different cultural situation, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament identified the one thing that can speak truth in any time or place: love for God and love of neighbor. By this, the Savior said, all people will know you are following Me. Love casts out fear, one said. Faith, though it is misplaced, hope, though it is near despair and love continue, said the Apostle Paul, but the greatest of these is love.

I am convinced that even though I am drawn to highly intellectual approaches like Francis Shaeffer’s, the Christian’s best hope for reaching the modern generation is to love like crazy. Love one another and love every neighbor we can reach. As I have written often, biblical love is not a feeling; it is a caring for the other that is made real by actions for the other’s benefit. I also realize that although it is my duty to do what I can to share the truth, ultimately it is not anything I do that causes another to accept the truth of the gospel; it is only by the work of Holy Spirit that the madness of the modern thinker can be healed. And that’s the truth.

Related articles:  “The Truth About the Truth” “The Uncomfortable Subject” “Who is Discriminating?” “Here Comes the Judge” “Obama Isn’t the Problem”

Honor the King

Many Christians are unsupportive of the lifestyle and language of President Donald Trump as am I. His lewd remarks and thoughtless Tweets display character traits that no believer can admire. I have written previously that despite his character flaws, President Trump has been the best friend Christians have had in the White House since Ronald Reagan. His administration has done much to reverse the anti-Christian bias that his predecessor instituted. Trump’s selection of conservative judges at all levels of the court will have positive consequences for years to come.

Even non-believers must admit that the economic situation is vastly improved under Trump’s leadership. This makes sense, his being a consummate businessman who, regardless of the progressives’ class hatred, has amassed a personal fortune proving he knows how to make business succeed. His foreign policy positions with respect to China, Iran and North Korea have also put America back in the position of a superpower to be reckoned with rather than a weakling to be ignored. I also believe his stance with Mexico and the border are in America’s best interest in the long run. (See Pilgrim’s Progression and Man the Lifeboats)

In spite of these empirically measurable benefits to the common good, some Christians still resist the idea of supporting President Trump, many to the point of refusing to vote for a second Trump term. This is unfortunate because any selection from the contestants on the other side of the aisle would be a worse choice in almost every way. Be assured that if conservatives stay away from the polls or cast a protest vote for a non-electable candidate, a Democrat will win the White House in 2020. The coattail effect will likely shift the balance of power in the US Congress as well. Thus ends America being made great again.

Enough about politics; what about the important matters? This morning I was reading the account of King Saul’s death and soon-to-be-king David’s reaction in 2 Samuel. The background is familiar to most of my readers, but I will briefly fill it in. After King Saul directly disobeyed God with regard to the Amalekites, Samuel informed him that the kingdom would be given to another. The prophet then proceeded to anoint the shepherd boy, David, as his successor. During the many years between his anointing and ascension to the throne, David was mercilessly mistreated by Saul and hounded as a criminal worthy of death.

In spite of Saul’s despicable behavior, David remained honorable, refusing to take Saul’s life on two occasions when he could have easily done so. Then when the report of Saul’s demise reaches David (via an Amalekite, ironically), rather than rewarding the bearer of the news, he has him executed for reportedly killing God’s anointed servant, Saul. David honored God’s choice of king because of the honor due the position, not the man.

This is where I began to think of the situation with Donald Trump. Christians don’t like him. His personal habits are not admirable for the most part. Yet he is God’s “anointed” in a manner of speaking. Romans 13:1 says that the powers that be are ordained by God. If you believe as I do that even election results are within God’s sovereign control, then you have to admit that Donald Trump has been placed in power in accordance with the ultimate purpose of God, whatever that may be.

Later in Romans 13 (verse 7) Paul instructs believers to give honor to whom honor is due. Remember that the “powers” Paul referred to were the vicious, pagan Romans who persecuted Jews and Christians with social restrictions, torture and death. By comparison, Trump is a “saint.” Not that that matters, since honor is due him because he is President. In my case, I intend to honor him by voting for a second term. I would ask my fellow-believers to consider David’s relationship with King Saul and imitate his behavior. Plug your nose if you must but honor the office by voting Trump another term. The alternatives will be much more unpleasant in my opinion.

Save the Electoral College

This is not a political blog: it is civics. If we don’t understand our civics, we will go astray in our politics. Most people in this country are in dire need of a civics lesson. (Note to educators: put Civics back in the high school curriculum.) Please keep reading even if you are sick of the political scene. This blog is inspired by the latest issue of Imprimis, a monthly publication of Hillsdale College. Right away some of you are squirming, but please stay with me.

In the article in Imprimis, Trent England, a well-credentialed conservative speaker, summarizes a speech he gave at Hillsdale in April of 2019. He makes a strong case for the continuing existence of the electoral college to select our future Presidents. Dr. England believes that the current effort to eliminate or weaken the Electoral College is pure partisan politics in a gambit to garner undeserved power in Presidential elections. He bases his argument on the very reasons our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College system in the first place.

The wise men who established our form of government realized that direct election of the national leader had two possible undesirable outcomes. First, it might become a popularity contest with people voting only for their favorite son candidates. Secondly, more importantly, popular voting could allow more populated areas of the country to gain an unfair advantage over lesser populated areas. Dr. England points to examples from history when a popular vote was countermanded by the electoral vote resulting in a President elected by majority of States if not a majority of votes. This makes for a better representative type of government.

That word “representative” is significant. We do not have a democratic (small “d”) form of government, despite the misapprehensions of the likes of Hillary Clinton who opined after the Florida debacle of 2000, “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” The United States of America has never been a democracy (sorry, Hillary), nor did the founders want it to be.

The Founding Fathers rightly saw that a true democracy – one man, one vote – could easily devolve into the tyranny of the majority. Today, for example, a true democracy would mean that our national policies and politicians would be dictated primarily by the East and West Coast, a situation those of us in “flyover” country would detest. But that is precisely why so many Democrats (Progressives) want that unfair advantage.

Dr. England points to another very good reason to maintain the Electoral College: it limits the effects of voter fraud. Because each state chooses electors to select the President, fraud in one state would affect only that state’s selection. This is still a cause for worry, as free and fair elections are fundamental to our type of government. However, if we did away with the Electoral College, the whole country would suffer under the “vote early and vote often” attitudes of places like Illinois where someone once bragged that even the dead get a vote.

If you are watching politics these days, you may have heard of the national Popular Vote Interestate Compact, or NPV. Dr. England correctly reveals this ploy as a Democrat attempt to do away with the Electoral College by slight of hand. NPV takes advantage of a loophole in the language which mandates the Electoral College. Each state is allowed to determine how it selects electors. NPV would allow states to ignore their state’s voters if the national popular vote supported a different candidate than their state vote. Hidden in its name, NPV shows that it would ignore a given state’s popular vote and promote the popular vote nationwide, thus taking away the will of its own voters. It is instructive that only Democrat-controlled states have signed on to NPV so far.

I have attempted to summarize what I think is a very important argument for the continuation of the Electoral College. You can read the entire article on the Hillsdale College web site. This blog may seem to have nothing to do with Heaven (which always matters most), but I believe the free and fair elections our country has held for two centuries are responsible for the free and fair (mostly) representative government our founders envisioned. If we lose this freedom and succumb to the wishes of the liberal elite, Christianity will probably be outlawed outright. We could still live under that stricture, but it would not be pleasant. I pray it does not come to that anytime soon.

The Disunited State of America (and the Church)

According to recent surveys, many young people are leaving the church because they say it has nothing to offer them. Although I have heard that reasoning used before, it struck me this morning that there is a fundamental flaw in its logic. The church is not meant to “offer” something; the church is supposed to be a place where believers offer something to God and to their fellow-believers. I think the church in 21^st century America is failing because even the leaders have turned its purpose upside down.

In my daily Psalm this morning I read Asaph’s inspired opinion that the Israelite generation who turned away from God in the Sinai wilderness did so because they were, “a generation that did not make ready its heart, whose spirit was not faithful to God.” (Psalm 78:8 LEB) I don’t want to parse this too intensely, but I think it is instructive that Asaph used two words to describe the inner selves of the faithless Israelites: heart and spirit. The “heart” can be used to mean the soul, the thinking part of a human being. The Israelites were not thinking straight. Because of this mental error, their “spirit” was not faithful. The spirit is that aspect of humans that relates to God. The Israelites mental error led them to a spiritual error.

The same situation is present in our generation: many are incorrectly thinking the church is a place that is supposed to meet their needs; they turn away because they are unfulfilled. The truth is the church is intended to meet others’ needs, other people’s and God’s; not that God actually needs the church (He needs nothing), but He has established it to accomplish His purposes on Earth. The irony is that as we selflessly give ourselves to God and others, we reach a level of fulfillment that no other activity can approach. That is another of the many paradoxes of Christianity akin to saying true freedom is found in complete surrender.

I wrote previously (What is the Church?) about the true purpose of the church, the ecclesia in Bible language. Briefly, the ecclesia is intended to infiltrate and indoctrinate a culture with Heaven’s priorities. It might help our understanding if we thought of church more like a political or military organization rather than a social club. In fact, when Jesus first mentioned church, ecclesia, He said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18); that is military language. If you read His words throughout the Gospels carefully, you will find numerous military analogies.

The problem of wrong thinking leading to serious consequences is evident in many places in our generation. Wrong thinking about the purpose of the family has led to its devaluation and dissolution. Wrong thinking about marriage has led to a scandalous divorce rate, even among believers. Wrong thinking about the human need for community has led to an explosion of social media “friends,” and to a lack of any real friendship among many of the younger generation.

Please excuse my soapbox, but wrong thinking about politics has led many Christians to abandon the field or consider it a lost cause altogether. The thinking in this arena is similar to the mistaken idea about church: government exists to meet my needs. The entitlement mentality is suffocating the very institutions that were meant to help the less fortunate. Multiculturalism, so-called, is fueling one side of the immigration debate to the point of idiocy. Apathy has caused the demise of the one weapon of political power every citizen has: the vote.

In a participatory form of government like ours (representative, not democratic), we the people actually do retain ultimate power: the power to un-elect miscreants, de-fund wasteful programs, and debunk the misguided policies that are causing America as we knew it to implode. Recent surveys indicate that approximately 60% of Americans identify as conservative. A similar number, variously in the 70-80% range, call themselves Christians. If those numbers are correct, I have to ask myself why clearly liberal (or progressive) policies and programs are being heaped upon us. I know the answer to my question: wrong thinking.

As my blog name says, Heaven always matters most, so the problem with the church is paramount. However, Christians are called to pray for their leaders and to give honor where it is due. I believe we dishonor the blessing of participatory government when we relinquish our right to participate. Voting, paying taxes and staying involved at whatever level one is called are the evidences of the honor that is due. And remembering that the church, the ecclesia, is supposed to be a culture-changer brings the two into focus. We have the blessing of freedom in this country. Let’s use our freedom to “do church” in every arena; we have Jesus’ promise that we cannot be overcome.